Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:06:30.237Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resignation, radicalism or realism?: What role for non-government agencies in the changing context of child and family welfare?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Jon O’Brien
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Non-government welfare agencies have a history of both service provision and advocating for social justice and welfare reform. Current economic and social changes have had an impact on our understanding of the role of welfare and the state. There has been a significant reconfiguration of community services, with important implications for the present and future role of welfare agencies.

This article seeks to identify questions confronting agencies that seek to maintain a commitment to social action by examining an 18-month child abuse prevention campaign conducted by a coalition of agencies in NSW. Significant insights and challenges that emerged from the campaign are identified. Questions about the role of non-government agencies are revisited and the value of welfare agencies’ contribution to social equity reasserted.

Type
Research Article
Information
Children Australia , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , 2000 , pp. 4 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baldry, E. & Vinson, T. 1991, Actions Speak: Strategies and Lessons from Australian Social and Community Action, Longman Cheshire, Sydney.Google Scholar
Foley, G. 1991, ‘Terrania Creek: Learning in a Green Campaign’, Australian Journal of Adult and Community Education, Vol 31, No 3, November.Google Scholar
Hoatson, L., Dixon, J. & Sloman, D. 1996, ‘Community Development, citizenship and the contract state’, Community Development Journal, Vol 31, No 2, April, pp. 126–136.Google Scholar
Latham, M. 1996, ‘Making Welfare Work’, Policy, Spring, pp. 18–24.Google Scholar
Olds, D.L., Eckenrode, J., Henderson, C.R., Kitzman, H., Powers, J., Cole, R., Sidora, K., Morris, P., Pettit, L. & Luckey, D. 1997, ‘Long-Term Effects of Home Visitation on Maternal Life Course and Child Abuse and Neglect: Fifteen Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial’, JAMA, August 27, Vol 278, No 8, pp. 637–642.Google Scholar
Pusey, M. 1991, Economic Rationalism in Canberra: A Nation-Building State Changes its Mind, Cambridge University Press, Sydney.Google Scholar
Rayner, M. 1997, Rooting Democracy: Growing the society we want, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.Google Scholar
Saunders, P. 1994, Welfare and Inequality: International perspectives on the Australian welfare state, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Schweinhart, L.J., Barnes, H.V. & Weikart, D.V. 1993, Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 27, High/Scope Press, Ypsilanti, Michigan.Google Scholar
Scott, D. 1998, ‘Yesterday’s dreams, today’s realities: Keynote address at the 6th Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect’, Children Australia, Vol 23, No 2, pp. 5–14.Google Scholar
Scott, D. 1999, ‘Creating social capital: The distinctive role of the non-government agency’. Children Australia, Vol 24, No 1, pp. 4–7.Google Scholar
Weatherburn, D. & Lind, B. 1997, Social and Economic Stress, Child Neglect and Juvenile Delinquency, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney.Google Scholar