In the book entitled "Urban Planning and Social Policy”, the editors, Bernard J. Frieden and Robert Morris stressed the need to remold physical and social planning together. These two planners, along with others including Melvin Webber and Martin Rein, decried the splitting of these two areas of interest into distinct categories since WWI. To these individuals it became apparent, that there was a necessary “interrelationship between several criteria: “a decent modern environment includes not only physical comfort and work, but education, services, and social relationships which open opportunity for all.” Further physical planning stresses the “proficiency in zoning, land use, and traffic patterns” is not sufficient to “establish the urban environment”; while “social forces are not powerful enough either.” Thus city planning and social planning need to converge “in the scope of action for which they call in the comprehensiveness of their views, and in their common stress upon spreading urban benefits to all the population.” (Cited on pages 2 and 3). Next, according to Melvin Webber, planners must assist to “extend access to opportunity” …“integrate larger wholes”, and :”expand freedom in a pluralistic society.”(Cited on pages 11-22).
According to Morris and Rein, the assessment of “our theoretical framework for planning in social welfare is long overdue.” These two further stress “the importance of a local community deserves special comment. Voluntary agency planning flourished in the belief that local communities constitute the essential foundation of American society.” Social welfare planning has been grounded in four major aspects: one, the “federated character as typified by local welfare planning councils; two, “the organized expression of a belief in rational utopianism”; three, the devotion of “their energies to problems which grew out of distribution and redistribution of resources among agencies, clients, personnel functions, and funds”; four, the strategy of consensus seeking.”(Cited on pages 23-28. ) (As an aside this blogger will comment on utopianism in a future entry.)
With the downsizing of the Great Society programs” , government sponsored social policy has been limited. In the heyday of the Johnson Administration, programs such as Model Cities and Appalachian initiatives were instrumental in the well being of significant segments of population. In addition, urban renewal forced the need to study socio-economic impacts and address the needs of those relocated by such physical changes upon the landscape.
Today, social welfare planning is centered on Faith Based Programs taken on by a number of religious organizations. The remnants of the pre-existing social welfare planning initiatives are the concentrated efforts by these groups within their respective communities to maintain a level of service for the homeless, welfare assisted individuals, and other poverty segments of the population. At that same time, the social fabric of the community i s changing with the decline of bowling clubs, scouting, and other social clubs which have negatively affected the sense of belonging within the communities. (Cited in Robert D. Putnam's book entitled "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital.")
The planners have somewhat neglected social welfare planning. A case point is the report entitled "Planning for an Aging Society" by Deborah Howe and others. In this report, “little attention is given to various issues that have a bearing on the needs of the older people including homelessness, relocation of substandard mobile homes, recreation planning, and rural economic decline.” In addition “broader social issues such as the viability of the Social Security system, the need for retirement planning, funding of health care, and long term care insurance” are not discussed at all despite the impacts on the growing number of elderly. According to these authors “an understanding of the demographic changes and a commitment to addressing locally specific needs…is one step toward toward facing these issues with a positive, creative, and effective planning approach.” (Cited on 6.)
Finally, in a recent report entitled "Planning Active Communities" edited by Marya Morris, planners and public health advocates are creating a new alliance to examine the “relationships between land-use planning, health, and physical activity in plans” Yet these are somewhat limited in assisting the individual at perhaps the expense of the common wealth. In the suburbs these issues are paramount particularly with the aging population unable to afford the homes they live in.
According to Morris and Rein, the assessment of “our theoretical framework for planning in social welfare is long overdue.” These two further stress “the importance of a local community deserves special comment. Voluntary agency planning flourished in the belief that local communities constitute the essential foundation of American society.” Social welfare planning has been grounded in four major aspects: one, the “federated character as typified by local welfare planning councils; two, “the organized expression of a belief in rational utopianism”; three, the devotion of “their energies to problems which grew out of distribution and redistribution of resources among agencies, clients, personnel functions, and funds”; four, the strategy of consensus seeking.”(Cited on pages 23-28. ) (As an aside this blogger will comment on utopianism in a future entry.)
With the downsizing of the Great Society programs” , government sponsored social policy has been limited. In the heyday of the Johnson Administration, programs such as Model Cities and Appalachian initiatives were instrumental in the well being of significant segments of population. In addition, urban renewal forced the need to study socio-economic impacts and address the needs of those relocated by such physical changes upon the landscape.
Today, social welfare planning is centered on Faith Based Programs taken on by a number of religious organizations. The remnants of the pre-existing social welfare planning initiatives are the concentrated efforts by these groups within their respective communities to maintain a level of service for the homeless, welfare assisted individuals, and other poverty segments of the population. At that same time, the social fabric of the community i s changing with the decline of bowling clubs, scouting, and other social clubs which have negatively affected the sense of belonging within the communities. (Cited in Robert D. Putnam's book entitled "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital.")
The planners have somewhat neglected social welfare planning. A case point is the report entitled "Planning for an Aging Society" by Deborah Howe and others. In this report, “little attention is given to various issues that have a bearing on the needs of the older people including homelessness, relocation of substandard mobile homes, recreation planning, and rural economic decline.” In addition “broader social issues such as the viability of the Social Security system, the need for retirement planning, funding of health care, and long term care insurance” are not discussed at all despite the impacts on the growing number of elderly. According to these authors “an understanding of the demographic changes and a commitment to addressing locally specific needs…is one step toward toward facing these issues with a positive, creative, and effective planning approach.” (Cited on 6.)
Finally, in a recent report entitled "Planning Active Communities" edited by Marya Morris, planners and public health advocates are creating a new alliance to examine the “relationships between land-use planning, health, and physical activity in plans” Yet these are somewhat limited in assisting the individual at perhaps the expense of the common wealth. In the suburbs these issues are paramount particularly with the aging population unable to afford the homes they live in.
No comments:
Post a Comment