Components of Effective Social Planning

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background

The concept of planning has since the Age of Enlightenment been applied to more than just designing and putting up infrastructure and buildings and for the preparation of military campaigns (Greed, 2002). Planning is in the broadest sense about formulating and implementing social, spatial, environmental and economic development strategies. A continuous process of development requires extensive planning, including the capacities of changing technological, environmental and political circumstances (Remmling, 2020). Planning happens within corporations, non-profit organisations, in governments and even in communities. This research seeks to identify the different components for effective social planning. The research aims at developing a conceptual framework or roadmap that would be used for purposes of conducting social planning.

Objectives

To identify what is in the literature about social planning.

To specify the main elements of social planning.

To conceptualise the factors that influence social planning process.

To provide the decision maker with a roadmap for implementing social planning.

Main research question

What are the elements or different aspects one has to take into account to come up with a social plan that is effective and successful among the population?

Specific questions

What roles does social planning play in the enhancement of equality?

What are the main elements of social planning?

What are the factors that influence the process of social planning?

There are different social planning approaches that are commonly used and each approach is reflective of a different interpretation of the word social and has different planning priorities. These approaches include societal transformation, social services, social sectors, participation and redistribution (Quimbo, 2018). In the societal transformation approach, social planning involves the remodelling of society and its subsequent transformation (Bradshaw, 2002). For this to be achieved, an entirely better society has to be envisioned and a strategy developed and implemented to ensure gradual transformation of the current society to an even better society. There is the likelihood that this strategy would be holistic and would embrace an entire country, its constitution, its social and economic sectors and public participation throughout the political process (Smyth and Vanclay, 2017). There is usually a vision for a government that is strong and focused and whose leadership is single minded and that would lead a nation to what is considered as a better future, over-ruling everything else considered as vested interests and improper consumption and instead favouring long-term investment, saving and education (Noelke and Horn, 2014). The different advocates for planning for purposes of transformation of societies have the tendencies of hearkening back to the United States in the New Deal Era or Britain back in the 1940s. They often argue that strong and visionary governments are required during situations of economic collapse, external military aggression, and extreme poverty, and governments are in a position to act in determined fashions to enable the creation of better futures, and while at it maintaining the necessary checks that would ensure would ensure democracy (Castles, 2010). Lester Ward (1906), Lewis Loran (1945), and J.K. Galbraith are some of the key inspirations to societal transformation. There are other authors who have placed emphasis on the existing relationship between the words socialist and social as being representative of social planning as development plans and socialist planning with the potential of also serving as manifestos for parties (Rogers, 2006). There are however different critics to the approach of societal transformation, including Scott (1998) and Young (1960), who argue that the approach is dangerous and utopian and that is because of the possibilities of those governments that have long-term transformation commitments becoming increasingly authoritarian as they go about suppressing any form of dissent, and demanding for increased consumption (Dye, 2010). From the point of view of Hayek (1989), it is not possible for governments to have adequate information for the formulation of broad-scale and long-term strategies. Often, the approaches opponents label it as ‘social engineering’ which implies treating people in an inhumane way by states that are excessively controlling (Sewell, 2005). Another approach, redistribution, is characterised by social planners making efforts towards the reduction of socio-economic inequalities so as to reduce and eliminate poverty, stimulate the growth of the economy, and additionally eliminate the possibilities of bloody revolutions against existing orders from happening (Nordstrum, 2006). Reformist and centrist are the underlying principles on the political spectrum. The basis of this approach is a strong belief that in the event market forces prevailed, there would be an increase in socio-economic inequalities until such a point when peasantry would rise up to the point of overthrowing the bourgeoisie. Additionally, the approach is cynical about revolutions and makes an argument that the most of the different revolutions that are successful, end up inaugurating regimes that are corrupt and repressive (Vanclay, 2017). Also the threat of revolutions is viewed as encouraging existing regimes into suspending democracy and repressing their citizens. Typically, social democrats are the advocates of the redistribution approach.

The societal approach`s social agenda is embraced by the approach of redistribution. The redistribution approach additionally places emphasis on the need for development of social indicators and the collection of abundant data for purposes of monitoring progress (Aulia, 2017). In general, the approach, is however, increasingly focused and minimally ambitious when a comparison of it is made to the approach of societal transformation. The third approach to social planning is participation, and the basis of this approach is on assuming that traditionally, the general public has not been included in government decision-making. This exclusion is neither democratic nor socially functional. Exclusion of the public from the process of planning supports a hierarchical and top-down vision of government and this is seemingly appropriate for military leaders, authoritarian rulers, entrenched professional interests, technocratic planners, and authoritarian rulers (Angotti et al., 2007). Exclusion, however, has the potential of leading to apathy and alienation, could bring about resentment, revolution, vandalism, and sabotage. It could also hamper the entrepreneurial spirits, education and inventions that are key for acceleration of the growth of the economy (Frediani and Cocina, 2019). Therefore, social planning becomes planning for people and planning by the people. Subsequently, social planners are elevated to the experts for monitoring the opinions of the public, encouraging public awareness and participation in the decision making of the government and offering support to grass-root initiatives (Webber et al., 2017). There are a lot of people with strong humanistic and religious beliefs who are attracted to the field and also sociologists, anarchists, communication specialists, and anthropologists. Social sectors is the fourth approach to social planning and this involves the planning for the economy`s social sectors. The approach is based a model of the economy that is relatively simplistic, where different sectors, including manufacturing, forestry, fisheries, mining, agriculture, transportation, construction, finance, commerce, and real estate are considered as economic and productive (Soga and Akasaka, 2019). The other remaining sectors, including education, housing, health, social services and criminal justice are considered as social services and that is because they are mainly provided as public services and the sale of their products does not necessarily happen in open air markets (Sueyoshi and Yuan, 2017). There are other sectors, including defence, and international relations that neither fit the social not economic model and their sustenance is because of their importance to national security. There are distinctive planning models and methods for these different social sectors and these are heavily based on the demographics of those populations they serve and also on the visions of planning for manpower where governments are actively put efforts to the future characteristics of a population with the requirements of the labour market of an economy that is more prosperous and bigger (Moscardo et al., 2017). Social planning is within the social sectoral approach split with ease into separate and distinct sectoral processes, which are carried out in individual sectoral agencies, like the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education. It is worth noting that there are important roles played by Non-Governmental Organizations in social sectors and therefore, there is the possibility of planning being based on non-profits and also in government (Soga and Akasaka, 2019). The other social planning approach, the social services approach, is a rather narrower version of the approach of social sectors when an assumption is made that manpower planning, education planning, health planning, and criminal justice planning and separate fields that are also distinct from one another (Twelvetrees, 2017). Another assumption is made that it is possible to provide education, health, housing and correctional services for profit-organisations. The social services approach to social planning, is therefore focused on groups within populations that are at a specific disadvantage and who are not capable of affording the services they need, and those who to some extent are provided for and protected by charitable organisations and the state (Apthorpe, 1970). These groups could include crime victims, the poor, those who abuse drugs and substances, those who are handicapped, and those who immigrated only recently (Apthorpe, 1970). It is worth noting that the government, at times assisted by the non-governmental sector takes responsibility for the provision of services and additionally planning and managing the services, in what is considered as social planning. In this style of social planning, the principal professional influence comes about from profession of social welfare and social work, which has the tendency of splitting between a holistic approach that places emphasis on the development of communities, and community care, which is a clinical approach that places emphasis on institutional care and casework (Kahn, 2009). There are other social planning approaches including Rapid Rural Appraisal, Participatory Rural Appraisal. The Rapid Rural Appraisal approach lasts for up to eight days within which a multidisciplinary team of researchers are involved in looking at sets of issues by collaborating closely with the members of a community, ensuring they are involved in the various aspects of collecting and further analysing information (Gow, 2019). Generally, this approach generates findings, which are subsequently utilised in different ways (Coffer et al. 2019).

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to A Comparative Analysis of the Management of Epilepsy in the UK versus Kenya.

The other approach, Participatory Rural Appraisal takes into account the opinions and knowledge of people drawn from rural areas to plan and also manage development programs and projects (Lara et al. 2018). The approach comprises of a set of participatory techniques that are also largely visual that are used for assessment of the resources of groups and communities, identification and prioritisation of problems and appraisal of strategies used to solve the problems (Sandham et al. 2019). This approach comes in handy in learning about and further engaging with communities. The approach provides and promotes the active participation of the members of a community in the interventions and issues that are key for shaping their lives.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Social Planning

Social planning is a process in which policymakers, including government agencies, legislators, planners, and at time funders, make efforts of solving problems within communities or improving the conditions within the communities with the aim of coming up with and implementation of policies that would have certain results (Kahn, 2009). Often, such policies take the form of regulations, laws, incentives, services or programs, media campaigns, media campaigns and there are many more possibilities (Wachs, 2017). For instance, when regulations banning smoking in specific places are adopted in communities, this is done to enable the protection of the public from purposes of generally reducing smoking and also protecting the public from second-hand smoke (Baum et al., 2011). Social planning is defined as a democratic and localised system for the setting of priorities, arriving at compromises that are equitable and taking action (Roseland, 2000). Through social planning, the needs of communities and their interests in relation to their social, environmental, cultural and economic affairs are addressed (Rein, 1969). Communities and organizations and government groups come together and collaborate for purposes of addressing societal issues that face particular communities. Ultimately, social planners have the aims of creating communities that are healthier. Often, goals are related to the improvement of environments and communities for different populations including the youth, children, seniors and immigrants and even addressing the different challenges faced by communities including housing, addiction gambling and transportation among others (White and Sutton, 2001). With zero regard about the specific challenge faced by a community, one of social planning`s important common goal is giving attention to processes undergone by communities as they solve their challenges. While all communities go through challenges, social planning considers collaboration as being effective and also necessary (Lachapelle, 2008). All over the world, there is a long history of social planning. When there a variety of partnerships available for communities to solve the challenges they face, increased community knowledge and understanding is acquired and that subsequently contributes to the formation of strong relationships and realisation of solutions (Fredriksson, 2011). Policymakers have been making decisions on what they believed as good for populations and communities and imposing policies that were meant to bring about the intended results, translating to programs that are beneficial for very many people. However, there are instances where policymakers have misappropriated social planning for purposes of politically and economically benefiting themselves, their families and supporters. There are other instances where well-meant social planning brings about negative consequences (Beatley, 1995). For example, the United States Urban renewal in the 1950s and 1960s through the clearing of slums that was aimed at turning cities into better living places that were more attractive, healthier and safer, had negative consequences. Often, the urban renewal program led to the slum dwellers being displaced with nowhere to go, and the new houses and businesses that were newly put up being given to other people. The urban renewal also resulted in destroyed important and unblighted communities. The levelling of Boston`s West End is a good example. This was a first-generation immigrant neighbourhood that functioned like a rural village with institutions and social structures that were held in high regard by the community (Ramsden and Smith, 2018). Different immigrant generations with Italian and Jewish roots had since become Americans but they retained their family and cultural ties. This community was however brought down and in its place a luxury apartment complex was put up that was surrounded by a chain-link fence. While top-down planning is often well-meaning, it at times fails to take into account the realities of the situations it addresses. Most of the times this failure comes from a number of factors including the community`s ignorance (Mara, 2018). For successful policies to be put up, an understanding has to be developed of the social patterns of communities, their histories, and how their economies work. There is also the possibility of policymakers lacking the necessary experience required in a specific field (Zhang, Wu and Zhong, 2018). There are vast differences between reality and theory and often, even logical and best-possible scenarios initiatives face challenges as a result of mistrust of outsiders, political manoeuvrings, substance abuse, and turf battles (Green and Haines, 2015). These types of challenges make it hard for the initiatives to work out as per the initial plans. It is worth noting that there are differences between social planning and social action and locality development. In the locality development efforts, different sectors of the population within a town or an area are involved, the rich and the poor, the young and the old, male and female and different ethnicities and races (Taylor, 2011). On the other hand, social action only involves the necessary participants, that is, the organizations and individuals who are representative of particular populations putting efforts towards gaining power (Ledwith, 2020). The character and the numbers of individuals involved in social planning processes fall in between these two extremes. For the goals of social planning to be achieved, there is need for stakeholders and stakeholders to be invited to take part; the more the representation, the better (Miller and Richter, 2014). Stakeholders include all those individuals who are in one way or the other directly affected by the potential changes in policies or by those issues that are being discussed. Examples of stakeholders are; those who stand to benefit from a policy, those who a policy is meant to control in one way or the other (Taylor, 2011). For example, developers could be restricted by a land use policy and there is need that they are present when discussions are being held about a policy and also during its creation. Other stakeholders are those who will be involved in either the administration or enforcement of the policy, those organizations and businesses that would either gain or lose from the implementation of new policies and those who would be forced into altering their modes of operation as a result of potential policy changes (Miller and Richter, 2014). Other stakeholders include public officials and makers of policies. While public officials comprise of policymakers, that is not always the case, within large corporations, internal policies with the potential of affecting very many people are developed and implemented. On the other hand, those organizations and individuals who own large land tracts or important buildings could put up such policies related to their use that have impacts on entire municipalities.

