Compare and contrast the community development and social planning models in

community work.
Within community work, diverse models and approaches have emerged to address the
complex challenges faced by communities. Two prominent models that have garnered
significant attention are community development and social planning. These models offer
distinct lenses through which communities can be empowered and transformed.
Understanding their similarities and contrasts is crucial for community practitioners and
policymakers seeking effective strategies for community building and social change. This
discussion delves into a comparative analysis of the community development and social
planning models, exploring their shared characteristics as well as key points of divergence.
Examining their respective focuses, stakeholder engagement, and approaches to problem-
solving, provides valuable insights into the nuanced dynamics of community work and the
potential to foster sustainable community transformation. Through this exploration, the essay
seeks to illuminate the strengths, limitations, and implications of these models, fostering a
deeper understanding of their practical applications and informing future endeavours in
community development and social planning.

Both the community development and social planning models underscore the significance of
collaboration and stakeholder engagement in the community work process. They recognize
the value of involving diverse stakeholders, including community members, government
agencies, non-profits, and experts, to contribute to decision-making, planning, and
implementation efforts. In the community development model, collaboration and stakeholder
engagement are fundamental principles that drive the process of community empowerment.
Community development scholars emphasize the importance of engaging community
members as active participants in decision-making and implementation (Cornwall, 2008).
This approach is rooted in the belief that involving community members in shaping their own
destinies leads to more sustainable and effective outcomes (Arnstein, 1969). By engaging
multiple stakeholders, community development efforts can tap into a wide range of
perspectives, expertise, and resources, fostering collective ownership and shared
responsibility (Minkler, 2012). Similarly, the social planning model recognizes the
significance of collaboration and stakeholder engagement in addressing community needs.
Professionals and experts play a key role in coordinating and facilitating collaboration among
various stakeholders (Taylor, 2017). Social planning emphasizes the importance of
conducting needs assessments and involving relevant stakeholders in the decision-making
process (Popple & Leighninger, 2015). By engaging government agencies, non-profits, and
community members, social planning endeavours to ensure that policies and services are
informed by diverse perspectives and meet the needs of the community.

Moreover, community development and social planning models share a common objective of
promoting social change and improving community conditions. They strive to enhance
community well-being, promote social justice, and create more equitable and sustainable
environments through their respective approaches. The community development model,
rooted in participatory practices, aims to empower communities to address social issues and
bring about transformative change. Scholars such as Gilchrist (1999) emphasize the goal of
community development as fostering social change by building social capital, strengthening
community networks, and mobilizing collective action. This approach recognizes the
importance of community agency and active participation in shaping the desired social
outcomes. Correspondingly, the social planning model aligns with the goal of social change
by focusing on policy development and service delivery to address community needs.
Leighninger (2015) argue that social planning seeks to advance social justice and equity
through informed decision-making and evidence-based practices. Through advocating for
policies that address systemic inequalities and implementing programs that promote
community well-being, social planning aims to create positive social change at a systemic
level. These models also recognize the importance of sustainable development in achieving
long-term social change. They acknowledge the interconnection between social, economic,
and environmental factors in community well-being. Through the creation of more equitable
and sustainable environments, both models strive to ensure that social change is durable and
has a lasting impact on communities.

A fundamental distinction between the community development and social planning models
lies in the power dynamics and decision-making processes. In community development,
power is decentralized and shared among community members, enabling them to have more
control over the decision-making process. This approach is aligned with principles of
participatory democracy and community empowerment (Arnstein, 1969). Community
development scholars argue that power should be distributed equitably, allowing community
members to have a voice in shaping their own destinies (Cornwall, 2008). By engaging
community members as active participants, community development aims to challenge power
imbalances and promote inclusive decision-making processes. In contrast, social planning
tends to be more centralized, with professionals and experts taking a leading role in decision-
making on behalf of the community. Social planning scholars emphasize the importance of
expertise and evidence-based practices in addressing community needs (Taylor, 2017). The
focus is on conducting thorough assessments, analysing data, and developing policies and
programs that align with broader societal goals. While social planning acknowledges the
value of community input, decision-making is often driven by professionals who possess
specialized knowledge and skills (Popple & Leighninger, 2015). This centralized decision-
making framework can be attributed to the belief that professionals are better equipped to
navigate complex systems and implement effective solutions.

