chapter 6 Ideologies in the Establishment of Personal Social Services in 1960s and 70s

As discussed in Chapter 5, the 1960s and 1970s was the period of the establishment of personal social services in Britain. This is manly because the new united personal social services department was set up in every local government and it was the moment the personal social services was officially formed as one of the unitary social service area. Along with significant expansion of responsibilities of local authority and social care right by a range of legislations in 1960s, this administrative change led to massive increase of provision of the services throughout 1970s.

This development might be seen far more dramatic if the situation of economic crisis started from 1960s and Britain suffered severely in 1970s is considered. In other words, the most significant expansion of personal social services happened during the worst economic circumstance in British history. This is one of the reasons why the establishment and expansion of personal social services cannot be understood by structural approach. Also this is why we try to find the relationship between political ideology and the development in this study.

Having said that in Chapter 5, key policy documents – White Papers and Green Papers – are the subjects for the analysis to find out ideological influence in the development in 1960s and 70s. So what context they were produced and what implication they have in the development is discussed first. Then they are analysed to see how challenges need to be tackled were recognised; what objectives were presented; what philosophical thinking was based; what actors were assumed, how rights and responsibility of citizens were understood; and what strategic direction were chosen. The analysis is conducted while they are compared with contemporary literatures in personal social services (or welfare services¹). Discussion to find out the relationship of the political ideology in the Government with them follows the analysis.

The policy documents and the development of personal social services

Since World War II, the development of personal social services had tended to focus on certain groups which had been identified at different times as having special needs –such as children, the elderly, and mentally disabled (Holgate & Keidan, 1975). The group drawing attention in the early 1960s was children, juvenile delinquent in particular. The Ingleby Committee (1960) was appointed by the Conservative Government in 1956 and published their report in 1960. It was the first formal study of comprehensive social service for family and the preventive social work with families was legitimated in the 1963 Children and Young Person Act (Cooper, 1983). The Labour Party in opposition appointed Longford Committee with the same theme and their report Crime – a challenge to us all was published in 1964 suggesting abandoning the concept of criminal responsibility for young people under sixteen and treating their criminality on welfare lines (Holgate & Keidan, 1975).

The White Paper, The Child, the Family and the Young Offender (Home Office, 1965), published in 1964 after the Labour Party came to power, was the combination of Ingleby and Longford thinking with a new set of recommendation for dealing both with young offenders and with children in need of protection (Bilton, 1979; Cooper, 1983). However, the radical proposal of it to abolish juvenile courts in favour of family councils run by the local authority children’s departments triggered considerable criticism (Holgate & Keidan, 1975). This led to a modified successor, Children in Trouble (Home Office, 1968). As the Government accepted that young offenders should be dealt with on a professional and informal basis by social workers before legal procedure (Heywood, 1973), this proposal of the White Paper was reflected in the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act.

After the considerable social changes such as development of new drugs which made it possible for the mentally ill to be treated safely in community and new thinking that Down’s syndrome children are educable (Lowe, 2005), personal social services for mentally disabled and people with mental health problem were reviewed. Two White Papers published in early 1970s were the outcomes: Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971) and Better Services for the Mentally Ill (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975). However, a comprehensive review of the whole personal social services was carried out later in 1970s. This was revealed both in the Green Paper Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976) and the White Paper Priorities in the Health and Social Services: The Way Forward (Department of Health and Social Security, 1977)

The White Papers and the Green Paper are analysed to find out the influence of political ideology of the ‘Old Labour’ Government in 1960 and 1970s as they are directly written by the Government department for the implementation (or discussion) of a new set of policies. Even though one of the White Papers, Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971) was not published by the Labour Government, it is included in the analysis because it is stated in the Foreword that ‘much of the groundwork for this Paper was don under the previous (Labour) Government’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971, p. ii) and it is, also, placed on the context of series of reform throughout 1960s and 1970s, as discussed. However, this difference of it with other Papers is carefully considered in the analysis.

The reports of the committees such as the Ingleby report or the Longford report are not included in the analysis although there was profound contribution for the development of personal social services. It is true that many recommendations of the reports has been legitimated but they are inappropriate for the purpose of the study which is to look at the influence of political ideology within government policy process – White and Green Papers as they are written by independent committees not by government. However, they are reviewed as a one of the contemporary literatures but considerable one in the study not only because they have had significant influence on the policy but also because they has been often one of the most comprehensive study on its area. It is, moreover, important point of the analysis to compare of the reports with the equivalent White or Green Paper, for example, The Ingleby report (1960) and The Child, the Family and the Young Offender (Home Office, 1965).

However, there is inevitable exception in the study of 1960s and 70s as there was, unfortunately, no Green or White Paper for the most profound development, the establishment of new unified social service department in the 1970 Local Authority Social Service Act. So some texts of the Seebohm report (1968) are included in the analysis particularly, in terms of their strategic choice as well as recognition of challenges and philosophy in the background of it. The differences and distance between what the report recommended and what actually government accepted are also carefully regarded in the analysis.

Challenges to the personal social services

Divided and ineffective structure of service provision

One of the most dominant problems of personal social services between contemporary literatures in 1960s and 70s was the complexity of the structure in service provision (Forder, 1975; Forder & Kay, 1973; Griffith, 1966; Hall, 1976; Harris, 1970; Holgate & Keidan, 1975; Titmuss, 1967; Townsend & Wedderburn, 1970; Wistrich, 1970). It was indicated that the responsibilities in personal social services areas has been divided not only in central government but also in local authorities. Within central government departments, by the early 1970s, the Ministry of Health was responsible for health and welfare services in local authorities while the Home Office had a similar responsibility for local authority children’s departments and the probation services. Department of Education, in addition, had particular concern with health and welfare in schools. In local government, before a new unified social service department was set up, the function of personal social services had been divided mainly into children’s and welfare department, and related with health, education, and housing department. Poor coordination and even rivalries between these departments both in central and local level appeared as a major concern in personal social services.