Principles of social planning

There are diverse definitions for social planning, and this reflects the vast field of activities where social planning is applicable, in addition to the range of expectations and perceptions that different groups hold of the term. Litman (2013), identifies assessing, evaluating and providing community facilities as one of the elements of social planning. Community facilities are those structures that provide such physical resources that are sustainably used for different services and activities that are of benefit to communities. These range from meeting and function rooms, to offices, specialist activity spaces, equipment storage facilities, support facilities and outdoor areas. Community facilities are also defined as any such formal and informal places that provide necessary physical resources for substantiating community activities and services. There are different principles that underpin social planning. Vanclay (2003), identifies socio-economic equity, population equity, spatial equity and collaborative planning as the key principles of social planning. Martens (2006) recognises spatial equity as the provision of equitable access to community facilities for residents. Efficiency is one of the key areas of spatial efficiency. When community facilities are located in optimal locations, which has the effect of reducing the costs of production and transportation considerably. The proximity in location of a community facility could be viewed as an instrument of increasing the surplus of consumers and is identified as having the potential of improving human service capacity, due to this, spatial equity recognizes the balancing of community facility patterns between communities and clients as being important (Vajjhala, 2005). Performance in relation to the number and location of service facilities is the other important element. In relation to the issue of location, it is important that community facility is linked with the private sector issues, in terms of selection of particularly locations that are optimal. That is in relation to the value of positive economics, which is the private sectors primary concern. Selecting the community facility location is done on the basis of the process of policy decision making and often brings together different stakeholders, including developers and landowners (Daley and Angulo, 2010). In addition, it is reliant on the criteria of government welfare, whose basis is on the neoclassical welfare economy, for purposes of increasing economic output and additionally encouraging rapid progress within societies. The spatial equity concept also has links with the processes of encouraging the participation of communities. It is useful in the promotion of ongoing processes of maintaining community facilities by the community. The participation of the community additionally requires collective action, for instance, for purposes of paying for the services and additionally distributing them (Archibald et al., 2016). There are other general principles that are used for the explanation of the spatial equity concept. One of them is equal payment. When a service is in demand in a particular area, they could get it so long as they have the willingness of paying for it (Baum et al., 2011). Equal output is the other principle. Resources should be assigned throughout an area such that they produce results that are equal to enable the production of equal results in the different areas (Fredriksson, 2011). Equal input is the other principle. This could be justified as equal input per area and additionally equal input per unit area. Population equity is the other principle and this call for the provision of facilities for all ages and in accordance with their particular needs and the priority they accord to the needs. Equity is defined as a sense of fairness and fairness is sharpened by the addition of equality and fellow, that is, feeling (Fredrikssson, 2011). Being an ethical value, there is need that equity is understood as encompassing status similarities, opportunity and capacity. Khakee (2008) argue that within the health sector, equity reflects concerns of reducing unequal opportunities of being healthy, which have associations with membership in social groups that are less privileged, for example, religious and ethnic groups and poor people. In relation to this Archibald et al. (2016) point out that primarily, equity is centred on groups that are marginalized, socially disadvantaged, and groups that are disenfranchised and not entirely limited to the poor. There are many people who are not able to access good quality healthcare in different parts of the world and for different reasons. One of the reasons is that public hospitals have increasingly been getting older and require to be replaced (Albright et al. 2020). The other reason is that there has been an increase in the upfront payments that have to be done for made for medical consultations, while there has been a decline in bulk billing (Dassah et al. 2018). Quite clearly, there are differences in the services that are provided to those who do not have a lot of money and are not capable of affording surcharged and those who very willingly pay for surcharges. What this also implies is that those individuals whose incomes are minimal and live by themselves with just little pension and indigenous people who are not accorded equal medical care opportunities in comparison to those who are wealthy. Equity has to be given consideration in the development of social plans. Socio-economic equity is the other principle. There are perceptions that areas of socio-economic disadvantage are primary beneficiaries of social planning (Meerow et al. 2019). For example, the unemployed are recognised as some of the groups that require to be assisted by the government. Communities have the expectations that when community needs are assessed, that leads to the recognition and further addressing of the needs of those who are disadvantaged from a socio-economic perspective (Krumholz and Hexter, 2019). In areas that are disadvantaged, often, community needs assessments are carried out. Communities could either be exhibiting a limited wealth base, low education, low employment or increased welfare dependency. Community needs assessments consist of different key elements, including, an holistic approach because of the possibility of the community having multiple disadvantages, multi-agency responsibilities, involving enabling and empowering communities and the accrued benefits should outweigh the assessment costs (Boisjoly and Yengoh, 2017). As a result of the holistic nature of the approach, it is highly unlikely that community development would effectively happen through a single industry sector or government agency. Outlining and prioritisation of strategies and action plans for purposes of addressing the community`s needs is the final phase of the community needs assessment (Escobedo et al. 2019). The formulation of socio-economic development strategies comes after the formulation of objectives and earlier analyses. There are four strategic socio-economic development approaches that are identified by Leleur (2005), that could possibly be used together or in isolation. These include locality development, involving the development of infrastructure, planning of policies, street-scaping and housing. Business development is the other approach and this involves the stimulation of job growth through business attraction. Human resource development is the other approach and this is meant for the improvement of the workforce`s skills (Roh et al. 2020). The final approach is community based employment development and this involves the creation of neighbourhood-level opportunities for employment through council and also non-profit organisations, cooperatives between businesses and workers and other similar initiatives of community ownership (Lee and Jan, 2019). Through this approach, ownership of and community development participation is promoted. The community needs assessment incorporates identifying the needs of communities, collection of data, consultation, analysis and development of strategies, effectively enabling authorities to go about promoting and implementing community development that helps the groups within communities who are disadvantaged.

The other principle community development is defined in different ways. Phillips and Pittman (2014), define community development as those activities that are carried out by agencies that are primarily designed for purposes of benefitting communities. The United Nations defines community development as the process through which people`s efforts are brought together with the efforts of government authorities for purposes of improving communities` social, economic and cultural conditions and additionally integrating the communities into the nation`s life and additionally enabling them to fully contribute to the progress of the nation (File, 2017). The UN additionally highlights that there are two elements that are key for the success of community development. The first one is the participation of a community`s members not only in government directed programs but also acting under their personal initiatives for purposes improving their life circumstances (Salam, 2020). The second one is providing these people with the necessary services and technical skills such that they are able to encourage them into taking initiative, and instigating self-help (Ledwith, 2020). This points to community development not just being a responsibility of the government but also involving the members of community. Community development involves providing the members of a community with the ideas and services that act as encouragements for taking initiatives aimed at improving their communities. Ledwith (2020), in elaboration of this point argues that for the success of instigation of development, community developers have to actively play their roles as encouragers. Community developers have to work together with the community, establishing themselves as friends, offering only minimal direction and resource access, and their key role should be encouraging the members of the community to conclude by themselves on what should really be improved within communities (Downs, 2017). In addition, community development is also about the building of cohesion, and this is because the majority of the people are not readily identified as being part of communities. Developers have a role to play in creating an awareness among people as being part of communities. This enables the steering of people towards the identified needs of communities, in addition to making communities increasingly accepting of the changes as they have reached the conclusions by themselves (Gilchrist, 2019). From the view of the developer, community development can be said to be a process through which developers go about integrating themselves into communities for purposes of making suggestions and additionally giving guidance which would assist wider communities in effecting positive changes. Community development is based on the notion of people adequately accessing health, well-being, justice, wealth and opportunity (Nel, 2018). Community takes cognizance of the fact that a significant proportion of the world’s population and various communities and groups are oppressed and secluded by the manner in which the society is structured and organized (Kenny and Connors, 2016). As a result, community development purposely aims to challenge these inadequacies and inequalities, and to ensure fairness and equality for all. Additionally, community development, in practice, contributes to supporting communities to improve the quality of their life through the use of their own resources and assets, and also facilitates the collaboration between public agencies and the communities in relation to the improvement of services and decision-making (Laverack, 2001). The functioning and operations of community development is based on various key values, including; human rights, equality, social justice and diversity (Matarrita-Cascante and Brennan, 2012). Among the major principles that underpin the practice of community development are self-determination empowerment collective action and collaboration (Craig, 2002). Understood differently by different people, community development could involve; the building or rearrangement of physical facilities, such as roads, bridges, schools, hospitals or sewer systems, the expansion of the community’s economic base through the location of employment systems or manufacturing plants within the community, as well as organizing the community and its people or groups to undertake political or social action that aims to improve their economic and non-economic aspects of life (Craig, 2002). Although it is presumed that development implies a form of change, which can either be positive or negative, the form of change that is implied in the context of community development is positive change. Thus, while effective community development implies positive change to the community and its people, it should be noted that community development may not always lack negative impacts (Zautra, Hall and Murray, 2008).

Following the community development processes and interactions entailment of efforts improve the quality of life and well-being through the building and combination of resources, which more often occurs in the context of wider structural shifts and trends, and on the basis of the field theory perspective as proposed by Wilkinson (1991) and Bridger, Brennan and Luloff (2011), it is distinct from the narrowly-focused development initiatives. Additionally, community development is observed to be aimed at the creation of more substantive things that surpass individual social fields (Bhattacharyya, 2014). There are various approaches to the manner in which community development could be undertaken. A community development continuum has been proposed by Matarrita-Cascante and Brennan (2012), to demonstrate the manner in which community development efforts can be grouped on the basis of the views and various attributes that guide it, including the work, expected benefits, stakeholders involved, among others. These, Matarrita-Cascante and Brennan (2012) label as imposed, directed and self-help approaches to community development. An exploration of the existing body of knowledge reveals that community development comprises four major elements- identification of a need, components of the community development, strategies used to engage in community development, and the factors influencing the community development process (File, 2017; Phillips and Pittman, 2014). Before the commencement of a community development initiative or project, it is imperative to identify the need for it. The impetus for the undertaking of a community development is based on the identification of a need that needs to be addressed (Ledwith, 2020). After the identification of need, it is critical to identify the various components of the community development. Among the key components of community development include the relational qualities, the structural considerations and the actual community development process. Relational qualities refer to the need to establish connections with the community, rallying support and garnering mutual respect (Christenson, 2019). To effectively engage in community development, it is important to critically understand the broader community and its political processes. These structural considerations are imperative as they contribute to the establishment of supportive and effective working relationships with the various stakeholders, including those responsible for funding (Shaw, 2008). The undertaking of the community development process, on the other hand, should also follow a particular theoretical model. One of the most popular theoretical community development models is the assessing, planning, implementing and evaluating outcomes model. However, it is recommended that the community development process should be undertaken more with a sense of the communities, rather than in strict observance of the theoretical model chosen (Zautra, Hall and Murray, 2008). In the assessing step of the process, the community is assessed to determine who it comprises of, its strengths, who exercises power, and its response to the development initiative. The planning step involves developing a plan that effectively identifies a gap and the needed service, and a simple message that fits the community’s interest to ensure it buys into the initiative is structured (Ferguson and Dickens, 2011). After the planning stage, the drives of the community development initiative implement it. The implementation should be undertaken on the basis of a clear mandate and following key principles. The final stage is the evaluation of outcomes to determine whether the initiative met its set goals and objectives. The third element, strategies used in community development, includes the development of a shared vision, valuing each stakeholder’s opinions and expertise, exploring susceptibility, collaborating and creating conditions that ensure everybody wins, the elimination of traditional barriers, and undertaking political advocacy and action (Christenson, 2019). These actions ensure that all those involved in the community development project are adequately engaged such that none feels isolated or left behind. The fourth element to take into account is the influencing factors. These are the factors that influence the community development model as well as the process through which it will be undertaken to ensure its effectiveness (Roberts, 2019). Among the notable influencing factors with regard to community development are ensuring a philosophical fit, ensuring the community development is seen as an evolutionary process, community development reciprocity, allowing time for the consideration and adoption of initiatives, as well as the recognition of the inherent problems surrounding community development (File, 2017).

