COMMUNITY ORGANIZING

FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT:

The Case of Micro-Hydro Projects in D.I. Yogyakarta

Thesis summary
Untuk memenuhi sebagian persyaratan
Mencapai derajat sarjana S-2

Program Studi
Magister Perencanaan Kota dan Daerah

diajukan oleh
Dewi Rahmawaty

diajukan oleh:
Dewi Rahmawaty
11/327674/PTK/08023
Kepada
PROGRAM PASCASARJANA
FAKULTAS TEKNIK
UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA
YOGYAKARTA
2013

THESIS SUMMARY
1

COMMUNITY ORGANIZING
FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT:
The Case of Micro-Hydro Projects in D.I. Yogyakarta

Submitted by:
Dewi Rahmawaty
11/327674/PTK/08023

Approved by:

Supervisor

Prof. Ir. Bakti Setiawan, M.A., Ph.D

NIP. 19590628 198503 1 006

Date,

Desember 2013

CONTENTS
CONTENTS..............................................................................................................................iii
II. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background of Research................................................................................................1

1.2 Research Questions........................................................................................................1

1.3 Research Purpose...........................................................................................................1
II. THEORETICAL CONCEPTS.............................................................................................2
2.1 Community Organizing..................................................................................................2
2.2 Modification...................................................................................................................3
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................4
3.1 Research Approach........................................................................................................4
3.2 Object of Research and Data..........................................................................................4
3.3 Research Dimensions.....................................................................................................4
IV. STUDY AREA......................................................................................................................5
4.1 Singosaren......................................................................................................................5
4.2 Bendo.............................................................................................................................5
4.3 Minggir...........................................................................................................................6
V. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS.......................................................................................7
5.1 Findings..........................................................................................................................7
5.2 Discussions.....................................................................................................................8
VI. CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATION...................................................10
6.1 Conclusion...................................................................................................................10
6.2 Policy Recommendation..............................................................................................10
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................11

CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Research

In developing countries, it is important to understand and rethink community
organizing, now that rural development has progressed. Community organizing is a process to
build or rebuild the capacity of local communities where the entire communitys members are
involved in the development process (Mattessich as cited in Ford, 2009). Studies in
Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and India (Oakley, 1995) show the role of
community organizing in encouraging rural development with community capability,
participation, social capital, leadership, and networking becomes the key elements.
In contrast, there have been few studies which explore community organizing in
Indonesia. Increasing demand for electric power force the Indonesian government to sought
renewable power source such as micro-hydro system, particularly for developing rural area. In
D.I. Yogyakarta, from 31 micro-hydro projects, only 6 micro-hydro projects are running
successfully. Why are so many cases not working? what is the key to maintaining the microhydro project for rural development? These questions are why micro-hydro project is choosen
in order to understand and rethink community organizing for rural development in our own
time.
1.2 Research Questions
In light of these conditions, it is important to understand and rethink community
organizing in D.I. Yogyakarta by answering the question:
What kind of community organizing characteristics that can encourage rural
development?
1.3 Research Purpose
This study will focuses to search what kind of community organizing characteristics
that can encourage rural development. From previous studies on common characteristics in
community organizing, it is understood that the three elements of leadership, participation and
social capital are most important. Thus, how much three elements above give influence
toward good community organizing will be analyzes.

The goal of this research is to formulate important characteristic needed by

community organizing to encourage rural development and what government can give to
support community organizing.

