The last step of promoting behavior change is evaluation (Gruman et al., 2017). If the earlier steps were always unfailingly successful there would never be any need for evaluation. So, the possibility, or even a necessity of occasional failure is an integral part of the process. The goal of social design is to create buildings and public spaces which offer something more to the people living or visiting there than merely ornamental value. It is a very admirable goal but aiming for it does fail sometimes.
The new communities project was started in 1968 with the purpose of helping disadvantaged groups in fast growing areas to improve their social and economic opportunities (Edwards & Rodwin, 1979). The project was supposed to provide a mix of income, ethnic, and social groups with modern style planning and technological and social services breakthroughs. 13 projects were approved, and 6 of them were actually started. In 1975 the program was closed to new applications and by the late 1970s it was widely admitted being a failure.
A similar project called “new towns” was running in the UK at approximately the same time (Peiser & Chang, 1999). Its main social objective was “to provide decent housing in pleasant communities for large numbers of families.” Among the innovative (for that time) features was a concept of “green field site” – a town built in the middle of farmland.
One of the more successful of such new towns Milton Keynes had its share of troubles and went through a big loan write-off in 1987 to the amount of over five hundred million British pounds. The financial issues were the reason for the shutdown of the US program as well where most of the communities that were actually built had to go through bankruptcy.
Their sad story underscores a useful lesson – no matter how noble and well-intentioned the designs are, how lofty their goals may be, good intentions cannot substitute for a lack of cold hard cash. The evaluation step after the fact should help to point to the problem: the original design was not financially sound on its own. Money is not usually one of the aspects of applied psychology interventions, but it should not be overlooked completely. Big projects need to be paid for by someone. If the goal is to help the poor and the disadvantaged the funds are not likely to come from those groups, therefore they must be extracted from the wealthy. The nature of such wealth extraction can vary from case to case but failure to do so will guarantee that the most beautifully designed social projects will fail. And so sometimes we fail. Hopefully, not all the time.
References
Evans, H., & Rodwin, L. (1979). The New Towns Program and Why It Failed. Public Interest.
Gruman, J.A., Schneider, F.W., & Coutts, L.A. (2017). Applied Social Psychology.
Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems.SAGE.
Peiser, R. B., & Chang, A. C. (1999). Is It Possible to Build Financially Successful New Towns? The Milton Keynes Experience. Urban Studies, 36(10), 1679–1703.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098992773
I agree with the post that evaluation is a crucial step in promoting behavior change and that good intentions alone are not sufficient for the success of social projects. The examples of the “new communities” project in the US and the “new towns” project in the UK illustrate the importance of financial sustainability in social design. However, I would like to offer an additional perspective that emphasizes the need for community involvement and adaptive management in social projects.
Community involvement is essential for ensuring that social projects are tailored to the needs and preferences of the target population. Involving community members in the planning and implementation phases can increase the likelihood of project success and sustainability. For instance, Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein, 1969) highlights the importance of involving citizens in decision-making processes to ensure that their voices are heard and their needs are addressed.
Furthermore, adaptive management is a key strategy for addressing the challenges and uncertainties inherent in social projects. Adaptive management involves monitoring the outcomes of interventions and adjusting strategies based on what is learned. This approach allows for flexibility and responsiveness to changing circumstances and can help to identify and address issues before they lead to project failure.
In conclusion, while financial sustainability is crucial for the success of social projects, it is also important to consider the role of community involvement and adaptive management. These factors can enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of social design initiatives.
Reference:
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.