Given the need to plan the community development process to ensure that it effectively achieves its objectives, it is important that the necessary effort is put into the process. This effort could come from the change advocates as well as the community members. In this regard, it is critical that community development develops the change agents’ and community’s capacity in order to address the challenges and issues facing the community as well as identify new opportunities that meet the community’s needs and contribute to the improvement of the various identified situations (Hamm and McConnell, 2016). Capacity can be described as the ability to do something or make something happen (Black, 2021). In the context of community development, the capacity needed to ensure the effectiveness and success of the process can be categorized as physical capacity, economic capacity, supporting capacity and community capacity (Smith et al. 2020). Physical capacity includes the infrastructure and other tangible resources, while economic capacity involves the financial resources- funds, grants, credit, and so on- needed to implement the project, and the supporting capacity involves government policies, practice, laws and regulations (Bradshaw, 2008). Except for the community capacity which the community and individuals within it can develop by themselves, the physical, economic and supporting capacities may not always be within the community’s control. Community capacity arises from the dynamic interaction of various and vast amounts of knowledge, skills, attitudes and practices of the community development driver (Bhattacharyya, 2014). Each individual in the community has some level of ability (capacity). Combined, the total number of individuals that make up a community provide a potential community capacity (Jones et al. 2020). Within the community capacity are social capital and human capital, both of which are key community assets. Social capital simply refers to the networking and engagement between individuals, while human capital could include any skilled, achievement, acquired behavior or experience an individual obtains (Emery and Flora, 2006). According to Putnam (2003), social capital comprises social norms and networks that impact on the productivity of the community, besides facilitating, leveraging, enabling and enhancing the coordination and collaboration between individuals for the mutual benefit of the larger community and its members. It is the achievement of this mutual benefit (the desired result of the community development initiative) that results in the eventual improvement of the well-being of the community members (Tang, 2019). It should be noted that the community capacity as described above can be developed and enhanced, in what is known as community capacity building, which is majorly concerned with the creation of a healthy (self-reliant, sustainable, reactive and proactive, responsive and knowledgeable) community (Flora, Flora and Gasteyer, 2016). The result of a healthy community is a community that is fully aware of their rights and how to exercise them, as well as willing to build on their skills and knowledge. The realization of a healthy community also results in community members who believe that they have the ability to effect a change by undertaking collective political or social action (Goodstell, Flaherty and Brown, 2014). As such community capacity building is regarded as a community-driven agenda whose key aim is the improvement of the community’s ecomonic and social living conditions and well-being through the practice and enhancement of their individual, group and community capacities. Community capacity building is mainly underpinned by the philosophy that community members have or can develop the ability to manage and control their lives, as well as the power to determine or shape the process to be followed by the development of their community (Loss et al. 2020). It is suggested that this community capacity can be enhanced over time. This has resulted in the community capacity building not to be regarded as a one-off or one-time enterprise in the context of community development, since the individual, group and/or community capacity can be accumulated, enhanced and advanced (Green and Haines, 2011). The other principle of social planning is collaborative planning. Through collaborative planning, the community that is targeted is significantly involved in the processes of planning, designing and implementation. By its nature, social planning is community based (Yuan et al. 2021). As a result of this, entire communities have to support it, beginning from political leaders, to key stakeholders and also the general public. When broad based support is not available, plans with the potential of being successful could end up being futile exercises that are regulated by only a few individuals who have interests, with zero community ownership and commitment (Linnenluecke and Verreynne, 2017). Social plans can only attain meaningful results with the support of the community. For purposes of achieving community planning, it is important to get support even before the formal initiation of a program. This would require informing all the different interest groups and presenting them with opportunities of representation, including key officials, local managers, informal leaders, community stakeholders, existing community groups and institutions (Roseland and Spiliotopoulou, 2017). There is need to inform every other group on the reasons behind the proposal of a project, the different ways through which the project is expected to work, what it would accomplish in relation to its outcomes and benefits. The involvement of the community facilitates the project to be geared strongly to the community`s values; providing a greater ownership sense, ensuring the community has a shared image of the future, and allowing for the inclusion of other ideas into the project`s design and subsequent implementation (Cave, 2018). In the initial stages of the process of community planning, there are different ways through which collaborative planning can be incorporated. Every community is unique and requires a different type of collaboration. In reality, it is only possible to attain comprehensive processes when the time available and resources are adequate (Zhang, Matsouka and Huang, 2018). Usually, the coordinators of the project make attempts towards ensuring that projects have targeted representation, instead of including all members of the public. The representative groups have to be drawn from the community and their choice should be on the basis of the way they are oriented to the larger community (Litman, 2020). These different methods come in handy in selection of the representative groups; surveys on public values and attitudes, public meetings, focus groups, planning workshops, community tours, and newsletters and publications.

Arranging a steering committee run by the community or even a task force, is another way through which the project`s chances of success can be improved (Heang and Birchall, 2019). This would go a long way in ensuring the involvement of the public and would also enable the project to reach it`s long term goals. The implementation of the final stage could be overseen by these groups and they could additionally review and approve policy decisions. In the event the overall project becomes complex, it would be necessary to ensure that the committee is made of those members who possess different important skills, including project management, practical abilities and even the visionaries who are capable of seeing the community from a large scale and increasingly creative aspect (Spencer, 2019). It is also worth noting that effective and efficient communication is an important factor of the collaborative process. For purposes of ensuring that the members of a community feel as though they are involved and have ownership, they have to be kept up to date continuously with the project`s status. Through this, they are allowed to understand their position in the process, and what is expected from them. Through good communication, it also becomes easier to offer assistance to the coordinators, by way of providing them with regular updates, in addition to keeping track of who needs to know what and when they need to know.

Social planning process

The process of social planning refers to those activities that follow one another in a logical and sequential way in the choice of preferred alternatives for accomplishment of the goals of a social policy. The process of social planning begins with recognising a social situation that is problematic, or a social problem for example, high rates of mortality among infants, high rates of prostitution, truancy, juvenile delinquency, alcoholism, desertion, poverty, and increased divorce rates (Twelvetrees, 2017). It is worth noting that the definition of a social problem is dependent on the way people perceive it. Social problems are images of the real world and not objective conditions. Therefore, social organizations are what is perceived as problems by some political parties, organisations, and influential and prominent groups (Previtali and Salvati, 2019). In addition, the manner by which social problems are perceived determines the nature of a social problem. There is the possibility of social problems being perceived as having single root causes or having multiple causes (Huber, 2017). For example, it could be perceived that poverty is brought about by poor working habits and ethics. There is also the possibility of social problems being perceived as being brought about by different factors that interact in ways that are measurable and known or ways that are neither measurable nor known. Kahn (1969), argues that there is no social problem perception that is inherently more perfect than the other, arguing that the reasons why social planners define them is for the purposes of determining the range and cluster of solutions. It is also important for the purposes of determining effective strategies for dealing with the problem. There are two main ways through which social problems can be conceptualised, in line with the decision making paradigm of Thompson (Apthorpe, 1970). This could happen through the number of variables and factors that are available to them and the precise contribution degree that every variable makes to the problems nature. On the basis of these dimensions, it is possible to view social problems as being brought about by variables that are known or by variables that are not known. The contribution made by each of these variables could either be precise or indeterminate (Ulrich, 1983). For the problem to be adequately identified, comprehensive data has to be collected. File (2017) posits that in the majority of the social policy questions, there are not as comprehensive databases. A lot of time is required for the collection of information which is additionally, very costly, both politically and in terms of man power. There are different types of social problems and these, include norm violations and social conditions. Norm violations make an assumption of the existence of standards of behaviours. Those who are involved in the study of violation of norms are largely interested in the failures of societies for example, those who drop out from school, and those who have mental illnesses. Greed (2002), points out that norm violations are signs of social problems giving the example of deviants who are victims and who should not be entirely blamed. Karepova et al. (2015) highlight that another type of social problem involves those conditions that bring about material and psychic suffering for some groups of people. The focus is on the different ways through which societies operate and who the beneficiaries are and who are the people who do not benefit under the social arrangements are currently in place. Maslow is cited in the description of human needs. These needs include sustenance, shelter, security, group support, respect, esteem and self-actualisation (Getz et al. 2012). Self-actualisation is bordered on the need for constructive and creative involvement in significant activities that are also productive. In the event these needs are not met, individuals tend to turn hostile towards societies and their norms (O`Hara, 2006). There are different ways through which frustration is expressed and these include, abuse of drugs and substance, violent crimes, withdrawal, aggression and even terrorism. With people`s continued withdrawal from the systems that are not able to meet their needs, the systems define them as bad people, but they are only bad as a result of living in bad societies. Legitimisation is the second step of this process. Communities have to be aware of problems and additionally recognise that these problems they face are significant enough to warrant actions (Chaskin, 2005). After assumption of legitimisation, different alternatives of dealing with the problem have to be developed. This necessitates weighing the consequences of adoption of every individual alternative. These consequences include costing of alternative resources which is driven by the knowledge that once resources are allocated for a specific problem, they cannot be used to deal with other problems (Sinclair, 2008). The fourth step of the social planning process involves the evolution of the consensus in regard to the choice of alternatives. This is a relatively easier said than done step. The different people who have a stake in the problem and its resolution have to be brought together and sufficiently compromise for purposes of enabling the emergence of a clearer communal view. In the fifth step, an effective program is devised for carrying out the plan and resources are diverted towards the program. After this, the step of implementation and monitoring implementation follows. Crawford et al. (2008), point out that the set goals, programs and plans have to be realistic and lines of communication have to be open to feedback to the implementation processes results. The acquired feedback could be used in the modification of the program because the feedback enables the clarification of the problem`s nature and extent. As a program progresses, linkage of one problem to others and also to other communal efforts becomes increasingly clear and in turn, this necessitates the changing of communal programs and structures (Pigg, 2002). Over time, feedback enables evaluation to be carried out. Through evaluation, it becomes possible to make changes at the different levels of the process, and these could include the program being retained, expanded, modified or entirely eliminated. It is worth noting that all the different steps in this process, beginning from awareness to evaluation involve the politics of community life (Green, 2015). All these stages are subject to the existing power relationships within communities and that is because every other stages requires that resources are allocated. Budgets come in handy when decisions have to be made pertaining who gets what. In the planning process, guidelines are developed concerning who gets what in the future which is done on the basis of estimates of who gets what.