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL CONCEPTS

2.1 Community Organizing

Community organizing as Mattessich explains (as cited in Ford, 2009), covers activity
that builds up the communitys capacity, and all the community members are involved in the
development process and equipped with tools for it. Neighborhood association, as community
organizing, plays an important role in the development process (Koschmann & Laster, 2011).
Some variables that widely discussed as basic characteristic of community organizing are
leadership, participation and social capital.
2.1.1 Leadership
Hess (1999) outlines that leadership is important for controlling an organization,
inviting more people to participate, collaborating with non-formal leaders (described below)
to understand and analyze social problems and bring their interest to the wider community,
and harmony with other organizations. In rural community there are two types of leaders who
mostly work together. Tjondronegoro (1984) calls these non-formal leaders and formal
leaders. The former includes people in the first-layer structure, mostly prestigious people and
the community deems prestigious. The later, arise through neighborhood election or
appointment by higher level in bureaucracy. Non-formal leaders play a much more important
role in their neighborhood sodalities, not in administrative but in a moral and spiritual sense.
2.1.2 Participation
Oakley (1995) analyzes participation as contribution, organization and empowerment.
He sees participation as direct involvement from a citizen member toward achieving the goal.
Contribution can occur in the begining of activity or in its operation and maintenance, but
most often covers both; it can take the form of idea, money, power, or facility. Organization is
the communitys effort to provide better access to citizen and institutions, as shown in its
2

model, structure, component, and function. Empowerment, which helps community members
raise their skill and ability to better manage the community, and to deal with the existing
system, can be indicated by community members role, action, motivation, and responsibility.
2.1.3 Social capital
Hess (1999) argues that building social capital among members and bridging relations
across interest groups is important to organizing. Putnam (1994) describes social capital as
connection among individuals in a social network, and the norms of reciprocity and
trustworthiness that arise from them. Coleman (1990) focuses on social structure closeness,
which can encourage effective norms and trust and at the same time yield such benefits as the
feeling of solidarity in the community. Bourdieu (1992) notices the importance of social
interaction: without participatory attitude, there will be no relationship.
2.2 Modification
Hess (1999) outlines the characteristic of community organizing as local democratic
control, power being based on participation of mass constituency, leadership development
being central, permanence and growth of the organization being paramount, and contestation
at the institutional level; nevertheless I see a greater accent on leadership, participation and
social capital. Local democratic control and power being based on participation of mass
constituency show the importance of participation. The importance of leadership is more
clearly present in leadership development. Social capital is essential for organizations
permanence and growth.
In conclusion, though Hess (1999) outline five characteristics of community
organizing, such variable as leadership, participation and social capital become the base of
those characteristics. Characteristics of a successful leader have been outlined by Twelvetrees
(1996). In Javanese community, however, Tjondronegoro (1984) has shown the importance of
non-formal leaders. Participation, according to what Oakley (1995) claims, can be measured
in the form of participation as contribution, as organization, and as empowerment. The last
variable is social capital, for which Putnam (1994) gives three variables: trust, norms of
reciprocity and network. Coleman (1990) defines two characteristics, which is social structure
and facilitation. Bourdieu (1992) notes the importance of social interaction beginning with a
participatory attitude.

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Approach

This research is a sequential Sequential mixed methods. It is starts with qualitative
data with survey, interviews and observation then transform the survey into quantitative data
with likert scale.
3.2 Object of Research and Data
Three sites have been selected as case studies: Singosaren, Bendo, and Minggir.
Primary data were collected through a survey with 75 respondents and through interviews
with three community leaders and government officers. Secondary data obtained from
government statistical data were also used for the analysis.
3.3 Research Dimensions
This study will focus to measure participation, social capital, and leadership. The
dimensions and indicators used in this study are illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1. Indicators and variables
No

Research Questions

Dimensions

Indicators
Contribution

Participation

Organization

Empowerment

How much participation,

social capital, and
leadership influence
communiity organizing
Social Capital

Social Capital

Leadership

Leadership

Variables
Idea
Money
Manpower
Facilitating
Openess
Composition
Cohesion
Function
Role
Action
Willingness
Responsibility
Benefit
Trust
Volunteering
Mutual Assistance
Social Engagement
Tolarence
Support
Local democratic control
Power
Leadership development
Organizations permanence
Organizations growth

Source: Study literature (2012)

