Following a review of the literature on siblings in out-of-home care in the US and the UK, this article discusses the importance of placing siblings together, the challenges faced by agencies when caring for sibling groups, and the need to rethink sibling care in Australia and create a new service structure.

This paper draws on a substantial body of anecdotal, therapeutic and research-based literature on sibling relationships and sibling placements. It draws attention to the nature and significance of sibling relationships which are usually of lifelong importance in terms of both identity and support. Placement of sibling groups in out-of-home care, especially when the children have high emotional and physical needs, are complex whether they are placed together or are separated. Consideration is given to the long-term psychological consequences of separation of siblings, as well as the resource issues involved in keeping siblings together or separating them. It is suggested that, even when children appear very disturbed, separation is not necessarily appropriate.

Sibling groups placed in out-of-home care are often separated due to the relatively small number of caregivers who are able to care for large sibling groups, as well as the individual needs of the children. This article briefly explores the complexities of sibling placement within the international, national and Victorian contexts. It continues with a description of the Oz Child Sibling Group Placement Program which was implemented in Victoria's Southern Region to place sibling groups of three or more children together in foster care. The results of a review of the program are presented, including referral statistics, placement data and caregiver feedback. The article concludes with the consideration of recommendations for change as a result of the review.

This article traces the history of child welfare in Australia, showing the ways in which policies and practices, deriving primarily from Britain, were adopted and adapted in a nation in which jurisdiction was split between colonies/states and further divided, within states, on the basis of race. It argues that child welfare has always been part of the nation-building project, central to national objectives when children could be constructed as future citizens, marginal, and more punitive, when they were more easily understood as threats to social stability. In this second part, it discusses post-war developments in services for non-indigenous children, and indigenous child welfare services. It concludes with a discussion of the historiography of child welfare in Australia arguing that because, to date, historical writing has concentrated on localised or specialist studies, child welfare professionals have limited access to an understanding of the history of the systems within which they work.

Robin Clark was an inspirational leader in the child protection and out-of-home care field throughout the 1980s and 1990s in Australia. Robin died in 2001. However her legacy continues due to her mentoring of social workers throughout her career and her numerous reviews and evaluations of child protection systems. This article pays tribute to the lessons Robin Clark taught administrators and practitioners in the design and delivery of child protection and out-of-home care systems.

This article explores the effectiveness of an innovative and exciting project called ‘Shared Action’, a community development approach to child protection in Bendigo, Victoria. Shared Action was a three-year project which started in January 1997. It began by encouraging a sense of community ownership. A shared vision was developed with key goals leading to a wide range of community activities. A sense of hope and cooperation grew along with social networks, the capacity to resolve conflict constructively and a shared sense of community responsibility.

The tabloid print media has played a crucial role in recent Australian social policy debates, particularly those pertaining to drug use and child and adolescent welfare. Much of the media's contribution has been around promoting simplistic and often conservative solutions to complex social problems.

This article examines the recent media-inspired furore over so-called ‘safe-sniffing’ practices in a Victorian welfare agency. It is acknowledged that other forms of media such as talk back radio may have had influential roles, as might other factors also. Particular attention, however, is drawn here to the Herald Sun's role in this affair, and to similarities with its intervention in earlier policy debates. Some comparisons are also drawn with the coverage of the affair by the Age and the Australian.

It is argued that the Herald Sun's specific campaign on chroming reflects a broader conservative agenda to undermine progressive social policy interventions including harm minimisation. This agenda may have significant implications for the Victorian community welfare sector given the tendency of politicians – whether in government or opposition – to bow to the demands of the tabloid media.