Community participation in social planning

People should always be involved in their own initiatives whenever they become conscientized and critically aware of their life situations and begin perceiving the available options for them to change those realities (Millar, 2006). There are different essential ingredients for people`s participation in their development and these include, assessment of local resources and local level planning, sensitisation of people and building local organisations for collective actions and umbrella support mechanisms for purposes of facilitating the development actions of people. These processes have to be institutionalised if they are to be multiplied on a wider scale. Extensive political commitment is required in the process of multiplication as this goes a long way in providing the necessary political space and additional policy frameworks for an increasingly sensitive mechanism for support (Khodyakov et al. 2013). For this to be achieved, ground rules have to be simplified to facilitate grassroots level organisations to take part in the process of development, bringing about flexibility and dynamism among those who provide public services, and additionally orienting the judicial system to ensure that disputes are disposed with speed and sensitivity to poor people`s needs and also the needs of the disadvantaged (Burns and Heywood, 2004). It is however, worth noting that social planning does not always have to take an entirely top-down form. Social programs also have opportunities for community participation in the processes of planning and implementation of initiatives and programs. Community participation is important as it increases the likelihood of coming up with effective policies (Bath and Wakerman, 2015). Serious errors can be committed in the absence of knowledge on a community`s social structure and history. Making attempts to repeat things that failed to work out in the past, or making assumptions that certain groups will agree to working together when they have been warring for long, has the potential of undermining community development even before it begins. In addition, members of a community are in a better position of informing planners and policymakers of a community`s real needs which facilitates addressing of the most pressing issues and problems within a community (Plummer and Taylor, 2013). Community participation is also important because it enhances community support and ownership and support of the different initiatives that come about of social planning efforts (Manzo and Perkins, 2006). When people are involved in decision making and planning, they get the feeling that whatever is being implemented is theirs, and as a result of this, make efforts into making it work. On the other hand, when plans are imposed on communities from outsiders, they rarely work. Community members are also in a position to inform the makers of policies about changes in circumstances that demand policy changes over time. What was appropriate five years ago could perhaps not be appropriate today (Desai, 2008). The involvement of the community brings together individuals and groups who might not have come together under normal circumstances, and helps them develop an understanding of the exact place where their common interests lie. The participation of the community also makes a contribution towards the institutionalisation of changes that are brought about by policy changes (Tosun, 2006). Members of a community have a higher likelihood of buying into policies that are created with the involvement of the different sectors within a community. Their continuous support over time brings about permanent changes. Community participation, also effectively energizes communities such that they are able to change continuously and in positive directions. Once members of a community have an awareness of what they are able to accomplish, that increases their readiness to taking up new challenges. The participation of the community has the potential of changing the attitudes about what is possible and this is probably the most important element in the creation of change (Nekwaya, 2007). At times, communities however feel as though participation in social planning is not their responsibility, or could simply lack the willingness to take part in these types of planning efforts. Often, those who have not had the opportunity of being decision makers get intimidated by the prospect. They could end up feeling awkward as a result of not having the experience of functioning in meetings, planning and other activities that are similar (Burns and Heywood, 2004). They could end up feeling awkward, finding it easier to allow others to make decisions for them. There is also the possibility that they could feel as only be having little to contribute or their opinions would not be listened to. Making community members to contribute could take time. They could require training and mentoring so that they are able to get comfortable with the assumptions and procedures of participatory processes. While they could be possessing the necessary skills required for participation, they have to be motivated to participate (Plummer and Taylor, 2013). The establishment of trust within these processes could require extensive community organizing, involving personal conversations, and even door-to-door canvassing, before members of a community agree to taking up the risks and burdens of participation. Community`s, however, stand to benefit from participation. Through participation, members of a community are provided with opportunities of educating the policymakers on the real concerns and needs of a community (Rifkin and Kangere, 2002). As discussed earlier on, the plans of policymakers often fail when they plan a vacuum and that is because this results in their plans failing to account for the population’s real needs and its realities. When community members participate, they help policymakers understand their lives better, the difficulties they could be going through, their strengths and their opinions on what has to be addressed. Through participation, community members are also provided with the opportunities of creating such policies that work to meet their needs (Singhal, 2001). When community members participate in their development, they are able to identify and see those policies that are put in place that have the potential of improving their lives, instead of imposition of having zero effects or imposing on them additional burdens. Through participation, the community members are also accorded the respect they deserve. Instead of being viewed as nuisances and victims, the community members who get engaged in participatory social planning processes are considered as colleagues and concerned citizens making efforts towards the improvement of their communities (Misener, 2015). They are accorded respect as human beings, and for their knowledge, skills and the efforts they contribute to these processes. Participation additionally puts members of communities in control of their fates. The processes of participatory policy development and social planning put citizens in a position to decide on the policies that could work for them and additionally accords them the opportunities of changing the policies in the event they fail to work (Njoh, 2002). Policymakers could be having concerns about the outcomes of the different policies that they establish (Weiner, Harris and Craig, 2002). They have to keep an eye on deadlines, costs, political fallout and other factors with the potential of influencing policy, but which do not necessarily relate to the workability of particular policies, or whether they benefit or harm those to whom they are aimed at. Temptations could arise of skipping the participation of the community and simply creating plans and imposing them on community`s (Leksakundilok, 2004). However, participation of the community increases the chances of success. Different community organizers recognise community organisation as being an important goal.

In all this, it is worth noting that people being members of a community does not imply that they are in possession of sound answers to their different problems and the issues they face. However, this means, that generally, they have the most suitable perspective on what their lives look like in relation to the happenings within their communities (Aref and Ma`rof, 2008). Training is recommended to ensure community efforts are run completely and with effectiveness. This, is however, dependent on the community, but in those instances when there are very many immigrant who speak languages that are very different from those of the rest of the population, the numbers of people who need to be supported such that they are able to fully participate are high. When people become increasingly sophisticated about what is possible to them in dealing with the different financial, political and social systems, their likelihood of finding their solutions increases (Berry et al. 2007). Those communities that have already experienced these areas have more willingness of taking up efforts on their own and could only require political and financial support. On the other hand, those communities that have never had the experience would require way more. To involve the community, policy makers need to work on their contacts with organisations, agencies and all those individuals who have a good knowledge of the community and who have a willingness to utilise their credibility and knowledge to ease the way in for the policy makers. These groups of people stand in a good position to help avoid tactical errors that could be brought about by lack of familiarity with the community (Bailur, 2007). These groups are also in a position to introduce the policy makers to the people who have the weightiest opinions and also potential participants. It is important to get all sides of the story and additionally make contact with all the necessary people. For example, the leaders in a community may not be interested in working in gang leaders for purposes of bringing to an end violence among the youth. However, the lack of involvement of gang leaders implies that made efforts have a low likelihood of succeeding (Aref, 2011). Networks have to be spread wide and all contacts have to be utilised for purposes of ensuring that they reach all people, and not only those who their initial contacts want them to meet. Policymakers also need to work on making their goals and processes increasingly clear which they achieve in small meetings that progressively grow into larger meetings. Meetings should be held with both formal groups and informal groups (McFarlane, 2000). Formal groups are made up of sports teams, fraternal organisations, clubs, unions and other groups of workers. The informal groups consist of families and groups of friends. Community meetings also have to be held to offer explanations of purpose and kick-start the recruiting of community members who would be actively involved in planning and assessment (Watt et al. 2000). Large numbers of people should be encouraged to participate and should be encouraged to be active, giving out ideas and sharing their thoughts on the outcomes they would be interested in seeing and how these processes could possibly proceed. Aref (2011), argues that from time to time, service delivery to societies does not work as a result of the absence of adequate financial authority at the grassroots levels and also as a result of the existing rigidities within audit systems and operational rules. Helplessness comes about from all of this coupled with inaction on the functionaries part. For example, in the case of voluntary organisations, procedures requiring the filling of multiplicity forms, adherence to audit and accounting systems that are complex, and multi-level files examination that also tends to be repetitive (Bailur, 2007). All these are factors that lead to delays in the release of funds and have effects on their functioning. The delivery systems sub-optimal functioning has a relatively high opportunity-cost which has to be appreciated and there is also need to undertake reforms of procedures and outmoded rules, within the context of decentralised planning and implementation.

Social planning as a change process

The process of social planning brings about changes in numerous aspects of community living including economic, social, environmental and cultural. Social planning aims at achieving continuous improvement, first with the assistance of change agents, then by the members of the community in pursuit of changes in their lives, which goes a long way in improving their lives (Gilchrist, 2019). The focus of the process of social planning, is therefore, on the involvement of individuals, where the members of a community come together for purposes of collectively taking action with the intention of meeting their goals and even generating suitable solutions for their shared problems (File, 2017). The development of communities as a result of social planning only happens when a community`s population strengthens its bonds, works on building their social networks and additionally form their organisations which provide them with problem-solving long term capacities. Those members of a community who possess the capacities of doing things that are capable of enhancing the quality of their lives are seen as possessing the abilities of thinking, making decisions, and taking actions that determine their lives. Downs (2017), highlights the need of both individual growth and economics being given equal attention for purposes of ensuring that the community development processes are able to achieve their due balances of sustainability and continuity. It is worth noting that the scope of the processes of community development tends to vary from simple community initiatives involving small groups to larger initiatives that are more complex involving larger numbers of the members of a community. Regardless of the number of people who are involved in an initiative, community organising is a fundamental characteristic of community development (Yuan et al. 2021). People always have to organise themselves before actions are taken. Community organising involves the development of instruments that are democratic with which the members of a community can make decisions and additionally make influences that have effects on their lives. Under normal circumstances, group establishment is the product of community organising. Formed groups could either be formal or informal, with formal leadership structures or without them. Over time, these groups concurrently develop with the development of the confidence of the members of a group, their knowledge, skills, abilities, and experiences (Cave, 2018). What this implies is that community development is a process that happens in the grassroots and through which the members of a community become increasingly responsible, competent, aware, informed and sensitive about the environment they live in. social, political, and economic environments are those opportunities and spaces through which the members of a community are able to develop their potentials and capabilities. The social planning process is not in any way an evolutionary process. For the success in planning to be achieved, extensive planning has to be carried out and it is of essence to put efforts into the processes (Roseland and Spiliotopoulou, 2017). In line with this thought process, the process of social planning entails more than just the development of the capacities of communities but also involves the capacities of change agents and additionally addressing problems and issues, for purposes of discovering opportunities and avenues that would meet the needs of societies and additionally bring about improvements in different services and situations.

Need for social planning

The ultimate goals of social planning are human development and improvement. Proper social planning takes into account the required resources for human development and the available human resources for carrying out the plans (Spencer, 2019). Social planning plays an important role and that is because it enables precise formulation of whatever plans to be achieved within a set time frame. Through the prioritisation of different objectives, it becomes possible to demarcate the objectives that are more important from those that are not as important. After this has been accomplished, it becomes possible to make decisions on the feasible considerations once consideration has been given to the resources that are available at hand and the different ways through which to mobilise additional resources. Therefore, planning is an increasingly scientific path towards achievement of the objectives of development, and for bringing about social and economic transformation in ways that are systematic (Twelvetrees, 2017). Social planning is appropriate in the event it was asked for by the community, a problem or an issue has reached a crisis proportion, and when there exist a long-standing issue like poverty, hunger, violence or housing that effectively attracts the attention of policymakers. The problems being faced by a community could have reached such levels where it is largely felt that there is need to do something. In economies that are underdeveloped and that are characterised by inequalities in ownership of assets and incomes, social planning plays a very important role. In the underdeveloped countries, there are high incidences of poverty, which when couples with the inequalities increases the importance of the tasks of development. In addition, there exist regional problems and imbalances that have connections with the development of disadvantaged areas as a result of ecological and geographical factors. This brings to the core the need for planning for purposes of meeting these challenges (Previtali and Salvati, 2019). There is an important role played by social policies and that is because the benefits of economic growth do not always reach all people automatically. Social policies are in addition to being justified from a humanitarian viewpoint, also a political and economic need for attainment of future economic growth and political stability, minimally for purposes of maintaining the support of citizens for their governments. To be specific, there are different arguments advanced for equitable policies of development. By investing in people, the labour force`s quality and productivity is enhanced and this goes a long way in improving the investment climate, effectively contributing to growth. Also, when the incomes of the poor are increased, domestic demand is increased, and this in effect, encourages growth. Increased rations of consumption among groups with lower income lead to expansion of domestic markets (Huber, 2017). Social planning plays an important role in providing the foundation for that communities build off for purposes of improving the lives of citizens. Through social planning, communities that are relatively strong and diverse are created with the capabilities of contributing to the development of the community and further overcoming issues that come about. When social planning is effective, the rates of crime are lower, the disparity among citizens is lowers, there are better available jobs, and there are reduced overall issues with impacts on residents. It is worth noting that social planning does not necessarily solve the issues within a society but reduces problems and further increases growth opportunities. In the absence of social planning, communities suffer greatly (Kahn, 1969). It has become increasingly recognised that social planning plays an important role in the elimination of poverty. Development relates to social conditions improvements and in the quality of life of people in societies.