This was mainly because the division of services and lack of coordination between them were recognised as a core barrier to make social services difficult to meet growing social need appropriately. As social service function was divided not by client group who needed the services but by professional groups or administrative department who had a particular skills and knowledge or power for particular part of services, it was seen to be impossible to provide holistic approach for individuals or families who usually had multiple and interdependent needs (Forder, 1975; Griffith, 1966; Hall, 1976; Harris, 1970; Holgate & Keidan, 1975; Townsend & Wedderburn, 1970; Wistrich, 1970). Furthermore, Titmuss (1967) argued that as social work skills were fragmented into too many small department and statutory functions, this not only led ineffective use of trained staff but also a lack of adequate professional career opportunities.

Many explained this complex and fragmented structure had developed through development of personal social services: different legislation for different function had been enacted and new institution for implementation of them was set each time (Forder, 1975; Hall, 1976; Harris, 1970). However, Forder (1975) argued that there had been interest of each professionals behind such as medial social worker, probation officers, and welfare officers in children’s departments as theses professionals could had enjoyed more autonomy and influence on their service area of service in the segmentation of the services. Also it was true when integration of personal social services was considered, there was considerable opposition insisting this could damage professional development. This is discussed further in strategy section below.

Growing social needs

Another great concern in many commentators in 1960s and 70s was rapid growth of social needs in the contemporary society due to demographic change toward aging society (Eyden, 1973; Hall, 1976; Parker, 1970; Seebohm Committee, 1968; Speed, 1974; Titmuss, 1963); the increase in the number of mother who were working (Holgate & Keidan, 1975; Parker, 1970; Titmuss, 1963); and change of household structure, growing number of household living alone in particular (Holgate & Keidan, 1975)

Demographic change was recognised as more fundamental matter as it would lead an increasingly adverse balance the dependent to the independent in the population. This mean there would be more and more needs for care while less and less resources. Parker (1970), for instance, demonstrated that the number of the elderly over 75 would grow twice (35 per cent) as fast as the whole population (17 per cent) in the next two decades while Seebohm Committee (1968) recognised that the elderly over 65 represented approximately one in eight of the population and about a third of them are 75 or more.

More working mother with young children entails the increase in demands of childcare as well as the decrease in supply of informal carer. Holgate & Keidan (1975) pointed out there was nearly 5 million married women who were working and 1 million of them who had children under five. Also they indicated the rise in number of more vulnerable household such as lone parents family which reached one in ten of all family and single household particularly between elderly which had more than doubled in the past two decades. In addition, growing conviction rate in young people which had been more than two times that of two decades ago still attracted great attention in personal social services following 1950s (Ingleby Committee, 1960).

Shortage of resources

The more the increase in social care needs became apparent, the more the shortage of resources was seen acute in the contemporary literatures in 1960s and 70s (Eyden, 1973; Griffith, 1966; Holgate & Keidan, 1975; Marshall, 1965; Parker, 1970; Political and Economic Planning, 1961; Seebohm Committee, 1968; Titmuss, 1967; Townsend & Wedderburn, 1970). Various evidences showing how the provision of services far shorter than required were presented by the studies in services for children, elderly, and other domiciliary services. For example, Parkman and Power who were asked to investigate the level of children’s needs and service provision by Seebohm Committee (1968) concluded that at least one child in ten would need special help whereas at most one child in twenty-two is receiving such help. Townsend & Wedderburn (1970) found in their survey of elderly 65 or over that while many old people depended on services by local authority such as home help and meals on wheels the numbers of people who actually needed those services were twice to five times as many as that of people who are receiving them.

The shortage of resources was not limited with the amount of service provision. Lack of staff, was also seen serious. Griffith (1966) pointed out that 12 per cent of posts for childcare officer were vacant in 1964 and they were suffering because of a lower status than other chief officers with small proportion of expenditure. And Parker (1970), furthermore, indicated the shortage of staff in the field of residential care who were usually filled by older single women before they started to decline by the growth of other employment opportunities for them.

Challenges recognised in policy documents

The appreciation of different challenges personal social services face in the contemporary society tends to have different ideological implication. This is because the general direction of the policy highly depends on how the challenges personal social services need to tackle are defined. It would be difficult divided a number of studies discussed above into different ideological position because most of them appreciate all three aspect of challenges in their studies. This means there was general consensus among the commentators that more personal social services should be provided to meet growing social needs with more cooperation between different services.

However, what challenges was more emphasized among others may have different implication. For example commentators who more focus on significant shortage of resources might have more interventionist stand than other as this would be used as an evidence to argue more extension of expenditure in personal social services. On the other hand, structural problem of service delivery more likely to be used for the augment saying more effective use of resources rather than the expansion of them. Yet this should not be simple judgement at all as the discussion on structural reform appeared in this period embraced much wider argument than simply effective use of existing resources. But it is also true this categorisation could be good reference to look at ideological implication in certain policy document.

