| |
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) |
| personnel |
may be understaffed, but includes fixed budgets for personnel |
often relies heavily on volunteer staff--less career-oriented opportunities; mostly non-profit |
| 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
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)?
- Rarely is the question asked: What kind of social capital would benefit poor people?
Development 'biases' (what groups does development 'favor?')
-
'Tarmac';
-
Urban/rural
-
Tourism -- PR vs getting the picture of reality
-
Off the beaten path
-
Household differences
-
Meeting biases--times, days, locations
-
Linguistic, cultural, ethnic and racial biases
-
The point: participatory development works best for those with plenty of leisure time, political connections, transportation, language skills, etc. Involving citizens in decision making requires patience, skill, and doesn't necessarily benefit the usual beneficiaries of public policy (e.g., those who donate to campaigns, receive favors in return, or those who stay in public office by cultivating relationships with the wealthy and powerful).
|