Social planning as a political process

Greed (2002) identifies social planning as a political process as a result of the integral role it plays in governance. Power has to be exercised in the process of planning for purposes of obtaining the necessary sanction for the initiation of planning and additional direction and also realising the created visions of the future. For communities to establish communal goals and structures and additionally work towards the realization of the same, there has to be planning. To move communal affairs from irrational and random conflicts to increasingly rational efforts marked by a higher sense of mastery over the stresses of social existence, there has to be planning. Governments are also involved in the processes of social planning, even though the roles of the government in these processes are often faced with uncertainties because of the differences in opinion on social planning from community to community. The involvement of any level government in the process of social planning is dependent on the community`s themselves. Karepova et al. (2015), point out that local governments are involved in prompting and management of community development in their own jurisdictions from time to time, as some of their responsibilities include ensuring a level of quality for all residents. The majority of the restrictions that have been put in place in today`s societies are entirely in existence as a result of the different laws that governments create and further enforce. For some communities, this is the only way through which the government is involved in the processes of social planning. The prevailing conditions within a community determine whether the involvement of the government in social planning is necessary. For instance, various issues related to infrastructure, could only be possibly fixed after the government has issued official approval (Getz et al. 2012). The larger a community is structurally and geographically, the more the likelihood of the involvement of the government at some point. Community development goals that are increasingly adventurous could also require certain levels of the involvement of the government and this is entirely dependent on the involved factors. Governments have resources that can come in handy in the process of social planning. Access to various resources including money always increases the attractiveness of the involvement of the government in the process of community development. Resources are a huge motivator and for different communities, they could act as an obstacle that prevents them from reaching their social planning goals (O`Hara, 2006). Social planners could apply for different government programs including tax breaks that hold the potential of easing different financial burdens. Social planning could also benefit from loan guarantees and project funding that is available to the different organisations that meet the set requirements. The involvement of the government additionally acts as a guide and also a buffer for the process of social planning, and holds the potential of lowering the risks that communities have in relation to making improvements. Things are kept on track by the different rules that are put in place, which makes is relatively hard to skip crucial steps. In addition, there are existing contingencies that are attached to government programs and sources of funding in the event failure happens or there are issues; the communities that make use of government resources are not completely disadvantaged in the event one thing or another goes wrong (Ulrich, 1983). The involvement of the government also provides social planning initiatives with environmental and economic protections. Governments have the responsibility of protecting the different things that are within their jurisdictions. The most common protections are enforcement of the rights and regulations of communities, for purposes of preventing the rights from either being abused or being taken advantage of. Social planning initiatives cannot be implemented in the event they carry harms to communities and that is because result-repairs and improvement of public spaces have to follow safety protocols that have been put up in place by governments (Apthorpe, 1970). In addition, social planning and planning tend to be part of the responsibilities of governments and often, government officials are experienced in social planning. The knowledge of the government could come in handy as a valuable resource and that is especially in the young communities, where leaders could possibly not be entirely sure about their actions. There are even tasks that communities could have to complete for purposes of implementing improvements that could involve actions carried out by the members or a community from time to time in their daily jobs. However, the social planners who are hesitant about involving the government often cite different issues including the restrictions placed by governments, and the loss of control. The laws and rules that have the potential of assisting communities with improving also act as restrictions to their actions. The involvement of the government is characterised with extensive bureaucracy and politics that at times could be troublesome (Pigg, 2002). There are instances when social planners have to give up on some of their goals as a result of the many restrictions that are put in place which in effect make it difficult for them to achieve their goals. Even in those instances when there are no problems created by the restrictions, navigating through them has the potential of being exceedingly frustrating. The involvement of the government can also result in the social planner’s loss of control over their initiatives. Interventions are considered as a mechanism through which to personal freedoms are either taken or restricted and that would in effect deny the members of a community the opportunities of making decisions with ease. This type of power imbalance could bring out other issues and possibly even impede the development process of a community. During the discussion of the roles of the government, politics factor in. Politics has ties with the motivation of individuals and their actions, and the different community goals of improvement could be influenced by political agenda. That could include what is being done, how it`s done, the reasons why it`s being done, and the people who are involved. As a result of this, there are numerous questions that come about in relation to the involvement of officials in government and community leaders, whether what they do is out of genuine desire to help the community or just further their agenda. Across the globe, Crawford et al. (2008), reckon that the drive and enthusiasm for the development of communities is a by-product of political agendas, and that is especially when it positively reflects on some individuals. Those who are involved in enacting improvements and leading the processes of community development often obtain some certain degree of recognition and power for themselves within societies. This personally helps them and additionally helps whatever they are part of; public support goes to what and who proves to be a beneficial force. However, when the government is involved, the roles played by politics in the process of social planning tend to be problematic. Communities by themselves have their own politics, and there is always the potential of emergence of clashes with the politics of those who offer them assistance. In the event a communities political beliefs counter the political beliefs of the government, those who lead social planning processes could decide on rejecting any assistance and resource offers that come from the government.

Social planning for energy transitions

Energy transitions are to a large extent social affairs. The history of energy documents in detail the various societal ramifications that go hand in hand with, and the social dynamics that drive energy technology changes. Even with this, an observation is made that the majority of energy policies only rarely incorporate the energy systems social dimensions. For instance, the concentration of the majority of the national energy policies and planning documents is on energy technologies (Miller and Richter, 2014). Even in those instances when there are social considerations they have the tendencies of being narrowly economic and are largely focused on the prices of energy, the jobs that the energy industry creates, and energy access to some extent. Without a doubt, these are important social planning aspects for energy transition, however, they do not adequately estimate the breadth and depth of the social issues that are at stake in large-scale transformations of energy systems which is as a result of the coupling of social organisation to the production and consumption of energy. In energy transitions, the social planning concept offers a framing that is relatively innovative for energy planning and policy that often accompanies economic and technical analyses and the making of decisions, and that is especially in the current context of flux and uncertainty that engulfs the energy sector. For energy transitions, the idea of social planning has its roots in the ever increasing recognition within energy literature that energy systems are quintessentially socio-technological systems. Miller and Richter (2014), describe socio-technological systems as those systems that entirely intertwine technological and social elements to the extent that disentangling them is not possible. In relation to energy, technologies of heating, electricity, cooling and transportation are bound up with a relatively diverse array of political and social phenomena. This includes, regulatory frameworks, with a good example being fuel economy standards, gender relations, urban planning and geopolitics. The integration`s depth is such that with time, the organisation and dynamics of socio-energy systems come about and take form in patterns that are tightly interlinked of social and technological configuration. Because in reality energy systems are socio-energy patterns, then it should not come as a surprise that energy changes are accompanied by societal changes.

Social planning in urban planning

Social planning has throughout the 20th century been carried out by different levels of government, by non-governmental organisations, by philanthropic bodies and also by the private industry (Gleeson and Randolph, 2002). Social planning has therefore found its grounding in different fields including, planning for social services, social policy, social work, social welfare, and community organisation. That goes a long way in giving social planning a relatively broad institutional history that is also far reaching. For example, in Australia a system of different organisations and agencies are used in social planning for purposes of implementing state and even national government social policies (Levy, 2016). Every other agency or organisation deals with a range of social issues that are complex and these include child welfare, social deprivation, and families. When focused is moved to the relationships that exist between cities and planning, the influence of the institutional planning history of urban planning. Over the years just like social planning, urban planning has not just been a function of the government, but has also been a profession and an academic scholarship discipline too. For example, the Planning Institute of Australia established the Social Planning Chapter back in 2003 for purposes of recognising the crucial role that was played by planning in community`s well-being and effectiveness (Perkins and Thorns, 2001). The raised profile of social planning within the context of urban planning could be interpreted as a response to the view of urban planning having the tendency of being focused on and being largely dominated by physical planning. The attempts of elevating the process of social urban planning is marked in different ways: by the attempts of tempering with the physical environmental determinism that appeared as dominating it, subsequently questioning their validity; and also through the creation of urban planning processes that made efforts towards integrating the processes of physical planning with a set of social planning processes that were equally explicit and powerful with the end goal of creating an even more powerful urban planning approach (Gunder and Hillier, 2007). Modern urban planning in the recent years has been developing in response to emergent urban life conditions whose concern is mostly on issues like squalor and overcrowding in the increasingly expanding cities of the world. Levy (2016), argues that the physical environment had been one of the major social behaviour determinants in addition to being a direct contributor to the social welfare of individuals. On this basis, physical improvement of cities has been encouraged with arguments that there is need for city governments and municipalities to put in place such legislations that ensure control of future constructions in addition to segregating different types of urban activities. Urban planning, was, however, earlier on dominated by architects and engineers and most of the emphasis was on enforcing building and zoning legislation, which in effect, diverted attention from urban planning’s social aspects (Abramson, 2006). Following the First World War, zoning and the subsequent preparation of master plans became increasingly common in the majority of the countries in the West. It was during this period that the faith placed in the urban planning practise grew. One of the early researchers, Haig (1926) made an argument that it would one day be possible for planners to specify where things actually belonged in vast metropolitan regions, through the utilisation of a scientific zoning basis for the good of all people. The post-war period was the golden era of city-planning posterity and the urban planning concept was during the period referred to as ‘architecture large.’ The majority of the planners during this period were trained architects and architect planners and an increased dismay over the impact of physical urban planning programs was witnessed. These included the urban renewal, highway construction and suburban sprawl. Yiftachel and Hedgcock (1993), however, argues that suburban housing tracts spawned a generation of deprived children, who were being brought up by mothers who were addicted to coffee and neurotic in a largely matriarchal society. Rein (1969), highlights that the redevelopment of the central cities contributed to the dispossessing lower-income groups of the habitats they preferred, in addition to inflicting psychic disturbance, and leading to their social communities being destroyed. The new designs of new high rise houses effectively bred a new species that was disinherited culturally, new and sterile. These factors brought about dissatisfaction with the doctrine of physical environmental determinism, effectively giving rise to self-criticism and also external criticism (Potter et al. 2009). Different views began emerging in relation to whether it was necessary for urban planning to stick with the land management subject and the physical environment or whether there was need for it to shift its focus to an even broader range of issues related to social policy. An argument was advanced by Gans (1968) that because planning was largely about people, designing and using land, and the different aesthetic urban planning aspects had to be subordinated to the concerns of the society. Another researcher, Broady (1968), was increasingly critical about planning`s physical determinism and made an argument for the need for urban planning to make efforts to strengthen social institutions, in addition to promoting the potential of humans and additionally fostering social integration through the improvement of people`s social relationships. The ideas of these scholars, pointed to the need of increasing urban planning`s social sensitivity (Grahramanpouri et al. 2013).

Urban planning subsequently shifted from being an art into a science and many planners experienced this as profoundly unsettling. While in the past planners of towns had the tendencies of viewing and judging towns in predominantly aesthetic terms, they began examining towns in terms of their economic activities and social life (Golubchikov, 2004). That in turn implied that urban contexts were not seen as end-states any more but were instead seen as live functioning things within dynamic processes. Urban planners within the new context increasingly began recognising more social components of their work. From the analysis of these developments, greater interest in urban planning’s political, economic and social dimensions was stimulated and there was gradual recognition of urban planning involving different tasks including the creation of jobs through planned investment, and anticipation of urban planning`s social impacts. On the basis of these different developments, a new social planning dimension that reflected urban planning`s social facets emerged.