In this context, it is interesting that the shortage of service provision is far dominantly appears among any other challenges in Green Papers and White Papers particularly in 1970s. Such comments are found in every service areas: ‘only a small star has been made towards providing in sufficient quantity training centres for mentally handicapped’ (para. 55), ‘lack of places (in junior training centres)’ (para. 59), ‘more places (in adult training centres) are still needed’ (para. 64), ‘the increases (in places for young people who leave junior training centre) is still barely sufficient’ (para. 65), ‘no arrangements of this sort [residential accommodation]’ (para. 68), ‘facilities for residential care outside hospital are still nil or minimal’ (para. 72), and ‘Shortage of staff, particularly trained staff’ (para. 75) in Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971); ‘Staffing levels are often less than adequate’ (para. 4), ‘the non-hospital community resources are still minimal …’ (para. 2.8), ‘lack of facilities (for alcoholics) would be even more serious’ (para. 8.12), and ‘mental hospital are still considerably overcrowded’ (para. 11.1) in Better Services for the Mentally Ill (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975); and ‘ services (for elderly) at present fall short of them suggests a serious need for improvement’ (para. 5.9), ‘Inadequate domiciliary services causes misuse of hospital beds and unnecessary demand for residential places.’ (para. 5.10), ‘The most serious deficiencies in existing services for the mentally ill are in the local authority social services’ (para. 8.11), ‘Local authority (day care for pre-school children) facilities are concentrated on those who have priority need, and they have long waiting list’ (para. 9.16), and ‘there is substantial unmet need for residential care (for young offenders). … there are serious shortages of specialised accommodation’ (para. 9.19) in Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976)

This would be more interesting this dominant appreciation of shortage of resources appeared when the Britain was suffering from one of the worst crisis in her history as discussed in the Introduction. Moreover, different from the contemporary literatures, this situation are clearly stated in the White and Green Papers from 1975 and the severe constraint in personal social services by this circumstance was also apparently recognised: ‘In present economic circumstances there is clearly little or no scope for substantial additional expenditure on health and personal social services, at least for the next few years.’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 8), ‘services have also been severely affected … by restraints on the financial resources available’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para 11.3), ‘the growth of public expenditure must be severely restrained’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 Foreword), ‘for some years at any rate public expenditure will need to be constrained in the national economic interest.’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 1.10), and ‘the recent rapid growth in overall staff numbers cannot continue.’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 2.1).

However, it also appears clear that the constraint was inevitable out of the choice of the Government even though they did not want it. They even showed their intention of further expansion of personal social services as long as economic circumstance would allow. More needs of families and communities by economic pressure were also appriciated: ‘If the economic situation improved and there were – say – a rate of annual growth in real terms resources after 1980 about double the rate that there will be for the rest of this decade, there would be scope for progress in most of the priority areas’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 11.9), ‘we cannot hop to make significant and rapid changes in the desired directions without a more rapid growth of resources.’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1977, p. vii), and ‘economic circumstances add to the pressures on families and communities for whom the health and social services must provide support and help’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1977 para. 1.15). In addition, growing social needs were also recognised, particularly by demographic change (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976, p. 38, para. 1.6, 1.7, 9.2 and 11.4; , 1977, p.?)

Surprisingly, structural problem of service provision was hardly mentioned in the White and Green Papers in 1960s and 70s contrary to the dominance in the contemporary literatures. However, this must be taken into account that this was not because the Government did not recognised this issue seriously, in fact it was the opposite, but because there was certain context relating to the publication of White and Green Papers. As mentioned in the Introduction, there was no White or Green Paper for the most significant reform in the structure of personal social services in 1960s and 70s: the establishment of the unified social service department. Moreover two White Papers (Home Office, 1965, , 1968) published before the reform was about services for children which was the area already having their own ‘unified’ organisation, ‘children’s department’ by the 1948 Children Act and the rest of White and Green Papers were published after the reform. The terms of reference for the Seebohm Committee (1968) actually came from the words in the Child, the Family and the Young Offender (Home Office, 1965 para. 7): ‘to review the organisation and responsibilities of local authority personal social service in England and Wales, and to consider what changes are desirable to secure an effective family service’. And the Committee did well aware of relevant issue around this:

Organisational issues are of crucial importance when considering the effects of divided responsibility upon policy, use of resources, public accessibility, accountability and co-ordination. The more fragmented the responsibility for the provision of personal social services the more pronounced these problems become. At the policy level difficulty arises over the co-ordination of the work of different but interdependent departments. The setting of priorities and the planning of future developments tends to take palace without sufficient regard to the implementations for other departments concerned with similar problems and providing partially alternative or supporting services. … (Seebohm Committee, 1968 para. 98)

Objectives of personal social services

Statement of objective in any policy area might be one of the most straightforward components showing the ideological stance. This is also true even in personal social services. The most ideologically apparent approach appeared in so called ‘radical social work’ in 1970s (Cannan, 1975; Case Con, 1970; Leonard, 1975). Services in the welfare state was accused of means to help providing a more efficient workforce and military and to be used as a threat of withdrawal of benefits under certain condition, such as strike for social control (Case Con, 1970). So the radical social workers argued that the real aim of social work should be a change in the economic base of their client (Statham, 1978).

The other end of ideological position in 1970s is found in the approach seeing personal social service as a measures to lift casualties in modern society up to ‘normal life’. In other words, objective of personal social service is to help individuals having difficulties under certain conditions or families with them, such as children in trouble, failed elderly, disabled people to live as ‘normal’ as possible (Eyden, 1973; Marshall, 1965; Parker, 1970; Seebohm Committee, 1968). As it is assumed a certain ‘norm’ of society and aim to keep it, the objective in this approach might be summarised into one phrase, ‘social control’ as the radicals criticized. However, there is different context as this is more passive form of social control which is more about preventing society from unacceptable disaster rather than active form of it which is like a means of threat or prevention from radical social change as radicals accused.

There could be spectrum within this perspective. Position emphasising solely on rescue of social casualties in industrial society might be placed more close to the end of opposition to radicalism. On the other hand, commentators who argued more active role of personal social service for more preventive and promotional approach to improve individuals or family’s quality of life (Parker, 1970; Political and Economic Planning, 1961) could be placed more close to the middle. And the argument that the role of personal social services as one of the means of the income distribution (Marshall, 1970) might be positioned more to the left.

