Compare and contrast the community development model and social planning models in

community work.

Community work plays a crucial role in addressing social issues and bringing positive change to
communities. Two main models used in this work are community development and social
planning. While both models aim to improve community well-being, they have different
approaches, ideas about participation, and decision-making methods. This study aims to compare
and contrast the community development and social planning models, examining their unique
features, goals, and ways of working. By analyzing these models, we will understand their
strengths, limitations, and the factors that affect their effectiveness. We will explore how
grassroots involvement and expert analysis interact in community work to achieve sustainable
and inclusive community development.

Both community development and social planning models share a common goal of improving
the well-being and quality of life within a community. They aim to address social issues, promote
social justice, and enhance the overall welfare of community members. Community development
is rooted in the principles of social justice and empowerment, seeking to create inclusive and
equitable communities (Ledwith, 2011). It emphasizes community participation, collaboration,
and collective action to address social issues and improve well-being (Green, 2018; Taylor,
2017). By engaging community members in decision-making processes, community
development aims to enhance community ownership and self-determination. Similarly, social
planning also aims to improve community well-being by addressing social issues and promoting
social justice (Friend & Jessop, 2015). It employs a systematic and structured approach, utilizing
research, needs assessments, and data analysis to inform decision-making (Healey, 2013). Social
planning seeks to design evidence-based strategies and interventions to address identified social
problems and enhance welfare (Galster, 2007). Henceforth, both h models recognize the
importance of community well-being and the need to address social issues by aligning with the
broader goals of promoting social justice and enhancing the overall welfare of community
members (Ledwith & Springett, 2010). Through their respective approaches, community
development and social planning aim to create positive and sustainable change within
communities.
The community development and social planning models equally recognize the inherent
significance of fostering collaboration and actively engaging community members and
stakeholders in their respective processes. They emphasize community participation, dialogue,
and input as essential components in identifying needs, setting priorities, and implementing
solutions. Both models recognize the value of incorporating diverse perspectives and actively
involving community members in decision-making processes. Community development places
great importance on community participation and engagement as a means of empowering
individuals and fostering social change (Green, 2018; Ledwith & Springett, 2010). It emphasizes
the inclusion of marginalized voices and the promotion of social justice through collaborative
processes (Ledwith, 2011). Community development scholars argue that meaningful engagement
of community members leads to more sustainable and effective outcomes (Kretzmann &
McKnight, 1993). Similarly, social planning recognizes the significance of involving community
members in decision-making processes (Friend & Jessop, 2015). It seeks to incorporate diverse
perspectives to ensure that the strategies and interventions developed are responsive to the needs
and aspirations of the community (Healey, 2013). Through engaging stakeholders, including
community members, in consultations and participatory processes, social planning aims to
enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of interventions (Innes & Booher, 2010). Both models
draw on the principles of participatory democracy, emphasizing the active involvement of
community members in shaping their own futures (Cornwall, 2008). Thus, by valuing
community perspectives and input, both community development and social planning models
strive to enhance the democratic nature of decision-making processes within communities.

The community development and social planning models equally share a common goal of
effecting positive change within a community. Although their approaches may diverge in certain
aspects, both models are oriented toward achieving tangible improvements in various domains,
including access to resources, healthcare, education, housing, and social equity. Their underlying
vision is centered on enhancing the overall well-being and quality of life for community
members. Community development strives to create transformative change by empowering
individuals and communities to address social issues and promote social justice (Green, 2018;
Ledwith, 2011). It emphasizes the mobilization of community assets, active citizen participation,
and grassroots action to bring about sustainable improvements (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993).
Community development scholars argue that by working collectively, community members can
drive positive change and address systemic challenges (Taylor, 2017). Correspondingly, social
planning seeks to improve community well-being by addressing social issues through informed
decision-making and evidence-based strategies (Healey, 2013). It utilizes research, data analysis,
and needs assessments to identify areas for intervention and develop comprehensive plans
(Galster, 2007). Social planning scholars emphasize the importance of equitable resource
allocation, social inclusion, and participatory processes in achieving positive outcomes (Friend &
Jessop, 2015). On that note both models are underpinned by a commitment to enhancing the
quality of life within communities (Ledwith & Springett, 2010). They recognize the
interconnectedness of social, economic, and environmental factors and aim to create holistic and
sustainable improvements. Hence, through targeting areas such as resource access, healthcare,
education, housing, and social equity, both community development and social planning models
contribute to the advancement of community well-being.

