Extension staff accept that in any remedial or intervention effort, the individuals likely to be involved in, or affected by, an activity should be the starting point from which programs emerge. Although one can conceive of organizations or communities as the targets of programs, individuals are the primary focus. This leads directly to a second, related assumption - individuals' assessments of problems, needs, and acceptable solutions are paramount . Their perceptions are and should be the basis for programming. It's understandable that these assumptions have become embedded in what's identified as program planning, planned change, and social intervention efforts.
Enough examples exist to reinforce claims that needs are the underpinning of voluntary change.
But while good reasons may exist for suggesting that the assumptions are realistic, there's also a basis for expressing reservations about them. For the Affirmative We could argue that the above assumptions are reasonable and realistic in three ways. First of all, there's considerable evidence to suggest that people are more supportive of and less resistant to change when they've had some voice in the decisions about programs and projects affecting them and their families. It might also be argued that people are a good source of information about their conditions, experiences, and problems. That being the case, they should also be a good source of information about their needs.