Chapter Three: Methodology

Introduction

Depending on the type of a study and its scope, research studies have to employ the most appropriate research methodologies and strategies (Chilisa, 2019). That makes an important contribution to the effective completion of the research studies, subsequently contributing to the promotion of the achievement of the study`s specific objectives and aims. There are different factors that act as determinants of the types of methods and strategies that are to be adopted and implemented by researchers and these include, the time available for the researchers within which they can complete their studies and the environments in which they carry out their studies (Ackyord, 2006). For purposes of selecting and additionally ensuring that the most appropriate strategies and methods for a study are used, researchers always have to ensure that they develop an in-depth understanding of the different available research strategies and the extent of their relevance and application to different types of studies. Eventually, that also results in the need for researchers to appreciate the extent of suitability of different research strategies to particular studies as every other method is unique and only applicable to some types of studies and not others (Saldhana and O`brien, 2014). To ensure effective investigation of the elements of social planning, the researcher carries out a literature search in a systemised manner for purposes of meeting the dissertations aims and objectives. In research, facts and any pieces of information that are relevant to a particular topic have to be searched for in a methodological manner. Research is aimed at uncovering answers to questions by applying scientific procedures. There are two types of research in existence, primary and secondary research. In primary research, researchers only collect fresh data, which is collect data on particular subjects for the first time (Reeves et al. 2008). On the other hand, secondary research involves using already collected data, collected through primary research. The main difference between secondary research and primary research is that secondary research is reliant on data that was collected previously by other researchers and for different research purposes while the data collected in primary research is entirely fresh (Reeves, 2008). Considerable time, resources and money are required in primary research and the researcher decided to carry out secondary research as a result of the fact that data for secondary research is derived from readily available sources and there is not as much money and time consumed as in primary research. Analysis of secondary data saves time which would have otherwise been spent in the collection of data and particularly, in the case of quantitative data have the potential of providing larger databases with increased quality that would not be feasible for individual researchers to go about collecting their own data. Also, secondary data is available from various sources and could possibly have been used in other research studies in the past, which makes carrying out further research even easier (Walliman, 2010). What makes secondary research cost-efficient and time-saving is that there are other researchers who had already collected the data and published in readily available journals.

Research Philosophy

As a result of the significant and critical role played by the research philosophy in the prediction of the quality of data collected by researchers and subsequent completion of studies, the research philosophy is a highly relevant aspect of any research process (Hair et al. 2007). Due to this, researchers have to go about identifying and additionally adopting such types of research philosophies that are highly suitable for the types of studies that they carry out and that is because that goes a long way in determining the study`s overall nature and quality. Dependent on the type of a research study, different studies mostly utilise one of the three common philosophies of research, positivism, intepretivism and realism (Cohen et al. 2002). It is worth noting that every other philosophy has its own unique set of advantages and disadvantages that are contingent on the type of study in which it is used. For purposes of completing this study in a manner that ensures that the set objectives are met, this study utilised the positivist research philosophy. What guides this decision is the fact that the positivist philosophy has over time been demonstrated to have the potential of eradicating the probability of the researcher having any bias when going about data collection, which goes a long way in the promotion of objectivity, subsequently decreasing the possible error margins in the findings of the study that could have come about from collection of data in a biased manner. Positivism puts researchers in a better position obtain results that could possibly be considered as a true and accurate representation of the different elements of social planning.

Research approach

The research approach is defined as the procedure and plan whereby details are given of the general assumptions made in a study in addition to the extensive strategies to be employed in the processes of collecting data and analysis, and presenting the findings in ways that enable the objectives and goals of the study to be attained. Deductive and inductive approaches are the two most common and widely used approaches to research (Cooper et al. 2006). Researchers always have to give critical consideration to the type of research they carry out and the level of availability and accessibility of the necessary data for carrying out a research study. The deductive research approach is typically employed mostly in the studies that require easily accessible and readily available data, while the inductive research approach is most suited for those scenarios where the required data for the completion of a study is not readily available or is not easy to access. As a result of the existence of multiple literature materials and sources, implying the presence of an extensive body of knowledge, on the study topic, which are readily available and whose access is relatively easy, the deductive research approach will be adopted for this study. The deductive research approach enables the researcher to carry out an extensive review and additionally analyse different literature materials and additionally draw on their findings for purposes of conjuring conclusions which are key for the illustration of the achievement of the objectives and goals of a study.

Research Design

The research design provides an idea of how a research study is to be carried out and the processes and procedures that are followed by the researcher for purposes of addressing the research questions that are at the centre of the research. A secondary research design is adopted in this study (Cooper et al. 2006). To a large extent, this is a rather common systematic approach to carrying out investigations and involves researchers entirely depending on data that is already in existence throughout the entire research process. In line with this research design, different data samples are organised, collated, and further analysed for purposes of enabling the researcher to reach valid research conclusions. In secondary research, already existing data is synthesised and this data is obtained from different sources including the internet, peer-reviewed journals, textbooks, and government archives. In secondary research, already established patterns are studied and the information in studies is subsequently applied the context of the current study.

Data collection and collection strategies used

The collection of data enables studies to be effectively completed and has over time grown into an increasingly critical and increasingly relevant phase in the process of carrying out research. Researchers therefore have to give careful consideration to the types of studies they carry out as that facilitates the prediction of the type of data that they need to collect in addition to its availability and ease of access. All these are factors that make a contribution to effectively achieving the objectives of a study in addition to answering the different research questions. A systematic review was carried out for this study and this involved reviewing literature from different sources including reports, journals, research studies and articles for purposes of collecting secondary data that was subsequently used for completion of the study. Systematic reviews identify, select and carry out critical appraisal of research for purposes of answering clearly formulated research questions. Gough et al. (2017) recommend that systematic reviews have to follow protocols and plans that are clearly defined where criteria is stated with clarity before the carrying out of the review. Systematic reviews are a comprehensive and transparent search that is carried out over different databases and grey literature that is replicable and reproducible by any other researchers. A well thought out search strategy has to be planned and this should be specifically focused on answering defined questions. The review endeavours to identify the type of searched information and the information that is subsequently critiqued and reported within timeframes that are known (Kitchenham, 2004). Also included in the review are search strategies, which include the names of databases, search dates and platforms and the different limits that have to be included in the review.

Data analysis and presentation

The researcher carried out secondary data analysis which involved analysing the existing data that other researchers had already collected. Researchers are through secondary analysis provided with opportunities of investigating their research questions which is achieved through the use of large-scale data sets, which have the tendencies of including groups that are unrepresented, in addition to enabling the saving of resources and time. The researcher spent significant time reading through different data sets and critically analysing them.

Ethical considerations

The availability of the data used in this research in different sources including the internet, books and other different literature sources, meant that there was implied permission for its use. However, the researcher put effort to ensure that the ownership of original data was always acknowledged and this was achieved through extensively citing the different data sources and additionally referencing them. Additionally, the researcher made sure that the collected data was not used in any way that would result in any types of damages or distress.

Chapter Four: Results and Discussion

Introduction

This dissertation sought to identify the elements of social planning. Appraisal of different literature sources identified three main elements of social planning, strategic planning, community participation and financing.

Strategic planning

Strategic planning is a framework that provides a relatively systematic approach applicable for purposes of planning for future development and additionally allocating the necessary resources for the changes that are anticipated (Blair, 2004). Usually, planning and setting of goals, looks at the past and planning for the future is based on historic trends. In strategic planning, consideration is given to events and trends that have a likelihood of happening in the future and then goes about basing planning and allocation of resources on the changes that are anticipated to happen. Often, simple planning is not adequate for purposes of implementation and that is because the plans are not linked with action and resources (Watson-Thompson et al. 2008). Anticipated change is the crux of strategic planning. What this implies is that social planners plan develop their plans by envisioning the future and how it will look. The obvious questions that social planners often have to answer include how the future will be different, and what decisions could be made now on the basis of future perceptions. The strategic planning of social planners is basically premised on: thoroughly understanding the purpose of the existence of a community, that is, having an understanding of the workings of the community`s socio-political and economic structure (Hancock and Epston, 2013). Also, there should be familiarity with competition and a comparison of existing weaknesses and strengths. Additionally, developed strategies have to be built on strengths and additionally overcome weaknesses. The focus of strategic planning should be on key variables including external trends that have impacts on local communities and the various internal factors that either act as strengths or weaknesses. It is worth noting that these are just some of the critical issues and there are many more possible issues. Additionally, because action comes about from the process and action addresses these different issues. Hintea (2008), argues that strategic planning is more focused on implementation instead of just the setting of goals and long-range planning. There are different models of strategic planning that are often used and these include; issues-based, scenario, goals-based and organic planning (Thomas, 2021). There are also different business analysis techniques that could possibly be utilized in strategic planning and these include, SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats), PEST analysis (Political, Economic, Social and Technological), and STEER analysis (Socio-cultural, Technological, Economic, Ecological, and Regulatory factors), and EPISTEL (Environmental, Political, Information, Social, Technological, Economic and Legal). Thomas (2021), points out that there are two models that are mainly designed for use by different service-based organizations, arguing that all other models are designed for profit and non-profit organisations and businesses. These models are SWOT and PEST. Hu et al. (2014), however argues that having effective and efficient strategic plans that are also successful for social planners, are not based on certain types of models, but on the application of the models. The SWOT model has over time proven to be an effective model for the evaluation and additional provision of analysis on the internal and external environment of a social planning organization (Bryson et al. 2018). The members of strategic planning teams work best in small groups led by team leaders who are charged with brainstorming and concurrently exchanging ideas on what an organization could do well, the challenges they face and additionally identifying opportunities and threats. Evaluation of the internal environment involves analysis of the strengths of the social planning organization and its weaknesses, through examination of their plans, budgets, programs, resources, and past performance. On the other hand, the evaluation of the external environment involves an analysis of opportunities and threats and this involves reviewing other private agencies including health departments, service authorities, police departments, and disaster and emergency services. The goals, missions, objectives and resources of these external agencies. In addition to the SWOT analysis, Thomas (2021), recommends that an analysis also has to be carried out of the political, economic, social and technological factors (PEST analysis). Social planners have to analyse the different ways through which these political, economic, social and technological factors could possibly affect their programs and initiatives. That requires the planners to work with others and it is worth noting that the SWOT and PEST analysis have to be carried out with the community in mind with a proper understanding of what is best for the community. Strategic planning plays an instrumental role in avoidance of planning in a vacuum. From time to time, the success of the goals that are established is dependent on political, economic, and social support, and recent technological advancements could act as enabling catalysts for particular programs and projects to either gain financial resources or political support. After the analysis, the social planners have to develop their mission statements for the community projects and initiatives they plan on initiating. These mission statements act as the guiding stars for the organisations and they describe what the organisations are all about, what they do and the vision they have for communities (Zaferatos, 2004). After the evaluation of the social planning organization, its internal and external factors, and additionally developing their mission statement, the other steps involve defining their goals, objectives and preparing timetables. These goals and objectives define the levels of services that are to be provided to communities. These goals further act as the policy statements of social planners, stating their intent and purposes. In strategic planning of social initiatives, goals act to provide planning teams with increasingly clear directions on the paths they have to follow. There are three different ways through which goals are developed, autocratic, team-based and democratic method. Within the autocratic method, team leaders set goals and make sure that the other members of their teams follow them. Ziakas (2016), however argues that this type of goal-setting is not very effective and that is because the goals are only set by one person. Under the democratic approach, team leaders develop processes through which all the members of a team are able to make inputs on the goals that are eventually established. The process, however, has the potential of drawbacks which come about from the failure to effectively address some issues and the process also has the potential of allowing support of the hidden agendas of individuals. The other approach, the team-based approach consumes the most time but has the tendencies of being the best option. That is because team leaders set up teams that are subsequently tasked with analysis of problem statements, creation of goals, and measurement of progress.