CHAPTER 4: STUDY AREA

D.I. Yogyakarta has 31 micro-hydro sites chosen from 38 potential micro-hydro sites.
These were built in the years 20032011 by the local government, university, and community.
The maintenance is carried out by the local communities. Micro-hydro units are installed in
irrigation channels with a propeller turbine or undershoot turbine. Unfortunately, only 6
survive with proper installation. Since all the technical things seem to work well, then the
problem of the micro-hydro units not working may be due to maintenance (or lack there of)
from the communities that use them. Three sites are used for this study, which is Singosaren,
Bendo, and Minggir.
4.1 Singosaren
Neighborhood association number 5 (RT 5) is a micro-hydro community in
Singosaren. It is located 13 km south of Yogyakarta city and passed by a left-sindet irrigation
channel, where a micro-hydro system is installed. The activities in this neighborhood
association are initiated mainly by men. Every night these men gather in the gardu (a place
that used to guard environment). In this gathering, they also discuss RT development
informally, usually as brought forth by the RT head and the non-formal leaders. Current issues
will be discussed formally in the monthly gathering.
The micro-hydro community inisiated by Mr. Mutohar, he discussed micro-hydro plan
in a gardu gathering. His idea was welcomed by everyone. Soon, Mr. Junaidi as head of RT,
with the help of a non-formal leader, had begun gathering people and material to build a
micro-hydro system. After two failures, with the gotong-royong spirit, the micro-hydro
machine was able to produce electricity in 2007. The electricity is for street lighting (11 lamps
in the north and 25 lamps in the south, where each lamp is 8 W and covers 3 alleys) and
welding for crafts.
4.2 Bendo
Neighborhood association number 7 (RT 7) has become a micro-hydro community in
Singosaren. It is located 13 km to the south of Yogyakarta city and passed by a left-canden
irrigation channel, where a micro-hydro system is installed. The activities in this
neighborhood association are initiated mainly by the leader and the non-formal leaders. The

leader and non-formal leaders are keys to development activities. Development matters are to
be discussed in monthly gatherings.
The micro-hydro project began in the 2009, Mr. Slamet, a Masters student from
UGM, used Bendos micro-hydro system as his thesis and made the system produce 2.33 KW
of electricity. He and RT 7 citizen set street lights (15 lamps) and connected the electricity to
the fish-farming pump and soybean-shelling machine and taught Mr. Paimin, head of RT 7,
micro-hydro maintenance. Unfortunately, the farmers suspect micro-hydro system causes
water degradation. Since this misunderstanding has bred conflict, the micro-hydro machine
has stopped operating.
4.3 Minggir
Unlike Singosaren and Bendo, the Minggir community is on the village level. It is
located in Sendangrejo village, 9.2 km to the north of Yogyakarta city and passed by a Vander
Wijk irrigation channel, where a micro-hydro system is installed. The activities in this village
are based on a medium-term development plan and a yearly village development work plan.
These plan are presented in a village meeting. The chief of hamlet, chief of RW and RT,
village organization leader, non-formal leaders, and other important persons attend this
meeting.
The micro-hydro community began when Sleman regency, together with Public
Works, Housing, Energy and Mineral Resource (Pekerjaan Umum, Perumahan Energi dan
Sumber Daya Mineral/PUP-ESDM), had a micro-hydro program in Sleman regency. In a
regency meeting, the chief of the village proposed that village irrigation channel be fit with a
micro-hydro system. Upon the approval of the PUP-ESDM agency and the water resource
agency, it wasi nstalled in 2007 with a projected value of 220 million rupiahs. It produces 10
KW of electricity. At first, it was connected to shops in front of the village hall. Since the
voltage is unstable, however, shops have refused to use it again. Now, it used only for the
village hall, the mushala, and the shrimp farm pump. This micro-hydro system has a yearly
budget for maintenance from the government.

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.1 Findings
5.1.1 Participation
Comparison of community participation levels shows the Singosaren community
having the most higher community participation, followed by Bendo and Minggir.
Community participation, consisting incontribution, organization, and empowerment, is
citizen movement toward achieving goals (Oakley, 1995). Manpower, cohesion, and
willingness have become the main elements of community participation (table 2).
Table 2. Community participation
Bendo
Variable

Agreement Scr
1 2 3 4 5

Level

Singosaren
Sc
Agreement
Level
r
1 2 3 4 5

scale: person times weighting

Minggir
Sc
Agreement
Level
r
1 2 3 4 5

Contribution:
Idea
Money
Manpower
Facilitating

1
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
6
0

3
28 0
9
3
28 0
6
3
32 0
6
3
28 0
0

2
4
3
76 Quite active 0 14
6
1
78 Quite active 0 10
5
3
74 Quite active 0 2
9
77 Quite active 0 10

