Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:42:38.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neighbourhood Information Centres – Access or Advocacy?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Hugh Butcher
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two approaches to Information and Advice Centre provision are reviewed and their consequences for work with individuals and groups outlined. The approaches – called the ‘extension’ and ‘advocate-organizer’ models of Centre function – are then examined in the light of findings from research on an ‘Information and Action Centre’ in West Cumbria. Policy implications of the ‘advocate-organizer’ type of service are discussed with reference to questions of management and auspice.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , October 1976 , pp. 375 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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