The founding of the welfare state and the growth of state social work

The Second World War was preceded by economic crisis and social dislocation, and by the time it was just a year old in 1940, the government and War Office realised that as it was not going well, incentives were needed to raise morale among the fighting troops and population which could promote more enthusiastic engagement in the war effort. This took several forms, the best known being the plans for social insurance as the foundation of a welfare state – the Beveridge Report that was published in 1942. This was aimed directly at tackling the ‘Five Giants’ – want, disease, ignorance squalor and idleness – that had stalked the land through the 1930s (Beveridge, 1943). By the time of the report's publication, the systematic education of the troops had already commenced through a reinvigorated Army Education Service and briefings discussed on a weekly basis with all military units not in actual combat, drawn up by the Army Bureau of Current Affairs and led by unit officers. These had two purposes: first, to inform about the progress of the war; and, second, to encourage discussion about the shape of post- war Britain and the issues it might face. While elements of these programmes were clearly aimed at defending the status quo, much of the content was framed by anti- fascist socialists and communists who had been recruited into the Army Education Service. These included content on such topics as social security, youth services and community centres in (to quote Beveridge) the ‘New Britain’ that would follow military victory (Bennett, 1945; Downs, 1945). The pamphlet that followed the publication of the Beveridge Report in 1942 was banned and pulped on the orders of Prime Minister Churchill, who was unhappy with some of the proposals; it was only published in amended form the following year with an accompanying cautionary note from Churchill. An official paper during this period on community planning looked at the shape of communities, the need for amenities like ‘community centres’ in the new estates that would be required to solve the housing crisis and how citizenship and participation might be encouraged and nurtured (Stephenson and Stephenson 1942).