1
40
6

1
30
8
1
4 25 79 Quite active 7
27
8
2
1
55 100 Active
3
33
0
6
2
1
25 90 Quite active 4
30
4
6
90 Quite active 4

8 0

60 Not quite active

0 0

52 Not quite active

12 0

64 Not quite active

8 5

63 Not quite active

Organization:
1
2
1
Composition 0
0

4
2 1
1
16 0 73 Quite active 0 12
35 87 Quite active 0
45 16 0 73 Not quite active
5
4 6
2
4
3 1
1
24 0 76 Quite active 0 10
30 86 Quite active 0
39 24 0 75 Quite active
2
0 6
2
3
1 2
1
Cohesion
0 2
48 0 86 Quite active 0 0
70 109 Active
0
39 28 0 77 Quite active
6
5 4
0
3
1 4
1
Function
0 6
40 0 82 Quite active 0 0
40 103 Active
0
33 32 0 77 Quite active
6
5 8
2
Empowerment:
1 3
1 2
1
Role
0
28 0 76 Quite active 0 10
50 95 Quite active 2
45 4 5 68 Not quite active
2 6
5 0
2
1 3
1 3
2
Action
0
28 0 74 Quite active 0 12
20 86 Quite active 3
30 8 0 61 Not quite active
6 0
8 6
0
1
4
2
Willingness 0 0
72 5 95 Quite active 0 0 9
50 107 Active
0 2 48 16
86 Quite active
8
8
0
Responsibilit
1 3
2 2
1
0
40 0 80 Quite active 0 2
60 103 Active
2
30 16 5 69 Not quite active
y
0 0
1 0
6
Averg. Score
78.9
94.58
68.8
Source: Primary data questionnaire (2012)
Note:The agreement (1: Strongly disagree; 2: disagree; 3: neutral; 4: agree; 5: strongly agree) score here reflect
questionnaireresult multiplies by weighting. The scr here reflect total value of the score in level of agreement, which
range from 25 to 125.
Openess

5.1.2 Social capital

7

The comparison of social capital

shows that the Singosaren community has
the highest social capital followed by
Bendo and Minggir. Tolerance, social
engagement, and mutual assistance become
three dominant characteristics of social
capital.
Table 4. Social capital
5.1.3 Leadership

Variable

Bend
o
3.60
3.52
3.92

Average
Singosar
en
3.76
3.84
3.68

Benefit
Trust
Volunteering
Mutual
4.08
4.64
Assistance
Social
4.12
4.56
Engagement
Tolerance
4.12
4.80
Support
3.68
4.80
Source: Primary data questionnaire (2012)

Minggi
r
3.48
3.40
3.64
3.96
3.92
3.96
3.40

In the Singosaren and Bendo communities, with support from non formal leader,
gathering becomes an opportunity for the leader to gather information and persuade people to
join activities, discuss problems and solutions, and strengthens the bond between leaders and
community members. Water becomes an easy reason for conflict with the farmers, so leader
role to understand and analyze social issues, getting their interest to a wider community, and
increasing harmony with other organizations becomes vital. But, Bendo community leader
unable to plays these roles. Instead searching fair solution, he asking the farmers evidence and
prove they are wrong. The result is the farmers become angry and come again with hoes,
axes, and other farm equipment to bring down the micro-hydro. In the Minggir community,
micro-hydro project is maintained in village level and supported by water resource agency, at
the district and province level. Village staff have higher positions in village citizen, thus
complaint are minimized.
5.1.4 The roles of non formal leader and government toward citizen opinions
In rural area, non formal leader have important position in citizen. They come from
first-layer structure in citizen, deems prestigious by the citizen and often giving guidance in
moral and spiritual matter to the citizen (Tjondronegoro, 1984). This happen in three site
study, where almost there is no decisions are made by the leader are not known by non formal
leader. If non formal leader agree or support the decision, they will persuade citizen to support
the decision. In Bendo and Singosaren, the role of non formal leader clearly seen in citizen
opinion about community have influenced citizen in managing micro-hydro and decision
making involvement, meanwhile the role of government in this matter can be seen in Minggir.

