Learn how to engage policymakers in improving community conditions by creating and implementing policy changes. Show
Sometimes, the impetus for community health and development efforts come from social planners and policy makers. For instance, data on the level of diseases or educational outcomes may be used to raise issues on the public agenda. This section discusses how social planning approaches can inform change efforts. What do we mean by social planning and policy change?Social planning is the process by which policymakers - legislators, government agencies, planners, and, often, funders - try to solve community problems or improve conditions in the community by devising and implementing policies intended to have certain results. These policies may take the form of laws, regulations, incentives, media campaigns, programs or services, information - a wide range of possibilities. A community or state Board of Health that adopts a regulation banning smoking in particular places, for example, is trying both to protect the public from second-hand smoke and to reduce smoking in general. There is a long history in the U.S. and elsewhere of social planning. Traditionally, this has meant that policymakers decided what they thought was good for a community or a population, and imposed policy that was meant to bring about the results they wanted. At best, this has meant programs that benefited large numbers of people - Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Head Start, various public health programs. At worst, social planning has been used largely for the benefit - economic or political - of the policymakers and their friends and supporters. In other cases, well-intentioned planning has led to negative consequences. Urban renewal in the 1950s and '60s, for instance, by clearing "slum" neighborhoods, was meant to make cities into better places to live - safer, more attractive, and economically healthier. In fact, it often had that effect only for the people who moved into new housing and businesses after the original population had been displaced, and given nowhere else to go. In many cases, it destroyed vital, unblighted communities.
Social planning, however, doesn't have to take a wholly top-down form. Starting in the 1960's, many social programs carried requirements for community participation in planning and implementing programs and initiatives. (The Model Cities Program, a cornerstone of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, is a prime example.) While these requirements were often honored more in the breach than in the observance, they acknowledged that social initiatives work better, and generate better policy, when those affected by them are involved in creating them. Top-down planning, though well-meaning, may fail to take into account the realities of the situation it is addressing. This failure can stem from:
In addition, social planning can be used to further goals that have nothing to do with the welfare or advancement of those who are affected by them. Such goals may be intended to benefit friends or supporters of powerful politicians, or merely to generate political capital. In these cases, they are likely to be badly planned and administered, and to have little effect. On the other hand, the goals may be appropriate and praiseworthy, but aren't effectively addressed because of a lack of skill or will on the part of those assigned to carry them out. Citizen participation can help to prevent the social planning process from failing in these ways. The Community Tool Box sees social planning and policy change as a partnership between the community and policymakers to create policy that brings about positive social change. As a result, we will look at social planning and policy change from two angles:
Why should policymakers engage in a participatory social planning process?We've already mentioned that many federal and other grants stipulate community participation as a requirement for funding. We've also mentioned, however, that determined politicians can bypass that requirement by appointing "community boards" that merely rubber-stamp whatever policy the politicians put forth. In addition, community participation, as we will discuss later in this section, is a process that demands time, commitment, organization, and a good deal of work from everyone concerned. Why, then, is it worth it to policymakers - who usually have the ability to impose their own plans - to involve the community in social planning and policy change? There are, in fact, a number of compelling reasons, both short- and long-term:
Why should the community engage in a participatory social planning process?While it would might seem obvious that communities and grassroots groups would want to participate in planning and carrying out policy, that's not always the case. They may feel it's someone else's problem, or that they simply don't have the time or energy to be involved in a planning effort. People who haven't had the opportunity to be decision-makers often find the prospect intimidating. Because they haven't had experience in functioning in meetings, planning, and other similar activities, they feel awkward, and find it easier to let others make the decisions. They may also feel that they have little to contribute, or that they won't be listened to even if they are at the table. It can take time and effort to make it possible for community members to contribute. They may need training and/or mentoring in order to become comfortable with the procedures and assumptions of a participatory process. They may have the skills to participate, but need to be motivated to do so. Establishing trust in the process and the policymakers may require a lot of community organizing - door-to-door canvassing, personal conversations, small meetings in people's houses - before the community is ready to take on the risk or the burden of participation. The rewards for the community, however, can be great. Many of the reasons for the community to embrace participation are reflections of the reasons why policymakers would want it. Some of them are:
When is social planning and policy change appropriate?Unlike locality development and social action, the other two types of community organizing discussed in this chapter (see Sections 2 and 4), social planning originates with policymakers or their contractors. From a policymaker's point of view, social planning is appropriate when:
Social planning can be appropriate from a community perspective at all these times as well. If the community has not already initiated some action - either to address the problem or to get help in doing so - it may need outside assistance in order for anything to happen. Who should be involved in social planning and policy change?Again, social planning is different from both locality development and social action. In locality development, all sectors of the population in a town or area - rich and poor, young and old, male and female, all races and ethnicities, etc. - should be represented in the effort. In social action, the necessary participants are only individuals and organizations that represent the particular population that is working to gain power. The number and character of the important participants in a social planning process fall somewhere between these two extremes. For social planning to work well, both policymakers and all stakeholders should at least be invited to participate; the more are actually represented, the better. "Stakeholders" is a term that includes all of those directly affected in some way by the potential policy changes or by the issues under discussion. Some examples of stakeholders include:
Although policymakers are usually public officials, that is not always the case. A large corporation develops and implements internal policies that may affect thousands of people. Individuals or organizations that own large tracts of land or important buildings may institute policies about their use that have an impact on whole municipalities. How can policymakers engage effectively in social planning and policy change?As a policymaker, you may have concerns over and above the outcomes of whatever policy you establish. You probably have to keep an eye on costs, deadlines, political fallout, and other factors that influence policy, but don't necessarily relate to whether a particular policy is workable, or whether it benefits or harms those it's aimed at. It may be tempting to skip community participation entirely, and simply create a plan and impose it on the community. As tempting as it is to save time and be "efficient," it usually makes more sense to spend the time necessary to have everyone involved enthusiastically backing - or at least accepting - any new policy and willing to support it when it is put in place. You're likely to be most successful if you think and behave more like a community organizer, and less like an expert who knows what's good for the community. Community participation is an important goal for almost any community organizer, and community participation starts one person at a time. In the previous section, we describe the process for making contacts, building trust in the community, and ultimately involving all sectors in community assessment and in the planning, carrying out, and evaluation of activities and policies aimed at improving the quality of life. Policymakers, if they're serious about community involvement and participation, should engage in that process as well. As a policymaker, you have advantages and disadvantages in this process. You're a known quantity, so people are not likely to be confused about your involvement, but since you're a known quantity, with a reputation in the community that may not always be positive, you may be distrusted from the start. You'll have to overcome that, and convince people of your good will in order to get anything going, which may lead them to fear contact with anyone official. For these reasons, and because you're coming into a community with an idea of what area you're going to address, the process of organizing is a little different than it might be for either locality development (Section 2 of this chapter) or social action (Section 4). Something is going to go forward; the organizing task here is to involve the community, and particularly stakeholders, as much as possible in every phase of the effort, and to be guided, to the greatest extent feasible, by their knowledge and needs.
You may be working through one or more local organizations, or through a government or other agency that has a presence in the community. Your credibility may depend on that of the organization or agency, so choose carefully. If the only consideration is political, you may end up with a process that has no concern for community participation, or even active opposition. (Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley got around the community participation requirement in the Model Cities Program by appointing a "community representative" board of political hacks that answered only to him.) The bottom line is that people have to believe you're serious about including them, and you have to be serious about it. If you promise community involvement and don't follow through, or provide only token participation, whatever trust-building you've done will probably evaporate, and you'll have start over again. Once again, see Tool #1 for a full discussion of the levels of community participation, what they imply, and how and when they might be used. How-to steps for policymakers to involve the community:The steps below refer to policymakers as "you." The "you" here might be the policymaker herself, or whoever has initiated the social planning process. The actual people doing the "organizing" might be employees of a public agency, the staff of a community-based organization funded to help develop local policy on a particular issue, local officials, etc.