The objective of personal social service policy in White and Green Papers in 1960s and 70s are found to be more close to ‘social control’. There was prime emphasis that personal social services were mainly to help people keep normal life in their community as long as possible in every area. For example, services for young offenders was to ‘make him into a law-abiding and useful citizen’ (Home Office, 1965 para. ?) and protect society from juvenile delinquency (Home Office, 1968 para. 7). The aim of services for mentally or physically disabled people and their family was to help them to maintain a normal social life or nearly normal a life as much as possible (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 40; , 1976, pp. 45, 54 para. 8.2). Likewise, services for the elderly was to maintain independent lives in their own homes or their community for as long as possible (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976, p. 38 para. 1.2 and 5.3). In children’s services, it was ‘to help families provide a satisfactory home for the child, and to enable children to stay with their families except where it is against the children’s interests.’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 9.11)

Philosophy under the policy

Philosophical ground under the discussion in 1960s and 70s on personal social services had been influenced from three different theories. The first one was the psycho-analytic approach came from Freudian psychology developed since the early twenty century (Bailey & Brake, 1975; Forder & Kay, 1973; Heywood, 1973). This primarily focused on individualistic aspect of the problem addressed in personal social services so there was increasing interest in the contribution of sociology explaining wider environmental influence on the issues (Forder & Kay, 1973; Hall, 1976; Heywood, 1973). Finally, although it mostly appeared out of formal social work education and academic circle, there was considerable discussion on radical social work influenced by Marxism and it affected various movements with the claimants’ unions, the tenants’ association, the Mental Patients Union, the Women’s Liberation Movement and the Gay Liberation Front (Bailey & Brake, 1975; Statham, 1978).

Needs for social care are understand to be driven by individual failure in psycho-analytic perspective and quasi-medical model of intervention, such as casework, is preferred to any other form of services (Bailey & Brake, 1975; Heywood, 1973). Client are usually defined as a malfunctioning personality in this approach (Cannan, 1975). For example, Philp (1963) claimed in his study on 129 ‘problem families’ that ‘emotional immaturity’ was found in the most of his cases as a condition of their problems and the emotional immaturity is, he explained, a result of unsatisfactory childhood experiences. He did not denied general social services but argued that these services could achieve little because they just dealt with only ‘symptom’ of problem so the services should be supplemented by casework to tackle underlying difficulties.

On the other hand, in radical social work (Case Con, 1970), the problems of clients is claimed to be rooted in the capitalism society which based on private ownership and interest of minority ruling class instead of vast majority working class and fundamental cases of social problem would endure unless workers’ state did not come. Traditional social work basing on psycho-analytic theories and practice was criticised as a model of individual and family pathology ignoring socio-economic environment (Cannan, 1975; Leonard, 1975). More importantly, original social work value such as self-determination and dignity of client was understood to be unable to be achieved in capitalist system (Leonard, 1975). Therefore it is argued that the role of social workers was to encourage recognition of client about oppressive economic and political structure, and help to increase the control by them over the structure (Bailey & Brake, 1975; Leonard, 1975).

Even though many did not agreed this radicals’ claim, there was general acceptance that the failures of socio-economic structure - at least, wider environment – were behind social problem in contemporary commentators (Heywood, 1973; Hunt, 1974; Ingleby Committee, 1960; Seebohm Committee, 1968; Statham, 1978; Titmuss, 1963)., Titmuss (1963), for instance, explained growing social needs with the increase in uncertainty of industrialising society by unemployment, technological advance, and cultural change and Ingleby Committee (1960) even argued that it is rather surprising to see so few young people got into real trouble and so few families broke down under the growing insecurity in the society. Similar approaches were generally found in White and Green Papers in 1960s and 70s, even on mental health issues which is the area most likely to be influenced by quasi-medical model in personal social services while the psycho-analytic approach was partly accepted:

A child’s behaviour is influenced by genetic, emotional and intellectual factors, his maturity, and his family, school, neighbourhood and wider social setting. (Home Office, 1968 para. 6)

Action by society to deal with children in trouble should take account of each child’s family and wider social background… (Home Office, 1968 para. 49)

A child’s capacity to learn and develop may be restricted through social deprivation. (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 11)

There is growing recognition of the relationship between behaviour and environment; and indeed there are probably few aspects of public and private activity that have not been held to have some effect whether direct or indirect on our psychological well-being. (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 1.1)

Changes in the nature of the problems for which individuals consider they need psychiatric help imperceptibly change society’s general concept of what is mental illness and what is not; how far behaviour can be regarded as eccentricity and a reflection of individual personality; how far behaviour calls for punishment and how far for treatment. But we should beware of overemphasising this, particularly in the context of current psychiatric practice in this country (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 1.2).

There is no hard evidence to confirm that the incidence of mental illness is increasing but undoubtedly there are features of modern industrial society which many people feel make them more vulnerable to mental stress: high rise flats for families with young children; production line work with no fob satisfaction; the break-up of the large family unit; overcrowded living conditions; the pressures of advertising with its suggestions of ‘norms’ of happiness, friendship and sexual satisfaction and the consequent feelings of inadequacy among those who have not achieved them. (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 1.5)

Reference has been made already to the wide range of social and environmental conditions which may increase vulnerability to mental illness. The precise weight to be attached to them can rarely be established: poverty, unemployment, lack of job satisfaction and poor working conditions, bad housing, are themselves often a cause of marital stress and breakdown in family life (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 1.17).

Family factors play a key role; sometimes these are themselves the result of poor environmental conditions but this is not always so. Further research is required into which family factors are most significant and how best to deal with them. Recent studies have already identified some: these include severe social disadvantage, family discord, poor child rearing practices, parental mental disturbance, parental criminality, one-parent families, large family size, unwanted pregnancy, and placement of the child in residential institutions (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 7.4).

