ABSTRACT
The work of the WIS was examined through a survey of referrals. The survey, lasting four months showed 388 clients referred, of which a quarter (eighty) were not seen. Over 70 per cent of referrals were made by GPs (33 per cent) the client (27 per cent) or relatives, friends and acquaintances (11 per cent). This shows an emphasis on both primary care and direct referrals. In the latter respect they performed markedly better than the Lewisham Centre (Boardman et al., 1987), indicating a more successful walk-in and self referral performance. Althogether nearly 85 per cent of referrals came from the general population or community agencies and professionals. Slightly over half (51 per cent) of clients referred were male, and two thirds were aged 20 to 44. The former figure is perhaps surprising in view of the excess of women over men suffering neurotic problems in general population studies. They tended to lack close social support: only 36 per cent were married (compared with three fifths in the general population), and a further 9 per cent were cohabiting. Only a third of clients, compared with 57 per cent of the local population were owner occupiers while those in council tenancies (30 per cent) was roughly equal. A third of clients, compared with 15 per cent of the local population were in private rented, lodging, hostel accommodation or no fixed abode. Over half the clients (53 per cent) were unemployed or in families with no employed member. Over three fifths of all referrals (61 per cent) relied on state benefit, not including child benefit. Over two thirds of those employed were in social class 3 or below. The clients referred, therefore, were grossly disadvantaged in a number of ways. They were less likely to be in a relationship where a partner offered close emotional support, they were less likely to be employed, or if employed below social class 2 and likely to be reliant on state benefit indicating low income. Their housing tenure was less secure than the general population, and many suffered multiple disadvantage.
