• homeostasis =stabilization of niche/functions/habitats/population
• unbalanced exchange = changes characteristics of population

àimbalance w/ maladaptation = problem

1. complementary exchanges:
2. “commensalistic” relationship: real or perceived hostile environment – bonding=strength i.e. labor unions fighting in hostile environment àinstead of competing for resources, people join and strengthen their bargaining power [to conserve energy]àantidote to divide and rule problem: usually those most in distress fail to gain sense of efficacy needed for collective action

1. their common identity and own commensalisms
2. their common identity in relation to the environment
3. their fair share is not achieved through exchange
4. aware of resources controlled by others which could be theirs
5. potential power with reference to relative power of their targets

àmore diversity in status/function of niches = reduces likelihood of mutual identification w/ stresses of the sectional interest groups experience

1. traditional locality development representatives from each sector through the strata
2. sociopolitical action-representatives from one or more selected sectors, frequently from just one stratum w/I those sectors
3. social planning-representatives across sectors w/I the near-elite strata

1. communities that are marginalized and disadvantaged as a whole
2. community development memberships that are carefully selected to ignore sectional interests

àmust look official to other elites àleads to resentment from stated beneficiaries

1. stratification/functional diversity decrease likelihood of sustained intense/cohesive commensalistic unions
2. homogeneity increases likelihood of sustaining cohesion

1. symbiotic: symbiotically providing nutrient to relating organisms
2. Catalytic: catalystically providing the genetic code that multiplies the energy related organisms
3. Impeding: canceling the effect of nutrients for related organisms
4. dissipating into unreceptive environments where energy lays unused for long periods of time

1. symbiotic: energy is summative
2. catalysor: energy multiplier
3. impeding: negative
4. dissipating = no change

àbased on individualized definitions of distress to be relieved

àif they offer relief fit definition of stress reduction work

àprogram runners expected to give synergetic energy to the program

• the culture of organizing assumes that they have the key to achieve the goal
• organizers seen by participants as holding key to goal
• stimulus is timed to maximize response/unleash energy

àusually spreads beyond initial plan. i.e. plan to change bus segregation =then all segregation is changed

• tend to produce backlashes
• well intending organizers really b/c impediment àdoesn’t succeed to make the changes àfor example, soc. Might not accept organizer’s claims

• stressors not really understood
• poor timing

examples

-organizers try to unsuccessfully embarrass leaders

-too many meetings

-incorrect assessment of resources really available

1. centrality saliency of issue/pent up energy of projected participants [leaders/affected subjects/primary&secondary supports]
2. activities competing for participant energy [short/long term]
3. participants’ probable assessment of reward if goal is achieved
4. opportunity for association w/ like minded people not otherwise available
5. efficacy for action plan for achieving its goals
6. culture acceptability of style of action/traditions of energy release
7. vulnerability of resistive targets
8. likelihood of leadership’s credibility and inspiration can be undermined

• minimal energy needed
• conserving energy by using few people
• fear of losing credibility w/ too many people

àif more energy than benefit to use many people, use this approach

• lots of energy
• very salient problem

ài.e. then use demonstration/mass meeting

1. preparatory stage
2. final leverage stage [target population or goal]

àhigh cost – can’t have specific function [i.e. no narrow specification]

1. nurturing/magnetic – assumption =communication is the key –shared valued – it is just a matter of information and organizing the client group
2. intrusive – values are not assumed to be the same as client àneed to force compulsion

àspecific targets [usually targets of power – i.e. rape center tries to infl. Police policy

àgeneralized target [or at least will be generalized] – i.e. first tried to stop bus segregation – then generalized almost automatically to all segregation

ànational events also infl. Autonomy of community. [i.e. in past, community had more say/decision over daily lifeàeven in Israel, move to centrality of national government

àmost services still given by local community

àafter all, when a person chooses where to live, he chooses it according to first work, and then also looks at characteristics of community, i.e. education/aesthetics/population composition/etc…

1. b/c of roles/rules
2. various community services function to answer people’s needs. When not answering those needs, pressure groups try to get community to answer those needs

• Hillary: families make up the community
• Community is defined area/no defined values
• Warren: formal organizations make up the community
• Functional roles based on local relevance [which help the people run their lives normally] àfor example: economic function [production>spreading>consumption]/socialization/social development/mutual help/etc…

• Mlson: an extreme example is the Jewish community
• Rubin: given the example of Hassidism: central place, but scattered followers
• Author’s view: well, then also a youth movement is a community –thus it is more of a social organization rather than a community

• Ross: assumption is that society is one big community and that good of the community is the good of the individuals and vise versa àthis fits the kibbutz model well: defined borders/collective goals and values/solidarity– similar to other towns’ folk community. This definition does not fit urban cities, where such characteristics are not found

• Territory defines the community
• not disorganized, but rather one can chart out order in the organizations and transactions which adds up to the community
• fits urban best
• values are not shared w/I the community, but rather, the values are those of the larger society
• society is not one unit but rather a collective of individuals w/o own goals and interests

• from the 70s, there is a decrease in support for social service states, as seen in limiting:
• laws supporting social services
• eligibility
• real expenditure on soc. services

• Economic slowdown
• Questioning of moral basis of social state: i.e. increases dependency/passivity and increases state’s power at the expense of freedom
• Populace disappointment: left thinks that state’s social services suck, right thinks that it is ultimate proof of state’s involvement in social services being inherently bad
• Awareness of social service organizations’ poor functioning: i.e. wasteful/expensive/organizational needs put before the clients’ needs