Actors and providers of services

It was true that there had been an argument, often in one phrase, ‘mixed economy of welfare’ saying social services such as health, education, and other services should be provided not only by public but also by private sector since 1960s. However, there was general assumption that public sector (usually local government) had the prime responsibility to fulfil their duty to provide adequate level of social care imposed by a range of legislation enacted from the late 1940s to 1960s among the most of literatures in 1960s and 70s on personal social services. The (local) Government was widely regarded as a public body have duty as well as accountability to their electorate about their social needs (Eyden, 1973; Forder, 1975; Ingleby Committee, 1960; Marshall, 1970; Seebohm Committee, 1968) apart from radicals condemnation on state representing the interests of the ruling class (Cannan, 1975; Case Con, 1970).

There were also suggestions that role of local government (or statutory body) should not be limited in only provision of services. Seebohm Committee (1968 para. 478) claimed that local government (the social service department) need to see themselves as part of a network within the community. In other word, they should have more inactive role such as mobilisation of community resources including provision of support and opportunity to voluntary sector, and management of coordination between various organisations, also including volunteers. Even Titmuss (1967) proposed cooperative ‘enabler’ as a new role required for social service professionals.

This reflected wide range of appreciation about role of voluntary sector which already made great contribution to personal social services (Griffith, 1966; Holgate & Keidan, 1975; Ingleby Committee, 1960; Parker, 1970; Seebohm Committee, 1968; Wistrich, 1970). Parker (1970) indicated that some care services had developed from various forms of voluntary effort and others (Holgate & Keidan, 1975; Seebohm Committee, 1968) demonstrated this still happened through pioneering role of volunteer organisations in services in new area statutory bodies did not attempt. Their role was also valued as they shared rapid growth demand otherwise local authorities would be overwhelmed (Seebohm Committee, 1968). Moreover they were regarded as a key to realise other values in social services such as more practical democracy by their participation (Holgate & Keidan, 1975; Seebohm Committee, 1968; Wistrich, 1970) and wider choice by various provision of their services (Seebohm Committee, 1968).

However, their participation was not always considered positively. While Seebohm Committee (1968) valued wider role of voluntary organisation, they clarified that they could not replace professional statutory sector (para. 499) also warned that their growing involvement should not result in lower standard of services (para. 305) or loss of critical and pioneering role of voluntary sector (para. 495). Further, there was concern that this should not be the excuse of cheaper option or neglect of local authority’s responsibility (Holgate & Keidan, 1975; Seebohm Committee, 1968). In other words, role of voluntary sector was accepted only as a supplementary to that of statutory. The role of for-profit sectors was far less recognised. They were hardly mentioned in most of literatures and even if mentioned, the role was considered rather exceptional (Holgate & Keidan, 1975).

It is obvious that prime role of the state is basically assumed as a service provider in White and Green Papers as a Government’s policy document. However, there were also wide range of appreciation of the role of voluntary sector in terms of their contribution in contemporary services (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 1.20; , 1976para. 6.2; Home Office, 1965 para. 44; , 1968 para. 8, 40, 278, and 279). They were praised sometimes because of their freely-motivated spirit (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 277; , 1975 para. 3.29) or their constructive criticism (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 282) but more often because of their pioneering role in services development statutory bodies difficult to fulfil (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 281; , 1975 para 3.32, 3.36, and 3.37) while for-profit sectors were hardly mentioned. Therefore suggestions of more active role of local government such as mobilising and encouraging more involvement of voluntary services were often found in them:

The Government attaches great importance to the further development of partnership between public and voluntary bodies in meeting these needs, and the public system will therefore include both local authority and voluntary homes (Home Office, 1968 para. 31).

…also local authorities’ social service departments may need to give a lead in identifying needs and suggesting to volunteers how their particular interests and skills can be most effective (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 306).

It is the concern of the social services department to see that all services are mobilised in helping the mentally ill and in supporting their families (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 3.15).

As well as involving voluntary organisations in the planning of their services, local and health authorities have statutory powers to give them direct support both financially and by making facilities available, and the Government hopes that this means of encouraging voluntary effort will be used as fully as resources permit (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 3.39).

Health and local authorities should give every support to voluntary bodies in their work of harnessing community effort (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 1.23).

However, there were some concern about over-use of them which could make them lose their voluntary spirit (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 306) and recommendation that their role should be limited as complementary because they were not professionally trained and should not be means of filling deficiencies in the statutory services (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 3.31). Yet local government was encouraged more inactive use of voluntary organisations and this seems to be regarded as additional resources they needed to use under financial constraint:

Leaving aside the special problems of cruelty and neglect, the situation seems to demand such strategies as:

• using ancillary and voluntary workers to economise on scarce professional resources;

• making maximum use of community resources such as foster parents, child minders and the often forgotten aunts and grandmothers…;

• making maximum use of voluntary and community organisations, …

• developing new resources such as day centres and intermediate treatment centres which can make full use of staff who are not attracted to professional training in the caring professions;

• exploring the use of the media to supplement professional work, for example by providing advice to mothers, finding foster parents or helping to raise standards of child minding.

(Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 9.30)

… support for voluntary effort and encouragement of self-help schemes may represent better value for money than directly provided services and may also provide the means of continuing preventive work. By their diversity and the ingenuity they bring to the task, voluntary organisations can be an important adjunct to the authority’s own direct services in getting help to people in need (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 10.4).

Voluntary effort provides a much needed addition to total resources (Department of Health and Social Security, 1977 para. 2.11).