Definition of the social planning objectives is meant to establish the exact results expected over a period of time. Objectives are also recognized as milestones. Thomas (2021), recommends the narrow focusing of goals and they should be in a position of providing defined steps, which when followed, lead to the accomplishment of goals. At times, several objectives could be required for purposes of effectively implementing a single goal. In addition, in the same way it is necessary to establish a time frame for the processes of planning, a specific time frame also has to be assigned to goals and objectives and the timeframe should be flexible and reasonable.

Community participation

Numerous studies report on the importance of community participation in social planning. Zhang et al. (2018), reports that the active participation of the community in social planning and the subsequent implementation of plans has the potential of improving the designs of plans through the use of local knowledge, increased accessibility of a developed project, production of increasingly equitable benefits distribution, promotion of local mobilisation of resources and community participation also helps ensure the sustainability of a project. Sandham et al. (2019), defines community participation within the development context as an active process through which beneficiaries are able to influence how development projects are directed and subsequently executed instead of merely receiving some of the projects benefits. Manzo and Perkins (2006), stresses on the need for distinguishing between the involvement of beneficiaries in the processes of planning and subsequently implementing projects that are externally initiated; external assistance to strengthen and create local organisations; and the different local organization activities that are carried out spontaneously. According to Bath and Wakerman (2015), one of the most controversial issues relates to whether there is need to consider either empowerment or efficiency as conflicting or complementary objectives. The perceived overall development goals determine the prioritisation of the objectives of community participation. Aref (2011), recognises community participation as having the potential to bring about different benefits to social planning including improving the design of the plans. There exist considerable agreement as to the social factors that have to be taken into account in social planning. It is however, worth noting that over time, social analysis has been institutionalised in the same ways as technical, financial and economic analysis. Therefore, even with the presence of convincing evidence in relation to the various problems that possibly in the event there is no adequate understanding of local power structures, there is only little guidance on the different ways through which social analysis should be carried out or interpreted for purposes of avoiding the problems (Burns and Heywood, 2004). Community participation holds the potential of immensely contributing to the efficiency and effectiveness of any social program implemented by social planners. The agency staff in the field play an important role in the success of these programs. The staff have to treat the members of the community in ways that are respectful and they should not be seen to be favoring particular groups or individuals within communities as that would have detrimental effects on their participation. For that reason, Bailur (2004), argues that key groups and representatives have to be identified within the populations of interest. Stakeholder analysis It is never always possible for all the members of a society to make contributions to the plans that are implemented by social planners. Therefore, social planners have to put efforts to identify the key individuals and groups who could possibly be actively involved. Stakeholder analysis is one of the useful tools that can possibly be used for the identification of those individuals who should have a stake in the program (Burns and Heywood, 2004). Social planners must always endeavor to identify these stakeholders and the interests they have. Stakeholders could include individuals from a target population and also local agencies and authorities and they should be divided into primary, secondary and external stakeholders. The stakeholder’s possible impact or effect is either indicated as positive or negative and their influence over projects and programs has to be ranked. McFarlane (2000), recommends that minority groups have to be involved in community development.

Gender is a key factor for participation. While gender is based on sex, it has more to do with distinctions that are socially constructed, including expectations, behavior, dress and work and not just biological differences. There are three different categories in which gender-related differences can be split (Bailur, 2007). These are differing priorities and needs, differences in power and vulnerabilities, and equity and equality issues. Gender considerations relate to women, men, girls and boys and their strengths, priorities and vulnerabilities. Consideration of gender differences has ultimate benefits for social planers. That is because in the majority of the scenarios there is extensive focus on women in program activities, which comes about from the recognition of women having lesser influence when they are compared to men (Aref and Ma`rof, 2008). In line with this, from time to time, women groups are set up and these provide the women with forums for airing their views in contribution to the design of programs and their implementation. It is however, worth noting that gender does not automatically translate to bias towards women and the emphasis has to be on the pursuit of equal opportunities. The input of people with disabilities is also important. Often, the input of people with mental and physical disabilities tends to be overlooked in different planning situations. Disabled people are among the most vulnerable people and often they are not able to present their needs and priorities with clarity. It is for this reason that they have to be given special attention in all possible instances. That could include the construction of special sanitation facilities, offering them assistance in community activities and even the formation of focus groups comprising mainly of disabled individuals (Misener, 2015). The specific needs of the elderly also have to be considered at all times. For instance, the elderly who do not live with their younger family members could face challenges in participating in different communal physical activities including the excavation of pits and the construction of latrines. There is need that these vulnerable households are identified and possible solutions to the different problems they face identified and additionally implemented. Another important aspect of community participation is community mobilization and this relates to the different ways through which people are encouraged and additionally encouraged into participating in program activities. For purposes of successfully mobilizing communities, there is need to identify the exact place where the priorities of the members of a community lie and the different factors that motivate them (Rifkin and Kangere, 2002). One of the useful points in the identification of community leaders for purposes of establishing key contacts between community and the social planning agencies. In addition, care has to be taken to ensure the representation of all the members of a community. There is need that to note that there are no completely homogeneous communities and there is always the likelihood with a community will have people drawn from different backgrounds and with different characteristics. Therefore, what motivates a particular group may fail to motivate a different group. Social planners have to raise awareness of different issues that their plans would cover (Plummer and Taylor, 2013). For instance, if the focus of the social planners is on sanitation, then the planners should raise awareness of sanitations public health aspects and that would go a long way in motivating the people to participate. For other community members the opportunities of raising the status of an individual or their position within a society could be a stronger motivation for other members of a community. It is also worth noting that sources of motivation may not always be obvious immediately, and efforts have to be put to identify these motivators. The majority of activities of participation have a high likelihood of taking place within group settings. Within the context of group meetings, facilitation plays an important role and relates to the different ways through which an individual with zero decision making authority can help the group to be increasingly effective and efficient in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation operations (Berry et al. 2007). Assuming this role is not always easy but it is vital that communities are accorded real powers to make decisions and to be responsible. Capacity building could play an important role as it would place individuals in a better position to carry out participatory research and develop planning techniques which would see the development of their planning techniques (Leksakundilok, 2004). Capacity building within the community level plays an important role in the development of skils and additional building of confidence to social planning. Capacities could be built through building of confidence and skills training and this could be a key ingredient to motivate and additionally mobilize the various sections within a community.

Finance

After the development of proper community participation mechanisms, and even after the development of appropriate social plans, the other important element identified from different studies is financing. There has to be adequate finances to match the social planning ideas. This section provides a discussion of the various types of capital that could possibly be deployed within social planning initiatives, how social planners could possibly increase their chances of accessing capital, and the different current trends in community development finance. Broughel and Hampl (2018), point out that the financing of community development has the tendency of being complex and often requires the patience and adaptability of social planners. That is because some of the initially conceived funding sources may fail to come to fruition and there is also the possibility of other funding that was not initially considered in the process of planning, proving to be necessary for ensuring the full capitalization of projects (Kenton et al. 2005). While it is possible to find funding sources with the capabilities of supporting initiatives for community development at the federal, state and local levels, often, it takes a combination of different funding types for purposes of ensuring full capitalization of projects. The process of funding these projects is further complicated by the fact that funding sources have the tendency of being in constant flux (Monroy and Hernandez, 2005). Due to this, successful completion of a project, in addition to requiring resilience and determination, also requires adaptation to prevailing circumstances as necessary. Therefore, adaptability is another key core principle and its importance rises when there is the likelihood of the funding sources that have the potential of successfully capitalizing one initiative have the likelihood of being different from those that would capitalize other projects undertaken in the future. The field of social planning is relatively broad and comprises of different aspects that involve the creation of opportunities for the members of community`s to improve their lives (Dymski, 2009). The available sources of finance to support this work are no less carried. There is the possibility of financing social planning initiatives with multiple funding sources, including philanthropic grants, private capital and the incentives that are provided by local utilities, and grants and subsidies from federal, state and local governments. There are instances where social planning corporations utilize their own operating funds for purposes of offering support for their community initiatives and these either take the form of equity or debt (Umamaheswaran and Rajiv, 2015). While there is the possibility of subsidies and grants from governments continuously declining over time, there are different individuals and private enterprises whose levels of engagement in community development finance are higher and this is otherwise referred to as impact investing. It is quite common to finance social planning initiatives through debt (Mathur, 2009). In contrast to the traditional capital markets, there exist relatively unique debt for practitioners of social planning with numerous advantages. Typically, these advantages included, less stringent requirements for underwriting and low interest rates. The loan products that are designed specifically for social planning are offered by different institutions including community development finance institutions, foundations, investment firms, and individuals through crowd funding. It is worth noting that financial institutions do not always have the capacities of spending the time required for sourcing and carefully underwriting the initiatives of community development (Nicolaescu et al. 2012). Due to this, there has been an increasing number of investments by financial institutions in community development financial institutions (CDFI`s). The CDFI`s aggregate capital from banks, individuals and foundations and have extensive expertise that enables them to lend prudently for different types of activities including residential development, community development, community healthcare centers, small businesses, and even charter schools. The operations of CDFI`s extend to both rural and urban areas. The Community Development Finance Association provides the CDFI`s with the necessary support and capital that place organisations in a better position to develop and further create wealth within underserved markets and also in communities that are disadvantaged. Currently, there are over 50 CDFI`s that operate in the UK and these are extensively dedicated to the delivery of responsible lending that is also affordable that helps low-wealth, low-income and other disadvantages groups within communities such that are able to join the economic mainstream. These institutions are observed to put communities first and not their shareholders (Blank et al. 2010).

Foundations also offer financing. Often, foundations are entirely thought of in terms of the entities that give away proportions of their money every year to nonprofit organizations while also investing the amounts of capital that they remain with to capital markets. The focus of foundations is largely on grant-making, a relatively important capital source, however, over the years, it has become more common for foundations to invest portions of their assets in program-related investments (PRIs) (Obetta and Oreh, 2017). These PRIs act to complement the social impacts that are obtained from the making of grants, and additionally generating returns on investment that are modest. PRIs operate in different financing forms including, interest-free and below-market-rate loans to non-profit organizations, purchasing of promissory notes from nonprofit organizations, purchase of loan participation to nonprofit organizations, equity investment in for-profit entities, and low-interest-rate deposits with banks and other financial institutions that have links with lending for charitable courses. These investments primary purpose has to be accomplishing charitable and other tax-exempt purposes and this does not include efforts of political lobbying. Investment firms also offer financing. Often, these firms are considered as institutions that are entirely meant for the maximization of their clients profits. However, with the emergence of donor-advised funds, various investment funds have been providing their clients with investment vehicles through which they can make contributions towards charity. Over time, these funds have become way popular and that is because they provide individuals with immediate tax benefits for other charitable contributions to be made in the future. Investment firms have in addition to securing financing in charitable organizations, been looking to identify different ways through which they can possibly leverage their investment vehicles (Blank et al. 2010). The Grameen foundation is a proper example of an organization that works with its clients for purposes of furthering community development. Financing from individuals through crowd-funding is another option. With the advent of online crowd-funding, individuals have been playing increasingly important roles in the financing of community development. There are different websites today, through which people can be able to comprehend the opportunities for financing initiatives of community development and what the particular capital needs could possibly be, whether these are credit, equity or debt enhancements, including loan guarantees, loans and grants. Kiva Zip is one of the platforms through which individuals can specifically use for purposes of funding initiatives of community development.