5.2 Discussions
5.2.1 Higher community participation and social capital does not guarantee better community
organizing
The purpose of this study is to assess the characteristics of community organizing
through the micro-hydro community. Theoretically, participation and social capital can
strengthen community organization and promote to better community organizing (Hes, 1999;
Oakley, 1995; Tjondronegoro, 1984; Christens, B., Jones, D.L., and Speer, P.W., 2008;
Putnam, 1994; Coleman, 1990; Bourdieu, 1992). This is in line with the Singosaren
communitycase. However, this study found that although community participation and social
capital is high, this does not guarantee the success of community organizing. The Bendo
community has higher participation and social capital than the Minggir community, but they
are unable to manage micro-hydro.
Leadership becomes variable that differentiate the communities. The Bendo
community is neighborhood level (RT) where the powers of the leader only reach within his
neighborhood. With only this kind of power, it is difficult to settle the conflicts with other
neighborhoods. In contrast, the Minggir community is focused on the village level where the
power of leaders cover the whole village and has a broader network. In line with Hess (1999),
this study finds that leadership is important to control the organization, invite more people to
participate, together with non-formal leaders to understand and analyze social problems, get
their interest to the wider community, and promote solidarity with other organizations. The
Bendo community is unable to understand and analyze social problems and is unable to get
their interests to the wider community; the leader is also unable to cultivate solidarity with the
farmers.
5.2.2 Important roles of non formal leader and government toward citizen opinions
Another finding from this study is important roles of non formal leader and government
toward citizen opinions. From this study, Their presence is strong enough to maneuver citizen
opinions toward community influence and decision making involvement. Moreover, in the
Minggir community, leaders reinforced the government power. This will move the citizen
together with community members to maintain micro-hydro.
In javanesse study, the non-formal leaders are prestigious people who play important
role in their neighborhood sodalities, not in administrative but in a moral and spiritual sense
9

(Tjondronegoro, 1984). They also have knowledge and closesness toward people
(Selosoemardjan, 1962) and this make people respect to them. The roles of formal leaders in
Bendo and Singosaren are help the community to smoothen complain inside the citizen, to
persuade citizen to join community activity, become bridge between citizen and community,
and making agreement with citizen. Meanwhile in Minggir, government power makes village
order becomes obligation for sub village, village officer have more prestige value in citizen,
and village staff authority in their job makes no one said something about it.

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Conclusion
Participation and social capital has been proven able to strengthen community
organization and lead to better community organizing in Singosaren community. Interestingly,
though the Bendo community has higher community participation and social capital rather
than the Minggir community, they unable to maintain the micro-hydro system. One reason for
this is leadership. Important characteristics of a leader is control the organization, invite more
people to participate, together with non-formal leaders to understand and analyze social
problems, get their interest to the wider community, and promote solidarity with other
organizations. In this case, the leader in Bendo community unable to play these roles.
Another finding from this study is important roles of non formal leader and government
toward citizen opinions. Non formal leaders have roles to smoothen complain inside the
citizen, to persuade citizen to join community activity, become bridge between citizen and
community, and making agreement with citizen. While government power makes village
order becomes obligation for sub village, village officer have more prestige value in citizen,
and village staff authority in their job makes no one said something about it.
6.2 Policy Recommendation
Considering that there are various types of community, characteristics of community
organizing may also vary. Participation, social capital, and leadership are vital characteristics,
10

especially leadership. However, due to the variance of community type, these characteristics
might have different features. Thus, making the best combination with adjustments to
community organizing characteristics will lead to better community organizing.
The last element is government support, since communities play a vital role in
development; government should at least support them to grow. This support can be in the
form of funds, technology, knowledge, access, and facilitation. For this, government should
know what kind of communities are exist in their area, what their problems are, and should
give solutions.

