===================================================================== Center for Community Economic Development University of Wisconsin-Extension Community Economics Newsletter No. 297 July 2001 ===================================================================== A Newsletter from the Center for Community Economic Development; Community,Natural Resource and Economic Development Programs, and University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension Service ===================================================================== SELECTED PERSPECTIVES ON EXTENSION PROGRAMMING IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT by Paul H. Gessaman and Gordon D. Rose We think of Extension work in community development as the providing of specialized assistance (improving knowledge, enhancing skills, and facilitating social, economic and political processes and linkages) to groups who are involved in decision making activities that we generally identify as being democratic in nature. By "democratic in nature" we mean: (1) the group decisions are shaped by the preferences of those who participate in the group, and (2) entry to the group, with the accompanying rights of participation in decision making, is possible for those who are willing to be a part of the "action.'' Community development involves work with decision making groups that are primarily action oriented. By "action oriented" we mean that group members want to see something done relative to some issue. By their participation they want to make the future different from what it would have been had they not participated. From another viewpoint, community development can be considered as the modification, alteration or adjustment of one or more dimensions of the community setting within which individual community members make decisions. Now, let's talk about the second part of our definition-identifying the part of Extension work that is not community development. First, we'd like to deal with the statement, "Everything we do is community development." If our definition is in any way correct, that statement cannot be true. The nature of the community development decision making unit (the group), is such that Extension work intended to improve decision making by individuals on matters that directly affect only the decision maker cannot be community development. Furthermore, those individual decisions are made within the existing decision making framework and do not directly result in modification of that framework-which means they do not meet another of the suggested criteria for CD. As the second "is not," we'd like to emphasize that community development is not Public Affairs education. Public affairs education can be used by a community development group which wants to get alternatives related to some issue before the citizens, but it differs from community development in at least four ways: (1) The audience of public affairs education efforts is usually much larger and more diffuse than the decision making groups typical of community development, (2) the audience usually is not locality oriented in the same sense as is the CD decision making group, (3) the level of action orientation is much lower in the typical public affairs audience (public affairs education usually is focused on improving understanding of the issues and alternatives, and is not as directly concerned with decision making-thus, is not as action oriented-as is characteristic of CD), and (4) the decision making unit is usually the individual as a member of society rather than a group. We'd now like to shift from consideration of the many ways people have attempted to conceptualize the actions and activities of community development groups and look more closely at some ideas related to Extension program implementation and what's commonly called the community development process. Now, let's talk about the recurring frustration. Many times when people talk about the Community Development process, they seem to "fold in" the processes of Extension programming and talk about the Community Development process as though it were also the means of Extension program development, implementation and evaluation. Let's look at these models side by side and see if we can identify the reasons for that, given that each is a formulation of the application of the Scientific Method. (See Figure 1 attachment) Let's look again at the Figure 1 comparison of the community development process and the Extension programming framework. 1. Both start with study of the community. 2. Both involve lay persons who are supposed to identify the divergency between the community situation ("what is"), and community ideals ("what ought to be"). 3. Both are continuing processes that in the idealized sense go on over time. 4. The short run pay-off for members of the study committee and advisory board is hard to identify. When you are in the Community Development process, you are a teacher, a facilitator, a linker, a motivator, a "what have you" who works to make sure your community does not fail in its efforts to use the problem solving process. (Note that we did not say, "does not fail in its efforts to reach your goals," and we didn't say, "does not fail in its attempt to reach its goals." All that we are implying is that the problem solving process should not break down.) When you are in the Programming Framework, you may be a teacher, a facilitator, a linker, a motivator, a "what have you," but first and foremost, you are an educator securing assistance from others who are involved in defining long term and short term educational needs. Ron Shaffer Community Development Economist Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8, and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Carl O'Connor, Cooperative Extension, University of Wisconsin-Extension. University of Wisconsin-Extension, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Wisconsin counties cooperating. UW-Extension provides equal opportunities in employment and programming, including Title IX and ADA.