Citizenship in personal social services

Citizenship in personal social services was not popular issue among academics in 1960s and 70s. This is partly because the primarily acceptance by the state of a full responsibility for the determination of social services after the Beverage Report was sill widely assumed during the period. So when this is discussed, it is rather about how to protect citizen’s right against growing dominant power of statutory authority in social care (Brooke, 1970; Statham, 1978; Wistrich, 1970) and advocacy of client’s interest or participation of them for more responsive decision-making to fulfil their needs (or right) more properly (Forder & Kay, 1973; Seebohm Committee, 1968)

More sophisticated discussion on citizenship on social care appeared in Ingleby (1960) and Seebohm Report (1968) around the debate on caring responsibility of parents on their children and of family on the elderly. They never denied primary responsibility for caring their own family member: ‘The primary responsibility for bringing up children is parental …’ (Ingleby Committee, 1960 para. 8) and ‘The care which a family gives to its older members is of prime importance and nothing is quite an adequate substitute.’ (Seebohm Committee, 1968 para. 294). However, they made it clear that the duty to assist the family in order for them to fulfil the responsibility was on the state: ‘the State’s principal duty is to assist the family in carrying out its proper functions’ (Ingleby Committee, 1960 para. 12), and ‘… the social services and the social service department in particular, should make every effort to support and assist the family which is caring for an older member.’ (Seebohm Committee, 1968 para. 294).

In White and Green Papers on personal social services in 1960s and 70s, there was general acceptance of the basic duty of statutory authority to provide services to meet citizen’s right. Further there was more understanding on families how difficult to carry their caring responsibility by themselves, in order words, the duty of the state to support them:

The basic duty of local authorities towards children in their care will remain that of providing the care, protection, guidance or treatment which they consider appropriate in the interests of each child (Home Office, 1968 para. 30).

A family with a handicapped member has the same needs for general social services as all other families. The family and the handicapped child or adult also need special additional help (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 40)

Some families may be able-and indeed wish-to undertake the demanding task of care. But in these cases it is essential that they receive support and advice from professional staff and that services should be organised to give them effective relief: to enable them to go on holiday and to cope with more urgent domestic crises which may make continued care impractical from time to time, or simply to allow them some respite from the sheer physical and emotional strain (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para 1.28).

Furthermore, there were more attempts to guarantee more protection of client’s right such as encouragement of discussion between professionals and clients (or his/her family), and emphasis on more participation in decision-making:

The individual and his family … should be encouraged wherever possible to discuss with the professional staff involved the various needs and the way in which these might be met (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 1.32).

While the choice of treatment is a matter for professional judgment, the patient and his family have to find the choice acceptable. (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 2.7)

The statutory services, no matter how comprehensively they are planned, cannot by themselves provide a complete answer to the needs of mentally ill people. The general aim of enabling the mentally ill to participate as fully as possible in the life of the community will only be achieved if other members of the community recognise and support it (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 2.24).

Relatives of this important group of mentally ill people have now formed their own organisation which is seeking to identify the particular difficulties experienced and ways of helping the families to manage, and to bring these to the notice of statutory authorities. This development is very much welcomed by the Government. A great deal can be learnt from the experiences of families about ways in which services can be make more responsive to individual needs, and their voice needs to be listened to when policies and priorities are being determined. (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 3.40)

However, interestingly, different kind of comment was found the White Paper in the late 1970s when the economic crisis far deepened:

One of the main aims of the new initiative on prevention is to encourage individual members of the public to accept greater responsibility for their own health (Department of Health and Social Security, 1977 para. 2.1)

Strategic directions of the policy

Coordination versus integration

As far as strategy in personal social services policy is concerned, the most significant strategic choice of the Government was the setting of free-standing unified social service department in local authority. However, there is no White or Green Paper for this change but we can see Seebohm Report (1968) which recommended the unified department. It was true that there was some differences between the 1970 Local Authority Social Service Act and the Report for example, takeover of welfare functions of education and housing department in local authority was excluded. However, as the core idea of the proposal, the unified social service department was accepted, we can find ideological implication of the choice through the text in the Seebohm Report including their argument for the proposal.

Since the structural complexity and inefficiency were widely recognised in 1960s and 70s as we saw above in Challenges to personal social services section, there were a range of a range of discussion on how to improve coordination or integration of various service provisions (Brown, 1974; Forder, 1975; Ingleby Committee, 1960; Marshall, 1965, , 1970; Titmuss, 1967; Wistrich, 1970). One of the alternatives was coordination through joint committee with representative from various different social service committees or a new appointment of designated officer who was responsible for the cooperation between them. Marshall (1965), for instance, claimed that complete administrative integration would be hardly possible because the responsibility of services for various clients such as abused children, homeless, lone parents, and disabled people were profoundly different as regarded the special knowledge they called for. So he suggested social workers should work as a team with designated leader while remained in deferent organisations. The other one was the integration of all relevant services into the new unified social service department. Titmuss (1967) suggested that the establishment of departments of social service at the local level embracing all the functions of existing children’s departments and welfare departments, and mental health services from health department.

