Compare and contrast the social action, social planning, and locality development models of community practice

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

?
Jack Rothman and John Tropman categorized them into three models: locality development, social planning, and social action. These models are ideal types. Actual approaches to community change tend to blend characteristics of all three models.

Locality Development Model: The locality development (also called community development) model asserts that community change can best be brought about through broad-based participation by a wide spectrum of people at the local community level. The approach seeks to involve a cross section of individuals (including the disadvantaged and those high up in the power structure) in identifying and solving problems. Some themes emphasized in this model are democratic procedures, a consensus approach, voluntary cooperation, development of indigenous leadership, and self-help. The roles of the community practitioner in this approach include enabler, catalyst, coordinator, and teacher of problem-solving skills and ethical values. It is assumed that any conflicts among various groups can be creatively and constructively resolved. People are encouraged to express their differences freely and to put aside self-interests to further the interests of their community. The locality development model seeks to use discussion and communication among different factions to reach consensus on which problems to focus on and which strategies or actions to use to resolve these problems. A few examples of such efforts include neighborhood work programs conducted by community-based agencies; Volunteers in Service to America; village-level work in some overseas community development programs, including the Peace Corps; and a variety of activities performed by self-help groups.

Social Planning Model: The social planning approach emphasizes the process of problem solving. It assumes that community change in a complex industrial environment requires highly trained and skilled planners who can guide complex change processes. The role of the expert is crucial to identifying and resolving social problems. The expert or planner is generally employed by a segment of the power structure, such as an area planning agency, city or county planning department, mental health center, United Way board, community welfare council, and so on. Because the social planner is employed by the power structure, there is a tendency for him or her to serve the interests of that structure. Marshaling community resources and facilitating radical social change are generally not emphasized in this approach. The planner's roles in this approach include gathering facts; analyzing data; and serving as program designer, implementer, and facilitator. Community participation may vary from little to substantial, depending on the community's attitudes toward the problems being addressed. For example, an effort to design and fund a community center for older adults may or may not generate a lot of participation by interested community groups, depending on the politics surrounding such a center. Much of the focus of the social planning approach is on identifying needs and on arranging and delivering goods and services to people who need them. In effect, the philosophy is, "Let's get the facts and take the next rational steps."

Social Action Model: The social action model assumes that there is a disadvantaged (often oppressed) segment of the population that needs to be organized, perhaps in alliance with others, to pressure the power structure for increased resources or for social justice. Social action approaches seek basic changes in major institutions or in basic policies of formal organizations. The objective is redistribution of power and resources. Whereas locality developers envision a unified community, social action advocates see the power structure as the opposition-the target of action. Perhaps the best-known social activist was Saul Alinsky, who advised: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." The roles of the community practitioner in this approach include advocate, agitator, activist, partisan, broker, and negotiator. Tactics used in social action projects are protests, boycotts, confrontation, and negotiation. The change strategy is one of "Let's organize to overpower our oppressor." The client population is viewed as being "victimized" by the oppressive power structure. Examples of the social action approach include boycotts during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, strikes by unions, protests by antiabortion groups, and protests by African American and Native American groups. The social action model is not widely used by social workers at present. Involvement in social action activities may lead employing agencies to penalize those social workers with unpleasant work assignments, low merit increases, and withholding of promotions. Many agencies will accept minor and moderate changes in their service delivery systems but are threatened by the prospect of such radical changes as are often advocated by the social action approach.