How can communities engage effectively in social planning and policy change?As we've discussed, there are several sections of the Community Tool Box that deal with how communities can initiate policy change. When the initiative comes from policymakers, the situation is somewhat different, since the issue of community participation may not be on the planner's agenda. So in good measure, it's up to community leaders and activists to raise the issue and make sure the community becomes part of the process. If policymakers resist the idea, and can't be swayed by logic or argument, then it may be time to switch to social action mode. It's generally far more productive, however, if policymakers and the community can work as partners, rather than as adversaries. How-to steps for community leaders and activists to ensure community involvement
In SummarySocial planning can be an effective means of community organization and development, and of policy change, if it's entered into in a spirit of partnership with the community. If, as either a policymaker or a community builder, you can make it a truly inclusive and participatory process, chances are that it will have long-lasting, positive results for both policymakers and the community. Online Resources AICP Landmarks and Pioneers. Short bio of Sherry Arnstein and description of Arnstein's Ladder and its importance, from the American Institute of Community Planners. Chapter 14: Public Policy in the "Introduction to Community Psychology" explains how public policy interventions can bring about impactful change, how social justice issues can be addressed through public policy, and ways to get involved in public policy. The Guide to Effective Participation. Here you will find several ways of accessing the full version of David Wilcox's Guide to Participation. The Importance of Local Policy for Achieving Equitable Outcomes from the Prevention Institute looks at why policy—at the city and county levels, in particular—is important to health equity efforts. It provides an overview of 4 key strategies in the policy development process. Participation Guide: 10 Key Ideas.Arnstein's Ladder and David Wilcox's model of participation, which was derived from it. Participatory Methods is a website that provides resources to generate ideas and action for inclusive development and social change. Working Upstream: Skills for Social Change - a resource guide for developing a course on advocacy for public health. Print Resources Smith, B. (2006). Foundations of social policy: Social justice in human perspective. (2nd edn.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole. A solid general text, with much more detail on different aspects of social policy than can be given in this section. See also the extensive policy reference list. Dalton, H., Maurice, J., & Wandersman, A. (2007). Community psychology: Linking individuals and communities. (2nd edn.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thomson Learning. See especially the chapter on organizing for community and social change, which describes several change approaches, including policy research and advocacy, from a community psychology point of view. Meredith, C., & Dunham, M. (1999). Real clout: A how-to manual for community-based activists trying to expand healthcare access by changing public policy. Boston: The Access Project. (30 Winter Street, Suite 930, Boston, MA 02108.) As the subtitle suggests, gives readers the nuts-and-bolts of policy formation, and takes them inside the "sausage factory" of real-life legislative policy making. The results are sometimes sobering, but always enlightening. Segal, A., & Brzuzy, S. (1998). Social welfare policy, programs, and practice. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock. Another good general policy text, here focusing more specifically on social welfare. What policy is a government course of action designed to promote the welfare of its citizens?Social policy aims to improve human welfare and to meet human needs for education, health, housing and economic security.
Is a government's course of action designed to promote?A government's course of action designed to promote the welfare of its citizens.
Which of the following are examples of biological processes that affect development?Biological processes produce changes in an individual's physical nature. and weight gains, changes in motor skills, the hormonal changes of puberty, and cardiovascular decline are all examples of biological processes that affect development.
What term describes the beliefs customs and general behavior of a group of people?Culture is the collective term to identify certain ideas, customs, and social behaviors. It represents a group of people or a society, combining their knowledge, beliefs, morals, and laws.
Which of the following are examples of biological processes?Examples of biological processes included in this category are cell growth and maintenance, signal transduction, pyrimidine metabolism, and cAMP biosynthesis.
|