Equity

Social planning initiatives can also be possibly financed through the use of equity. There are different equity firms that go about investing in startups and these include, Tesla and Twitter among others. The same idea has over time been applied to the social sector and also in other forms of tax credit investments. Behind tax credits, there is the idea that developers are in a position to sell them to corporations and individuals who have tax liabilities, and in return, buyers are able to receive equity stakes (Broughel and Hampl, 2018). Corporations and individuals have over the years invested in numerous community development projects in the UK. These corporations and individuals become co-owners of the projects and as a result of this have the tendencies of taking increasingly active roles in the projects operations, when they are compared to lenders. Investors typically still remain owners of the community development projects during the entire time when tax credits are at risk, which implies that in the event a project falls out of compliance, for example, approval of people who are not eligible to live in affordable housing projects, the tax credits cease being eligible for redemption by investors. After the period of tax compliance comes to an end, ownership interest in the community development project is either donated or sold to the developments co-owners or even to third-party investors.

Grants

While community development projects could possibly be financed through debt and equity capital, grants are considered to be the lifeline for nonprofit projects. The main sources of philanthropic giving are individuals, foundations, corporations and bequests.

Chapter Five: Conclusion

The current study sought to identify the different elements of social planning. The identified elements were financing, community participation and strategic planning. These are the key elements that make social planning more effective and efficient. Communities stand to benefit a lot from social planning initiatives and social planners have to work tirelessly to achieve the fruition of their initiatives. Social planners stand to benefit from the development of Social Development Plans (SDP). These plans are focused on enhancement of a community`s citizen`s quality of life and they help with the provision of direction for future decisions in the key areas that the members of a community identify. These plans can only be built and designed appropriately with the collaboration of citizens, the government and organisations and play a pivotal role in the creation of a balance between the community`s health, social and economic needs. The strengths of a SDP`s lie in their abilities to engage citizens, mobilisation of communities and reinforcement and building upon the work that has been done already. The concern of social planning is with the definition of goals and the determination of future activities, identification of resources and ways through which the set goals can be accomplished for purposes of enabling social development. There are different examples of social development strategies and these include; the Big Puch Strategy, Critical Minimum Effort Strategy, Unbalanced Growth Strategy, Unified Development Approach, the Basic Needs Approach and the Holistic Approach to Development. Paul N. Rosenstein Rodan formulated the Big Push Strategy, an approach focused on picturing an extensive amount of investment on the industrial sector for purposes of jumping over the development obstacles. The approach places emphasis on the need for accelerating investments over a short period of time. In addition, it is focused on making economies self-sustaining over short periods of time, as bit by bit progression is not adequate. The other strategy, the Critical Minimum Effort Strategy was developed by Leibenstein and pictures some certain amount of minimum effort that takes the form of investment for achievement of self-accelerating growth in the face of a population that rises rapidly to enable the attainment of a substantial increase in per capita income. There is need that the initial investment in community development has to be significant enough such that the efforts of raising per capita income are not in any way frustrated by the growth of the population. Different scholars including Ragnar Nurske, Rosenstein Rodan, H. Leibenstein and W. Lewis propose the Balanced Growth Strategy. These scholars argue that there is need for the different areas of an economy to be equally developed for attainment of the maximum advantages. Emphasis is placed on a balance between an economy`s different sectors during the process of growth of the economy. A different scholar, Hirchman, proposed the Unbalanced Growth Strategy. His main arguments are that investments work best when they are made in pre-selected sectors instead of being done in all sectors of an economy simultaneously. This approach is supported by other economists including Streeten, Kindleberger, and Singer. As an alternative approach to development, social development goes after an alternative approach that is focused on empowering others and ensuring that actors remain autonomous, while also taking into account the various structural obstacles confronting them as they go about shaping their daily lives through the sense of learning for purposes of developing themselves. The unified approach to development argues that no sections of the population should be left out of the scope of change and development. The strategy is aimed at social equity, including achieving distribution of resources equitably within a community and gives a high priority to developing the potentialities of human beings. There are two ways through which the other approach, the Basic Needs Approach can be defined. One of the approach involves the inclusion of the previous approaches and strategies, including, alleviation of urban poverty, rural development, generation of employment through small scale industries, redistributing growth and other approaches oriented towards equity, and places emphasis on social services and transfer payments for all those who are deprived. The other approach is focused on the channelling of resources to groups particularly identified as being deficient in the resources. The approach is derived from the aim of meeting the basic needs of humans for purposes of changing output composition, which is the growth rate and its components and purchasing power distribution.

References

Abramson, D.B., 2006. Urban Planning in China: Continuity and Change: What the future holds may surprise you. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(2), pp.197-215.

Albright, K., Greenbaum, J., Edwards, S.A. and Tsai, C., 2020. Systematic review of facilitators of, barriers to, and recommendations for healthcare services for child survivors of human trafficking globally. Child abuse & neglect, 100, p.104289.

Apthorpe, R. ed., 1970. People Planning and Development Studies: Some Reflections on Social Planning. Psychology Press.

Archibald, T., Sharrock, G., Buckley, J. and Cook, N., 2016. Assumptions, conjectures, and other miracles: The application of evaluative thinking to theory of change models in community development. Evaluation and Program Planning, 59, pp.119-127.

Bailur, S., 2007, May. The complexities of community participation in ICT for development projects: The case of “Our Voices.”. In Proceedings of 9th international conference on social implications of computers in developing countries (pp. 1-17).

Baum, F., Putland, C., MacDougall, C. and Ziersch, A., 2011. Differing levels of social capital and mental health in suburban communities in Australia: did social planning contribute to the difference?. Urban Policy and Research, 29(1), pp.37-57.

Boisjoly, G. and Yengoh, G.T., 2017. Opening the door to social equity: local and participatory approaches to transportation planning in Montreal. European transport research review, 9(3), pp.1-21.

Colfer, C.J.P., Cerveny, L. and Hummel, S.S., 2019. Using rapid rural appraisal tools to explore gender and forests in the global north. Human Organization, 78(1), pp.12-27.

Crawford, P., Kotval, Z., Rauhe, W. and Kotval, Z., 2008. Social capital development in participatory community planning and design. Town Planning Review, 79(5), pp.533-555.

Dassah, E., Aldersey, H., McColl, M.A. and Davison, C., 2018. Factors affecting access to primary health care services for persons with disabilities in rural areas: a “best-fit” framework synthesis. Global health research and policy, 3(1), pp.1-13.

Escobedo, P., Gonzalez, K.D., Kuhlberg, J., Calanche, M.L., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., Contreras, R. and Bluthenthal, R., 2019. Community needs assessment among Latino families in an urban public housing development. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 41(3), pp.344-362.

Fredriksson, C., 2011. Planning in the'new reality': Strategic elements and approaches in Swedish municipalities (Doctoral dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology).

Getz, D., Svensson, B., Peterssen, R. and Gunnervall, A., 2012. Hallmark events: Definition and planning process. International Journal of Event Management Research, 7(1/2), pp.47-67.

Gow, D.D., 2019. Rapid rural appraisal: social science as investigative journalism. In Methods for social analysis in developing countries (pp. 143-163). Routledge.

Green, T.L., 2015. Leading for urban school reform and community development. Educational administration quarterly, 51(5), pp.679-711.

Heang, C. and Birchall, S.J., 2019. Community planning opportunities: Building resilience to climate variability using coastal naturalisation.

Jones, G.J., Edwards, M.B., Bocarro, J.N., Svensson, P.G. and Misener, K., 2020. A community capacity building approach to sport-based youth development. Sport management review, 23(4), pp.563-575.

Khodyakov, D., Stockdale, S., Jones, A., Mango, J., Jones, F. and Lizaola, E., 2013. On measuring community participation in research. Health Education & Behavior, 40(3), pp.346-354.

Laverack, G., 2001. An identification and interpretation of the organizational aspects of community empowerment. Community development journal, 36(2), pp.134-145.

Lee, T.H. and Jan, F.H., 2019. Can community-based tourism contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from residents’ perceptions of the sustainability. Tourism Management, 70, pp.368-380.

Linnenluecke, M.K., Verreynne, M.L., de Villiers Scheepers, M.J. and Venter, C., 2017. A review of collaborative planning approaches for transformative change towards a sustainable future. Journal of cleaner production, 142, pp.3212-3224.

Loss, J., Brew-Sam, N., Metz, B., Strobl, H., Sauter, A. and Tittlbach, S., 2020. Capacity building in community stakeholder groups for increasing physical activity: results of a qualitative study in two German communities. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(7), p.2306.

Mara, D., 2018. ‘Top-down’planning for scalable sustainable sanitation in high-density low-income urban areas: is it more appropriate than ‘bottom-up’planning?. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 8(2), pp.165-175.

Meerow, S., Pajouhesh, P. and Miller, T.R., 2019. Social equity in urban resilience planning. Local Environment, 24(9), pp.793-808.

Misener, L., 2015. Leveraging parasport events for community participation: Development of a theoretical framework. European Sport Management Quarterly, 15(1), pp.132-153.

Moscardo, G., Konovalov, E., Murphy, L., McGehee, N.G. and Schurmann, A., 2017. Linking tourism to social capital in destination communities. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6(4), pp.286-295.

Nekwaya, J.H., 2007. Assessing community participation in development planning and service delivery: a case study of the Omusati Regional Council (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch).

Noelke, C. and Horn, D., 2014. Social transformation and the transition from vocational education to work in Hungary: a differences-in-differences approach. European sociological review, 30(4), pp.431-443.

Perkins, H.C. and Thorns, D.C., 2001. A decade on: reflections on the Resource Management Act 1991 and the practice of urban planning in New Zealand. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28(5), pp.639-654.

Plummer, J. and Taylor, J.G., 2013. Community participation in China: Issues and processes for capacity building. Routledge.

Potter, R.B., Darmame, K., Barham, N. and Nortcliff, S., 2009. “Ever-growing Amman”, Jordan: Urban expansion, social polarisation and contemporary urban planning issues. Habitat international, 33(1), pp.81-92.

Remmling, G.W., 2020. The sociology of Karl Mannheim: With a bibliographical guide to the sociology of knowledge, ideological analysis, and social planning. Routledge.

Rogers, A., 2006. Escaping the slums or changing the slums? Lifelong learning and social transformation. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25(2), pp.125-137.

Roh, K., Ryu, H. and McLean, G.N., 2020. Analysis of national human resource development (NHRD) policies of 2016 in South Korea with implications. European Journal of Training and Development.

Sandham, L.A., Chabalala, J.J. and Spaling, H.H., 2019. Participatory rural appraisal approaches for public participation in EIA: Lessons from South Africa. Land, 8(10), p.150.

Smith, C., Spurlock, D., Abdur-Rahman, A. and Jowers, K., 2020. Community-Rooted Organizations: Enhanced Accountability and Capacity Building for Community Development.

Smyth, E. and Vanclay, F., 2017. The Social Framework for Projects: a conceptual but practical model to assist in assessing, planning and managing the social impacts of projects. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 35(1), pp.65-80.

Sueyoshi, T. and Yuan, Y., 2017. Social sustainability measured by intermediate approach for DEA environmental assessment: Chinese regional planning for economic development and pollution prevention. Energy Economics, 66, pp.154-166.

Tang, S., 2019, May. Capacity Building of Community-based Ecotourism in Developing Nations: A Case of Mei Zhou, China. In 1st International Conference on Business, Economics, Management Science (BEMS 2019) (pp. 582-605). Atlantis Press.

Vanclay, F., 2017. Project-induced displacement and resettlement: from impoverishment risks to an opportunity for development?. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 35(1), pp.3-21.

Webber, D., Gissing, A., Dufty, N. and Bird, D., 2017. Community participation in emergency pIanning: NSW state emergency service case study. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, The, 32(2), pp.28-34.

Yuan, Y., Chen, Y. and Cao, K., 2021. The third sector in collaborative planning: Case study of Tongdejie community in Guangzhou, China. Habitat International, 109, p.102327.

Zhang, H., Matsuoka, R.H. and Huang, Y.J., 2018. How do community planning features affect the place relationship of residents? An investigation of place attachment, social interaction, and community participation. Sustainability, 10(8), p.2726.