1. non-profit/voluntary groups
2. profiting companies
3. informal social groups

1. characteristics of informal social groups w/ emphasis on what benefits they have to fill gap of the reduced efficiency of governmental social service
2. research on informal groups activities and weak spots w/I their activities
3. strength/weakness of such groups and discussion of their abilities to take over some of the gov’t social services

• can even be family/friends/people w/ same backgrounds
• could be open or closed [more/less intensivity in contact w/I the group]
• such groups have a huge potential for helping its members, as will be shown:

• The informal social groups do not exist only in villages
• Some researchers thought it would disappear w/ move to urban centers, but apparently, it hasn’t – just changed form
• Those fulfill many social tasks to the point where the Barclay report of 1982, in England states that one of social workers’ main task it to identify such small communities and help them answer people’s needs

• could be: physical/emotional/network/social/etc…
• turns out must informal groups exchange resources such as emotional/social support, information or advice. It is the few who also give other material resources

1. less bureaucracy
2. everyone knows each other, so help is more fitting the individual’s needs
3. mutuality – since the helper and the helped are both members of the same network, the helper can expect help too when needed
4. the informal social networks allow public services to reduce their services/expenses
5. increased reliance on such informal social networks strengthens them

àthus one can claim that there is an important element to informal social services, that replaces, at least partially public services

1. reduces public social support
2. preserves social gaps [as opposed to public social system which tries to do redistribution] – since instead of having an organization take from the rich and give to the poor, you’re relying on people on your own socio-economic level. Also the universal approach allows one to meet people from diff. layers of society, where segregation caused by relying of informal systems reduces social integration
3. consequences of mutuality in social networks: in informal networks, the mutuality claims that one can expect to get the help back – the helped person is in “debt” – when he can’t return the favor, the helper will tend to opt out. Thus help will not necessarily be given, leaving the weak behind [exactly what the public services what to fix]
4. when social networks are unavailable/structure of available networks: many question their existence or their ability to help. Thus 3 types are given:

• Saved community: as in a traditional community, the social network has mutual interactions which help. Some claim that most western country urban centers do not fall under this category

• Lost community: community too weak to help [i.e. too lose of a relationship b/w members] – some claim that this is typical of poor neighborhoods
• Liberated community: usually detached from community of residence. They vary in size and coherence, but it gives the member broader contact than the narrow neighborhood community. The help usually given here is info or accessibility [vs. material or emotional goods] – this is typical of modern urban center. Walman/Leiton study: people rely on diff. networks for diff. benefits. Inference: if one kind of social network is missing in a certain place, then the people lose out on a benefit

5. Kinds of help: social networks tend to give emotional support, but often lack the ability to give material resources –public services can give material resources

6. Huge influence if social network on its members: some social networks work as a social inspecting agentàreduces freedom. This usually happens in strong/tight groups [i.e. SW in public sector] – it focuses on collective and negates autonomy/individual’s “living” space
7. Heavy load of members of social networks: people want to help but they have other things to do too [i.e. take care of house/job/some assistance needs more than one helping person’s hands/time/energies
8. Relationship among the people in social networks: existence of social network doesn’t guarantee positive emotion – many times, family members do not help and even take advantage of their needy ones

1. helping networks: helping in one or more ways
2. neutral networks: perceived as not helping network
3. negative networks: harm its members [i.e. take away rights/freedoms and take advantage of them]

àboth proponents and opponents refer to other kinds of networks as heir proof

1. types of services
2. image/external context of service
3. kinds of services and ways to choose them

1. Basic service: fundamental to the service – w/o it, the service won’t exist; i.e. school give education
2. Complementary service: not inherent to the service but helps the main cause of it. For example, school gives meals/extracurricular activities
3. Mediating services: services which help person get to the services; i.e. bussing services to school/media

1. moral – values
2. behaviors
3. products

1. person sees institution as a separate entity
2. person gets impressions and generalizes them
3. the object gets practical and emotional relevance

• objective = image affects everyone equally
• subjective = image infl. Differentially [some claim that even w/ subjective perception, then people from w/I a homogeneous slice of society perceive organization similarly

àso sometimes you’ve got to use either intellectual, emotional or practical/experiential means to get your message

1. it influences the advancement of the service: it even sometimes serves as making the first connection w/ client
2. it helps differentiate b/w his service and others
3. helps show borders/limits of service
4. sets image of service/product
5. defends: makes product last longer
6. the packaging is part of service: i.e. medication where the package helps count the days

àabbreviations should be avoided – they might take away from efficiency of the name as a symbol telling what is done in the institution

1. easy to express, read and spell [i.e. so not long either]
2. easy to remember [i.e. if a name has something familiar (and positive connotation) to clients, then it is easier to remember]
3. name relates to what is done in it
4. reflects the benefits of the program [i.e. “leadership training”]
5. differentiates b/w itself and other organizations

1. “question marks”: low market yet growth is predicted to be high – need high investment in order to grow in the market
2. “stars”: large market/large potential market growth – balanced investment/return ratio
3. “cash bringers [a.k.a. milking cows]”: large market and low growth – those have high results and can grow into other markets
4. “lame dog”: low market demand and low growth potential – at best covers it costs, and usually, organizations try to get rid of such services. Sometimes, they are upheld b/c ideology or professional reasons

àthud this criticism brought on attempt to insert other axis into this model

àproponents say to let every organizations chose their own criteria for their axis

1. worthy cause: service can also sustain itself and also helps
2. ideological service: helps people, yet it does not sustain itself economically. They may be important for the organization’s goals but it is expensive to run. So you need worthy/business services as well, in order to also maintain the ideological services
3. business oriented service: only brings in $ but no social benefit –so you may have a few of them to get money for other services which are more socially beneficial, but too many of them and you lose sight of your real [social] goals
4. unworthy service: avoid! No point in having them