11

REFERENCES

Bourdieu, P.,& Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago:

University Of Chicago Press.
Christens, B., Jones, D. L.,& Speer, P. W. (2007). Power, conflict, and spirituality: A
qualitative study of faith-based community organizing. Forum Qualitative Sozial for
schung/Forum Qualitative Social Research, 9(1), Art. 21. http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/330/722
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Duthy, S., & Duthy, B.B. (2003).Empowering peoples organizations in community based
forest management in the philippines: The community organizing role of NGOs. Annals
of
Tropical
Research,
25(2),
13-27.
http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:8171/n9._empowering_p.pdf
Ford, R. (2009). Design and empowerment: Learning from community organizing
(Unpublished masters thesis). University Of Cincinnati: United State.
Gittel, R.& Vidal, A. (1998). Community organizing: Building social capital as a development
strategy. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hess, D. R. (1999). Community organizing, building and developing: Their relationship to
comprehensive community initiatives. Paper presented on COMM-ORG: The On-Line
Conference on Community organizing and Development. Retrieved May 15, 2013, from
http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers99/hess.htm.
Kartohadikoesoemo, S. (1965). Desa. Bandung: Sumur Bandung.
Koentjaraningrat (1967). Villages in Indonesia. New York: Cornell University Press.
Koschmann, M., & Laster, N.M. (2011). Communicative tensions of community organizing:
The case of a local neighborhood association. Western Journal of Communication,
75(1),
2851.
http://koschmann.webstarts.com/uploads/Koschmann___Laster__2011__comm_tension
s_of_community_organizing.pdf.
Martin, D. G. (2008). Place-Framing as Place-Making: Constituting a Neighborhood for
Organizing and Activism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(3),
730-750.
https://140.232.1.53/departments/geography/pdfs/Deb
%20Martin/placeframingasplacemaking.2003.pdf.
Mazaheri, N., Al-Dahdah, E., Poundrik, S., & Chodavarapu, S. (2013). Leadership and
institutional change in the public provision of transportation infrastructure: An analysis
of india's bihar, The Journal of Development Studies, 49(1), 19-35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080 /00220388.2012. 740016.
Oakley, P. (1995). Peoples participation in development projects: A critical review of current
theory and practice. Oxford: Intrac. http://www.intrac.org/data/files/resources/128/OPS7-Peoples-Participation-in-Development-Projects.pdf
Putnam, R. D. (1994). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy (5thed.). New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
12

Selosoemardjan. (1962). Social changes in Yogyakarta. New York: Cornell University Press.
Shaw, R. (2006). Community-based climate change adaptation in Vietnam: Inter-linkages of
environment, disaster, and human security. S. Sonak (eds.), Multiple dimension of
global environmental changes (pp. 521 547). New Delhi: Teri Publication.
http://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/application/pdf/nwpexpert_shaw_2006.pdf
Shigetomi, S. (2006, February). Organizational capability of local societies in rural
development: A comparative study of microfinance organizations in thailand and the
Philippines (IDE discussion paper no. 47). Retrieved June 26, 2013, from
https://ir.ide.go.jp/dspace/bitstream/2344/159/3/ARRIDE_Discussion_No.47_shigetomi
.pdf
Shigetomi, S. (1992). From Loosely to Tightly structured social organization: The
changing aspects of cooperation and village community in rural Thailand. The
Developing
Economies,
30(2),
154

178.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1746-1049.1992.tb00010.x/pdf
Statistic Of The Special Region Of Yogyakarta. Statistics of Indonesia.(2010).The Special
Region Of Yogyakarta In Figures, 2010. The Special Region Of Yogyakarta: Statistic Of
The Special Region Of Yogyakarta.
Traynor, B. (2002). Reflections on community organizing and resident engagement: In the
rebuilding
communities
initiative.
Retrived
May
20,
2013,
from
http://www.instituteccd.org/uploads/iccd/documents/reflections.pdf.
Tjondronegoro, S. M.P. (1984). Social organization and planned development in rural java.
Singapore: Oxford University Press.
Twelvetrees, A. C. (1996). Organizing for neighborhood development: A comparative study of
community based development organizations (2nded.). Brookfield: Ashgate.

13