The argument for the coordination with separated department tended to base on specialist claim which was closed to psycho-analytic approach as this is from the concern the administrative integration of social services might damage specialist’s skill and knowledge well developed in separated organisation divided by specified area (Brown, 1974) . Underlying problems relating to personality and relation issues, which specialist treatment such as casework was required to address, was regarded more important than general human need relating to social and economic circumstance in this claim. On the other hand, in the recommendation of the unified social service department, this specialist social service was not considered as a appropriate direction of personal social services and more comprehensive human need was prioritised. This strategic difference in the recommendation of the Seebohm proposal was apparent in the text:

Although significant progress has been made in the past as a result of introducing separate administrative arrangements for assisting particular groups in need, we do not regard this necessarily as a permanent blueprint for future development. In different periods of development other approaches may be more appropriate. At this point in time we consider that most progress in providing good personal services will come through greater integration. (Seebohm Committee, 1968 para. 166)

There was considerable agreement that the barriers between different kinds of training and specialisation should be lowered. … (Seebohm Committee, 1968 para. 510)

… we consider that a family or individual in need of social care should, as far as is possible, be served by a single social worker. In support of this proposition it can be argued that the basic aim of a social service department is to attempt to meet all the social needs of the family or individual together and as a whole. The new department, by escaping from the rigid classifications implied in the present symptom-centred approach, will provide a more effective “family” service. … (Seebohm Committee, 1968 para. 516)

Unified department as a panacea

The proposal of the unified social service department was not only about comprehensive social service to tackle the structural problem of service provision. This was also regarded as a solution for the shortage of resource in social service against growing social need. Seebohm Committee (1968 para. 147-150) clearly expected that the unified department would increase the recruitment and training (in-service training more feasible), deploy them better, have better career structure, secure bigger budget due to comprehensive responsibility as a major committee and attract more need by better accessibility hitherto gone unrecognised or unmet. In order word, the establishment of the unified department would not only make existing resources use more effectively but also become a ground to attract more resources.

This argumentation was widely agreed by other commentators. The new integrated social service was expected to could secure bigger budget by creating new balance of power among other big spending local government departments, having more influential status on policy decision, and attract more public demand through raising public awareness, reducing stigmatisation of users, and detecting more needs effectively (Brown, 1974; Cypher, 1979; Kahan, 1974; Parker, 1970; Wistrich, 1970). Furthermore the new department was presumed to attract more high quality workforces by widening career opportunities with better career structure as well as making social work recognised as a professional discipline with higher statues and authority (Harris, 1970; Wistrich, 1970).

Expansion and rational planning of social service

With recognition of rapidly growing social needs and deficiency of resources in personal social services, not surprisingly, one of the major stresses in policy of White and Green Papers was the expansion of social service provision. After, even in first two White Papers in policy for juvenile delinquency, welfare of children was put in the first priority (Home Office, 1965 para 42; , 1968 para. 14), a range of emphasis and commitments for expansion of social services followed:

In order to achieve this aim, it is necessary to develop further our facilities for observation and assessment, and to increase the variety of facilities for continuing treatment, both residential and non-residential. … (Home Office, 1968 para. 20)

The family will also need practical assistance of many kinds. This may include home help, domiciliary nursing, laundry service for the incontinent, sitters-in, play centre, day nursery, nursery school, youth club, and temporary residential care for the handicapped person during emergencies or holidays. … (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 143)

What is needed is faster progress to overcome the present deficiencies. This will require money and more trained staff. (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 198)

The services in which the greatest expansion is needed are adult training centres or sheltered workshops, residential homes for children and residential homes for adults. (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 201)

In the four years 1971-72 to 1974-75, these resources and local authorities present plans should allow building starts for nearly 10,000 new places in adult training centres, 750 new places in homes for children and 3,500 new places in homes for adults. New buildings would increase revenue costs during this period by an average of something under ₤2 million each year over the previous year at 1970 prices. This is slightly higher than the present annual increase which is likely in 1971-72 to exceed ₤1.5 million for the first time. The annual increase would rise progressively during the four-year period (Department of Health and Social Security, 1971 para. 207).

… the Government’s broad policy objectives … is an expansion of local authority personal social services to provide residential, domiciliary, day care and social work support (Department of Health and Social Security, 1975 para. 2.22).

After economic constraint was seriously considered in the late 1970s, the commitment of the expansion, while limited, did not stop in the Papers (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976, , 1977). Rather it was placed as a major strategy. This includes increase in general expenditure (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976, p. 54 para. 4, 5, 1.12, 1.15, 1.18, 5.12, 10.8, and 10.9), expansion of a number of facilities (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976, pp. 38, 62 para. 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 7.10, 7.13, 8.12, 8.13, 9.26, and 9.27; , 1977 para. 1.15), development of various services (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976, p. 45 para. 5.11, 5.13, 6.11, 6.12, and 7.2; , 1977 para. 1.14, 2.18), improvement of quality of existing services (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 7.14, 7.15, and 8.16), and more training and recruitment of social service staff (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 10.5)

At the same time, more economic use of resources was encouraged, particularly, among staff and provision of services such as development of more economical methods of service provision (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 14, 1.20, and 8.14), better management (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 1.21, and 2.2; , 1977 para. 1.5), training focusing on efficiency of resource use (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 para. 2.5). However, the key was the rational planning. In fact, the purpose of the publication of the later two Papers (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976, , 1977) was ‘to provide the detailed information that will enable the right choices to be made and effective planning to be achieved’ (Department of Health and Social Security, 1976 Foreword) while the expenditure was severely limited. Also good planning was stated as a ‘key’ in social service policy (Department of Health and Social Security, 1977, p. 21)

Figure 1 ideological structure of personal social service policy in 1960s and 70s

Conclusion

While texts of White and Green Papers in 1960s and 70s are analysed, clear ideological implications if government in personal social services policy toward expansion of social care rights and service provision was found. The Government explicitly recognised the deficiency of resources in social services was the main challenges they had to tackle and there was clear duty of the state to support families with difficulties in order to carry on their normal life as much as possible. Under this recognition, there was fundamental understanding that people faced their unbearable difficulties because of environmental factors in society rather than individual fault. Therefore the Government accept their primary role to provide appropriate services to meet social needs while appreciate role of voluntary sector but limited as supplementary. The establishment of the new unified social service department was one of the results of this general understanding so there was intention not only to provide more effective service but also to strengthen status of social service among other public service area and attract more resources and workforces behind. Also expansion of service provision was still a major direction of policy until the late 1970s even though there was limitation due to the economic restraint. However, rational planning was considered as a solution for the limitation rather than any other measure implying reduction of services. This could be summarised as Figure 1

