This article explores the voluntary, self help sector of preschool provision, using material from an in-depth study of playgroups in economically deprived areas of Lancashire. It argues that such playgroups tend either to collapse or to abandon the principle of self help because the economic, structural and cultural location of working class women makes these alternatives to statutory provision not a viable option in such localities. The restructuring of welfare to encourage self help is deceitful because it promotes forms of provision which working class women cannot provide for themselves; it fits well, however, with encouraging them to be ‘better’ mothers on a full-time basis.

Robert Goodin has recently argued that the welfare state increases rather than reduces freedom. This paper examines the meanings of both ‘welfare state’ and ‘freedom’ and argues that the relationship between the two is much more complex than Goodin suggests. The welfare state is seen as a multi-dimensional phenonemon, capable of being defined exclusively or inclusively. Goodin's use of the term ‘freedom’ is unpacked into four distinct components: negative freedom, opportunity, autonomy and moral paternalism. Accordingly, an assessment of the welfare state must include an evaluation of its various programmes, policies and the perceptions of these against separated components of ‘freedom’. It becomes, therefore, on both sides of the analysis a multi-dimensional problem.

This paper examines the dynamics of scandal creation and control involved in the public exposé of conditions and ill treatment at the public mental asylum of Prestwich, Lancashire in 1921. It identifies the groups and interests involved in orchestrating the public and official responses which culminated in a departmental committee of inquiry. It focuses particularly upon the conflicts and divisions within the bureaucratic institutions of the Board of Control, the Ministry of Health and the local asylum authorities, and argues that the Prestwich exposé was used in a strategy which established increased ministerial control of mental health services.

Since the 1960s there has been an increasing number of proprietary agencies engaged in the delivery of social services in the United States. This development has generally been greeted with disfavour by welfare state advocates. Various arguments have been put forward against welfare for profit on moral, empirical and theoretical grounds. This paper analyzes these arguments and proposes several basic conditions that would seem to have significant bearing on the choice between profit and nonprofit providers for a given service.

This paper has two purposes. First, to explore what existing adoption legislation may indicate about the meaning and function of adoption practices in North America and Great Britain. Second, to consider some possible policy implications revealed by clearer understanding of the social meaning of existing adoption laws. The first part of the paper summarizes briefly the history of legal adoption. The second examines what is explicitly and implicitly revealed by adoption law and policies about the social purposes of adoption and about prevailing social values concerning the family. The third part examines possible avenues of policy change in North America.