Organizations have some similarities, although they also vary widely. Various modes of conceptualizing and analysing Organizations have developed largely from work in industry, but also from studies in the public sector, but one has to consider which of these are particularly relevant to the study of social service Organizations. The approach commonly used in comparing Organizations to Weber's description of bureaucracy is not very productive; and neither is a similar usage of Goffman's ‘total institution’. A critical examination is made of analytical categories set up by one author, but these also are of limited usefulness, and it is suggested that it is better to approach the problem by looking at important general problems which are central to many kinds of Organizations. Some of those which seem to be particularly relevant to social service Organizations are discussed. These are: the relationship between technology and structure; organizational climates; occupational conflicts; and organizational environments. Various examples are given to illustrate how these affect particular sectors of the field. Entering an area of study by selecting problems which are of key importance has a long tradition in social administration, as in other disciplines, and the study of social service Organizations is no exception.

The article concerns waiting for inpatient admission in the NHS and focuses on three aspects of this persistent problem. These are the merits or otherwise of rationing health care through waiting as opposed to pricing, the interpretation of waiting lists as a proxy for excess demand in the ‘market’ for inpatient care, including a critical examination of the logic and empirical evidence underlying the view that inpatients pay a time price for their admission, and the question of an admissions index to replace the largely inconsistent admission criteria currently employed in the hospital service. In particular the construction of an index incorporating the values of fairness and efficiency is discussed and the following characteristics suggested for inclusion: time already spent on the waiting list; urgency based on expected rate of deterioration of the patient's condition; urgency based on the patient's health status; urgency based on the ‘social productivity’ of the patient and the number of economic dependants; and urgency based on other social factors.

The conclusions are that emphasis should be placed on waiting times rather than lists, that systematic admissions criteria should be developed and that the latter should incorporate social judgements which to date have been ignored or dominated by clinical judgements.

Students of social policy have studied in some depth the fate of new ideas when they came close to inclusion in new policies, and especially new legislation. Less attention has been paid to the process whereby new ideas are generated, and the impact of advocacy on the future of simultaneous but independent innovation. Here, the therapeutic community, developed during the last war in response to largely neurotic difficulties in military personnel, is examined as a case study of innovation, and of the fate of innovation as a result of official support, and enthusiastic proselytization by committed practitioners.