¹ Rosalind Brooke's survey of CABx found that some Bureaux attempt to maintain a service on as little as £50 budget. One bureau was forced to operate from a base in a ladies' cloakroom! See Brooke, R., Information and Advice Services, London: Bell, 1972.Google Scholar

² Social Insurance and Allied Services. Report by SirBeveridge, William. Cmd. 6404, London: HMSO, 1942.Google Scholar

³ See Brooke, R., ‘Social Administration and Human Rights’, in Townsend, P. and Bosanquet, N. (eds), Labour and Inequality, London: Fabian Society, 1972Google Scholar, and also Ward, J., ‘Equality of Information’, Municipal and Public Service Journal, 17 05 1974.Google Scholar

⁴ Ward, J., op. cit.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Kahn, A. J., Social Policy and Social Services, New York: Random House, 1973.Google Scholar

⁹ Op. cit.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Bond, N., The Hillfields Information and Opinion Centre – The Evolution of a Social Agency controlled by local Residents, Coventry CDP Occasional Paper No. 2, 1972.Google Scholar

¹² Bond, N., op. cit.Google Scholar

¹³ These headings and their definitions are taken, with some modification from Brooke, R., Information and Advice Services, op. cit.Google Scholar, and Kahn, A. J. et al. , Neighbourhood Information Centres, New York: Columbia University School of Social Work, 1966.Google Scholar

¹⁴ In addition to Brooke (1972), op. cit.Google Scholar, and Kahn, (1966), op. cit.Google Scholar, these definitions also draw on Walton, R. G., ‘Welfare Rights and Social Work: ambivalence in action’, in Jones, Howard (ed.), Towards a New Social Work, London: Routledge, 1975.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cumbria CDP, Initial Study, 1973.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ For a full discussion of how the Centre operates and an extended examination of its roles and functions, see Community information and Action Centre – Report, evaluation and recommendations from Cumbria C.D.P.: Papers in Community Studies No. 1, University of York Department of Social Administration and Social Work, 1975.Google Scholar

¹⁸ A full account of the policy and practice recommendations that resulted from the review of Centre functioning will be found in Community Information and Action Centre, op. cit.

¹⁹ A very small number of ‘users’ felt that the Centre should limit its activities to information and referral (‘extension’) and about a quarter of Agency personnel subscribed to elements in the ‘advocate/organizer’ view. It is interesting to note that interpretations altogether different from these two failed to appear.

²⁰ It is important to note that up to 60 per cent of Centre Users appear to use CIAC as a ‘last resort’, after approaching, unsuccessfully, one or more helping agencies.

²¹ To go on to endorse the validity of this view is not to ignore the problems associated with an advocacy style of operation – dangers of creating dependency feelings among users, of exposed and stressful working situations for Centre workers and so on. Such problems are seldom examined in any depth in the literature and deserve critical attention.

²² Laver, R., Welfare Rights Campaign Interim Report, Batley CDP, 1974.Google Scholar

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Leissner, A. and Joslin, J., ‘Area team community work: achievement and crisis’, in Jones, D. and Mayo, M. (eds), Community Work One, London: Routledge, 1974.Google Scholar

²⁵ Op. cit.

²⁶ See, for example, Edginton, J., ‘The Batley Battle’, New Society, 5 09 1974.Google Scholar