Therefore, although it was true that the most significant event in 1960s and 70s, the establishment of the new social service department was happened without explicit intension to invest more resource for it (Harris, 1970), it is hard to say that the fallowing massive expansion of social services (Bilton, 1979; Hall, 1976; Sullivan, 1996) was taken place against government intention. Rather this clear ideological implication within policy consideration reflected in the White and Green Papers provide more satisfactory explanation to the expansion of social service primarily in the public sector during the most significant economic crisis in Britain since the war than other structuralist argument. This also appears useful tool to understand more constraint in social services between continuously growing social needs under enduring economic restraint in Thatcher years in the next Chapter.

Bibliography

Bailey, R., & Brake, M. (1975). Introduction: social work in the welfare state. In R. Bailey & M. Brake (Eds.), Radical social work. London: Edward Arnold.

Bilton, K. (1979). Origins, progress and future. In J. Cypher (Ed.), Seebohm across three decades: social services departments past, present and future. Birmingham: BASW Publications.

Brooke, R. (1970). Civic rights and social services. In W. A. Robson & B. Crick (Eds.), The future of the social services. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Brown, M. J. (Ed.). (1974). Social issues and the social services. London: Charles Knight & Co. Ltd.

Cannan, C. (1975). Welfare rights and wrongs. In R. Bailey & M. Brake (Eds.), Radical social work. London: Edward Arnold.

Case Con. (1970). Case Con manifesto. Retrieved 25.06, 2007, from http://www.radical.org.uk/barefoot/casecon.htm

Cooper, J. (1983). The creation of the British personal social services 1962-1974. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Cypher, J. (Ed.). (1979). Seebohm across three decades: social service departments past, present and future. Birmingham: BASW Publications.

Department of Health and Social Security. (1971). Better services for the mentally handicapped. Cmnd. 4683. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Department of Health and Social Security. (1975). Better services for the mentally ill. London: Her Majoesty's Stationery Office.

Department of Health and Social Security. (1976). Priorities for health and personal social services in England: a consultative document. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Department of Health and Social Security. (1977). Priorities in the health and social services: the way forward - further discussion of the Government. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Eyden, J. L. M. (1973). Elderly people. In M. H. Cooper (Ed.), Social policy: a survey of recent development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Forder, A. (1975). Introduction. In J. Mays, A. Forder & O. Keidan (Eds.), Penelope Hall's social services of England and Wales (9th ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Forder, A., & Kay, S. (1973). Social work. In M. H. Cooper (Ed.), Social policy: a survey of recent development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Griffith, J. A. G. (1966). Central departments and local authorities. London: George Allen & Unwin LTD.

Hall, P. (1976). Reforming the welfare: the politics of change in the personal social services. London: Heinemann.

Harris, J. (1970). Statutes: Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. The modern law review, 33(5), 530-534.

Heywood, J. S. (1973). Child care. In M. H. Cooper (Ed.), Social policy: a survey of recent development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Holgate, E., & Keidan, O. (1975). The personal social services. In J. Mays, A. Forder & O. Keidan (Eds.), Penelope Hall's social services of England and Wales. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Home Office. (1965). The child, the family and the young offender. Cmnd. 2742. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Home Office. (1968). Children in trouble. Cmnd. 3601 London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Hunt, A. (1974). Delinquency and the social services department. In M. J. Brown (Ed.), Social issues and the social services. London: Charles Knight & Co. Ltd.

Ingleby Committee. (1960). Report of the committee on children and young persons. Cmnd. 1191. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Kahan, B. (1974). The philosophy of the social services department. In M. J. Brown (Ed.), Social issues and the social services. London: Charles Knight & Co. Ltd.

Leonard, P. (1975). Towards a paradigm for radical practice. In R. Bailey & M. Brake (Eds.), Radical social work. London: Edward Arnold.

Lowe, R. (2005). The welfare state in Britain since 1945 (3rd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Marshall, T. H. (1965). Social welfare. In Social policy. London: Hutchinson University Library.

Marshall, T. H. (1970). The role of social services. In W. A. Robson & B. Crick (Eds.), The future of the social services. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Parker, R. A. (1970). The future of the personal social services. In W. A. Robson & B. Crick (Eds.), The future of the social services. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Philp, A. F. (1963). Family failure: a study of 129 families with multiple problems. London: Faber and Faber Limited.

Political and Economic Planning. (1961). Family needs and the social services. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Seebohm Committee. (1968). Report of the committee on local authority and allied personal social services. Cmnd. 3703. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Speed, M. G. (1974). The aged and the social services department. In M. J. Brown (Ed.), Social issues and the social services. London: Charles Knight & Co. Ltd.

Statham, D. (1978). Redicals in social work. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Sullivan, M. (1996). Personal social services. In The development of the British welfare state: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Titmuss, R. M. (1963). Essays on 'the welfare state' (2nd ed.). London: Unwin University Books.

Titmuss, R. M. (1967). The welfare complex in a changing society. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 45(1), 9-23.

Townsend, P., & Wedderburn, D. (1970). The aged in the welfare state: the interim report of a survey of persons aged 65 and over in Britain, 1962 and 1963 (3rd ed.). London: G. Bell & Sons Ltd.

Wistrich, E. (1970). The Seebohm Report. In W. A. Robson & B. Crick (Eds.), The future of the social services. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

1 Before the term, ‘personal social services’ was used in the Seebohm report (1968), ‘welfare services’ was the term widely used to indicate it.