Our work group wishes to thank CFRC staffer Laura Dale at Loughborough for extraordinary efforts in producing this statement in record time and for her care and assistance with all phases of our Summit activity.

The use of residential placements for children needing out‐of‐home care remains controversial. This article considers the discourse of ‘residential’ and ‘institutional’ care before describing, mainly through administrative data sources, the wide variations in group‐care usage in different jurisdictions. In some countries, its use is minimal, with foster care, kinship care and in some cases, adoption being the preferred options. This is not so in other countries where a high percentage of children in care are in residential placements. There is also diversity in the type of residential services, ranging from small group homes to large institutions. The challenges inherent in making process and outcome comparisons across national boundaries are explored. The authors concur with those who argue for more systematic ways of describing and analysing the aims and characteristics of residential settings. Only then can meaningful comparisons be made between outcomes from group‐care regimes in different jurisdictions.

Mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect has its origins in the USA, where model statutes for laws designed to introduce this process were first drafted in the early 1960s. Indeed, every state and the District of Columbia passed a child abuse reporting law between 1963 and 1967. Some 10 years later, in 1977, New South Wales was the first Australian state to pass comparable legislation. Mandatory reporting of suspected cases of child abuse and neglect is now in place in all Australian states and territories, with the exception of Western Australia. The question considered in this paper is: ‘What evidence is there that children are abused and neglected less in jurisdictions where mandatory reporting exists by comparison with jurisdictions where it does not exist?’ This question is examined by way of a comparison between two states, New South Wales and Western Australia. This paper also raises questions about the cost of mandatory reporting and the extent to which it diverts financial resources away from support services for families. There is also a question about the new New South Wales child protection legislation that extends mandatory reporting and possible negative consequences for ordinary families. The final question is about the role assigned to health care and education professionals under this legislation.

and final report, she: 'sets out recommendations that taken together, will help to reform the child protection system from being over bureaucratised and concerned with compliance to one that keeps a focus on children, checking whether they are being effectively helped, and adapting when problems are identified.' This article, which is a selective review of the final report, firstly cites the principles of an effective child protection system and then the principles to guide 'risk-sensible' decision-making as put forward in the report. It concludes with the 15 major recommendations of the Munro report and makes some comment and comparisons with recent Australian state-and territory-based reviews of child protection services. ■

This note is about the attempt by the Australian State and Territory child care and protection systems to do without residential programmes. It traces the process of moving to this position and the historical and policy imperatives that supported this service direction. It also outlines the consequences of the absence of 24 hours‐a‐day 7‐days‐a‐week residential education or treatment programmes for difficult and disturbed young people. It is both a cautionary and corrective note designed to underline the need for some specialised and highly selective residential programmes as part of any mature child care and protection system. This is something that Australia forgot.