The statutory functions of the Supplementary Benefits Commission are described, together with the Secretary of State's invitation to the Commission to play a more active and public part in reformulating the problems of social assistance and proposing policies for dealing with them. Next the Commission's Chairman considers how he and his colleagues should respond to this invitation and which issues they should concentrate upon, focusing particularly on the growing use of discretion in a service originally intended to confer clearly understood rights, the bewildering complexity which results from this trend, and the ‘frontier’ problems arising between their service and other social services. In conclusion he considers the implications of the Commission's extended role for other bodies and the Commission's relations with them – particularly Ministers and their advisers, the academic community, the communications media, and the pressure groups. Ultimately, he asks, should the Commission itself be abolished?

New or increased charges to the users of the social services are likely to be considered with greater interest in our present economic situation. It seems an appropriate time, therefore, to ask what purposes direct charges are intended to serve and whether, in practice, they live up to these expectations. Admittedly, it may be misleading to refer to ‘purposes’ in this way, since they will be interpreted differently by different interests. But we may gain at least an idea of the range of purposes that governments have in mind by looking at the introduction, removal or variation of charges. The same might be done at the level of local government in those spheres where councils act independently. Proceeding in this way I suggest that five main purposes may be identified. Briefly, these are: raising revenue; reducing demand; shifting priorities; checking abuse, and a symbolic purpose. I shall say a little about each of them and then draw two sets of conclusions: one about the overall effect of charges and the other about the circumstances in which changes in charges are likely to occur.

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.

This article casts some light on a neglected area of the health and social services in Britain, namely provision for homeless, single men. It is shown that the services available are grossly inadequate to meet their needs. The paper uses results from a study of Camberwell reception centre which demonstrate that the absolute number of men having either a physical or mental illness who use the centre in any one year is much higher than had previously been calculated. The reception centre is unable to meet their needs which are principally for low-rent accommodation for single people and appropriate health care and social support.