Community development and social planning models also differ in their approaches to
problem-solving. Community development places a strong emphasis on empowering
communities to identify and address their own needs and aspirations. It fosters a bottom-up
approach, focusing on building community capacity, promoting self-reliance, and supporting
grassroots initiatives (Minkler, 2012). Community members are seen as experts in their own
lived experiences, and community development practitioners act as facilitators, providing
resources and support to enable community-driven solutions. In contrast, social planning
relies on professionals and experts to analyse community needs and develop solutions based
on research, data, and policy development. Social planning emphasizes the importance of
evidence-based practices and systematic analysis of social issues (Popple & Leighninger,
2015). Professionals in the field utilize their expertise to assess community needs, evaluate
existing policies, and design interventions that align with broader social goals. This approach
aims to ensure that interventions are based on rigorous analysis and have a higher likelihood
of achieving desired outcomes.

Another distinction between the community development and social planning models lies in
their timeframe and sustainability considerations. Community development often takes a
long-term approach, recognizing that sustainable change requires continuous efforts over
time. It focuses on building sustainable community capacity, strengthening social networks,
developing leadership, and utilizing community resources effectively (Minkler, 2012). By
investing in long-term community building, community development aims to foster lasting
change that endures beyond specific projects or initiatives.Divergently, social planning tends
to be more project-oriented and time-limited, focusing on specific issues or initiatives within
defined timeframes. Social planning scholars emphasize the importance of efficiency and
effectiveness in delivering services and implementing policies (Popple & Leighninger, 2015).
This time-limited approach allows for targeted interventions and measurable outcomes within
shorter timeframes. However, it may pose challenges in achieving sustainable change that
addresses the underlying systemic issues.

Furthermmore, the differences in the two models lies in their focus and approach. The
community development model places a strong emphasis on empowering communities to
identify and address their own needs and aspirations This approach is rooted in the belief that
communities possess inherent strengths and resources that can be harnessed for their own
development (Minkler, 2012). It focuses on building community capacity, promoting active
participation, and fostering self-reliance. The process involves engaging community members
in decision-making processes, facilitating dialogue, and supporting grassroots initiatives
(Minkler, 2012). This model is characterized by a bottom-up approach that values community
input and involvement (Wandersman et al., 2008). On the other hand, the social planning
model takes a more centralized and expert-driven approach to community work.
Professionals and experts play a crucial role in analyzing community needs and making
decisions on behalf of the community (Popple & Leighninger, 2015). This model places a
strong emphasis on problem-solving, policy development, and service delivery (Taylor,
2017). Decision-making in social planning is often based on research, data, and expert advice
(Popple & Leighninger, 2015). It relies on the expertise of professionals to identify and
implement solutions that address community needs. Thus, in as much as there might be
differences in focus and approach one should appreciate that these models complement each
other.

In conclusion, while both the community development and social planning models share the
overarching goal of promoting social change and improving community conditions, they
differ in their power dynamics, approaches to problem-solving, and considerations of
timeframe and sustainability. Community development empowers communities by
decentralizing power, fostering self-reliance, and supporting grassroots initiatives, while
social planning relies on professionals and experts to make decisions based on research and
policy development. Community development takes a long-term approach, focusing on
building sustainable community capacity, whereas social planning tends to be more project-
oriented and time-limited. Understanding these distinctions can inform practitioners and
policymakers in choosing the most appropriate model to address the unique needs and
aspirations of communities and achieve meaningful and lasting social change.
REFERENCES

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of

Planners, 35(4), 216-224.

Baum, F., & Ziersch, A. (2003). Social capital. Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health, 57(5), 320-323.

Chaskin, R. J. (2001). Building community capacity: A definitional framework and case

studies from a comprehensive community initiative. Urban Affairs Review, 36(3), 291-323.

Checkoway, B. (2011). What is Youth Participation? Children and Youth Services Review,
33(2), 340-345.

Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking 'participation': Models, meanings and practices. Community

Development Journal, 43(3), 269-283.

Durston, J. (2000). Building local democracy: Evaluating the impact of participatory

budgeting in Porto Alegre. Environment and Urbanization, 12(1), 27-46.

Gilchrist, A. (1999). The well-connected community: A networking approach to community

development. Policy Press.

Minkler, M. (2012). Community organizing and community building for health and welfare
(3rd ed.). Rutgers University Press.

Nelson, G., & Prilleltensky, I. (2005). Community psychology: In pursuit of liberation and
well-being. Palgrave Macmillan.

Popple, P. R., & Leighninger, L. (2015). The policy-based profession: An introduction to

social welfare policy analysis for social workers (6th ed.). Pearson.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective
action. Cambridge University Press.

Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science,
302(5652), 1912-1914.

Taylor, M. (2017). Community organizing: Theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., ... Saul, J.
(2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems
framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 41(3-4), 171-181Schorr, L. B. (1997). Common purpose: Strengthening families
and neighborhoods to rebuild America. Anchor Books.