Community development and welfare, compared
Social services model | Community development | |
Central focus | delivery of services | identification of issues, populations affected |
role of participation | there are incentives to incomplete use/knowledge of available programs (e.g., for state budgets) | success depends on broad-based, inclusive strategies–recipients of assistance vs owners of process |
flexibility | resistant to change (why?) | dynamic, fluid-projects/initiatives depend on support of constituents |
Potential for effecting social change | Doesn’t challenge inequalities-inherently designed for minimal comfort of recipients | Potential to address causes, not symptoms (but can do both)-address structural factors |
Bureaucratic constraints | Structure is predetermined-if problem doesn’t fit, need a new program (e.g., water billing in Ontario, low-income heating assistance program) | Great flexibility in how to approach a problem (but often difficulty reaching consensus); non-profit organizations predominate |
personnel | may be understaffed, but includes fixed budgets for personnel | often relies heavily on volunteer staff–less career-oriented opportunities (struggling non-profits) |
Certainty of funding | Funding more certain, but still subject to political circumstances (consider the broad cuts Oregon social services are likely to suffer this year) | Funding may vary, sources are less certain than public services model, many community development organizations must devote scarce resources to looking for money to keep active |
Functions
- Social safety net
- Social conscience
- Advocacy
- Activism
- Community participation
- Address quality of life issues
Advantages and disadvantages
Community/policy approaches versus project/program approaches
- Integration, coordination
- Flow of information
- Integration versus intervention
- Scale
Social Capital
- social organization(s)
- ‘bank of favors’
- mutual aid
- bridging (e.g., facebook) vs bonding (e.g., Greek societies)
- Changes (e.g., Putnam–how has social capital changed/declined in recent decades)?
Development ‘biases’
(what groups does development ‘favor?’ Whose participation is sought, expected, least likely to disrupt status quo?)
- ‘Tarmac’ (further away from the airport)
- Urban/rural (further away from the city)
- Tourism — PR vs getting the picture of reality (the tour of the state, for instance–how often to legislators make trips out to Eastern Oregon?)
- Off the beaten path
- Household differences (who has more access, means to participate in civic life?)
- Meeting biases–times, days, locations (who’s got time in the evenings?)
- Linguistic, cultural, ethnic and racial biases (American spoken here?)