However, in as much as these models have similarities, they have their differences. While
community development emphasizes community participation and grassroots involvement,
social planning relies on the expertise of professionals to drive change. The community
development model places a strong emphasis on empowering communities to identify their own
needs, assets, and aspirations. It aims to build community capacity, promote active participation,
and foster self-reliance (Minkler & Wallerstein, 2008). The approach is characterized by a
bottom-up, participatory, and democratic process, seeking to involve community members in
decision-making processes (Cornwall & Gaventa, 2001). Community development recognizes
the importance of community knowledge, collective action, and social networks in driving
sustainable change (Pretty, 1995). In contrast, the social planning model prioritizes expert-driven
analysis and problem-solving (Friend & Hickling-Hudson, 2015). Professionals and experts play
a central role in assessing community needs, setting goals, and developing strategies to address
social issues (Henderson, 2010). The approach is characterized by a top-down perspective, with
decision-making and policy development often centralized (Matarrita-Cascante & Brennan,
2016). Social planning emphasizes the use of research, data, and evidence-based practices to
inform interventions and policies (Matarrita-Cascante & Brennan, 2016). Hennce, the choice
between these models depends on the context, goals, and needs of the community being served,
as well as the available resources and capacity for community engagement.
The differentiation between community development and social planning becomes evident in
their respective approaches to enhancing community well-being and addressing social issues.
Community development takes a comprehensive approach, aiming to improve the overall quality
of life within a community and foster sustainable development. It emphasizes the building of
social capital, strengthening community networks, promoting social justice, and empowering
individuals and communities (Hancock, 2007). Community development initiatives yield diverse
outcomes, including increased community participation, enhanced social cohesion, and the
emergence of community-led initiatives that address local needs (Hancock, 2007). By engaging
community members in decision-making processes and encouraging their active involvement,
community development seeks to shape a future that aligns with the aspirations of the
community. On the other hand, social planning directs its efforts toward addressing specific
social issues and problems within a community (Friend & Jessop, 2015). It focuses on
developing and implementing targeted interventions, policies, and programs that improve the
well-being of individuals and communities (Galster, 2007). The outcomes of social planning
interventions are often measurable and centered around specific changes in social indicators,
such as access to healthcare, poverty reduction, or improvements in educational outcomes
(Fainstein, 2010; Wei-Skillern et al., 2004). Social planning places emphasis on evidence-based
practices, rigorous evaluation, and the utilization of data to inform decision-making and policy
development (Weiss, 1998). These distinct goals and outcomes reflect the varying emphases of
community development and social planning. While both models have the potential to bring
about positive changes in communities, the choice between them depends on the nature of the
issues at hand and the desired outcomes.

The models differ in their Process and Approach. Community development adopts a
comprehensive and inclusive approach that emphasizes collaboration, collective action, and
community engagement (Green, 2018; Ledwith & Springett, 2010). It involves facilitating
community meetings, workshops, and forums to encourage dialogue, participation, and decision-
making (Ledwith & Springett, 2010). Community members play an active role in identifying
needs, setting priorities, and implementing solutions (Ingram & Schneider, 2013). This model
acknowledges the value of local knowledge and expertise, appreciating the input and
contributions of community members. Its focus is on building social capital, strengthening
community resilience, and empowering individuals through the establishment of social networks
(Pretty & Ward, 2001). This process of community development requires sustained collaboration
and relationship-building (Taylor, 2017). In contrast, social planning follows a systematic and
structured approach, typically led by professionals or experts in the field (Friend & Jessop,
2015). It involves conducting research, needs assessments, and data analysis to identify social
issues and develop evidence-based strategies (Healey, 2013). While stakeholder consultations
may be included, decision-making in social planning tends to be centralized and driven by
experts. This model prioritizes data-driven decision-making and rigorous analysis (Friedmann,
2014). Professionals in social planning utilize their expertise to design interventions and policies
that address identified social issues (Galster, 2007). The approach is guided by predefined goals
and objectives, with an emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness in implementing interventions
(Fainstein, 2010). In a nutshell, Community development places importance on community
engagement, participation, and collective decision-making, while social planning relies on
research, data analysis, and professional expertise to develop evidence-based strategies.

In conclusion, community development and social planning are two distinct models used in
community work, each with its own strengths and approaches. Community development
emphasizes grassroots involvement, community empowerment, and participatory decision-
making, while social planning relies on expert analysis and data-driven approaches to address
social issues. Both models share a common goal of enhancing community well-being and social
justice. Understanding the unique features and approaches of these models can help practitioners
and communities choose appropriate strategies to address social problems and foster positive
change.
REFERENCES

Checkoway, B. (2011). Renewing the civic mission of community colleges. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 2011(156), 5-15.

Chaskin, R. J. (2013). Integrating community development and empowerment: A case study of

the Cabrini Green redevelopment project. Journal of Community Practice, 21(1-2), 121-142.

Cornwall, A., & Coelho, V. S. (2007). Spaces for change: The politics of participation in new
democratic arenas. Zed Books.

Cullingworth, J. B., & Nadin, V. (2006). Town and country planning in the UK. Routledge.

Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered

participatory governance. Politics & Society, 31(1), 73-103.

Hickey, S., & Mohan, G. (2004). Towards participation as transformation: Critical themes and
challenges. In S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds.), Participation: From tyranny to transformation?
Exploring new approaches to participation in development (pp. 3-25). Zed Books.

Laverack, G., & Wallerstein, N. (2001). Measuring community empowerment: A fresh look at
organizational domains. Health Promotion International, 16(2), 179-185.

Nelson, G., Prilleltensky, I., & MacGillivary, H. (2001). Building value-based partnerships:
Toward solidarity with oppressed groups. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(5),
649-677.

Patel, L., & McEwan, C. (2009). Participatory planning in the context of neoliberalization in
South Africa. Urban Studies, 46(13), 2737-2761.

Popple, K. (1995). Analysing community empowerment: A framework of context, power and

outcomes. Community Development Journal, 30(4), 349-358.

Rahman, M. (2017). Community participation in development projects: The World Bank

perspective. Development in Practice, 27(1), 118-131.
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature
review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431.

Rifkin, S. B., & Kang, Y. (2014). Community engagement in disaster planning and recovery:
Toward resilience and sustainability. American Journal of Public Health, 104(4), 582-587.

Srinivas, S. (2012). The economic and social outcomes of resettlement: A case study of the
Indian development project. World Development, 40(8), 1597-1607.

Tandon, R. (2013). Participatory research and community development. Routledge.