See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333172944

Social Mobilization and Community Participation in Development Programmes

Chapter · May 2019

CITATIONS READS
5 26,620

1 author:

Yemisi L. Olaleye
University of Ibadan
45 PUBLICATIONS 115 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yemisi L. Olaleye on 19 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Social Mobilization and Community Participation in Development Programmes

By

OLALEYE Yemisi Lydia (Ph.D)

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN, IBADAN
OYO STATE, NIGERIA.
E-mail:yemisi1957@yahoo.co.uk
yl.olaleye@mail.ui.edu.ng
Mobile no: +2348037139098
Abstract
The author believes that the development of the communities is very crucial in the overall
context of national development and that the involvement of communities in such an endeavour
must be encouraged in spite of factors which may hinder active community participation in
development programmes. Generally, communities need proper social mobilization so that they
can participate and maintain reliable status quo in their locality. It is easier for them to speak
with one voice when they are brought together. This is why social mobilization yields progress.
Communities are important in any developmental programme; thus, they must be actively
integrated in the overall process of developmental programme. This paper concludes that
community development programmes can only succeed when community participation is seen as
crucial and complementary to social mobilization and that effective community involvement are
important aspects and drivers of development. It is, therefore recommended that communities be
socially mobilized and encouraged to form associations for development programme initiatives.
Social workers, governments, philanthropists and non-governmental organizations should
organize enlightenment programmes that would encourage community members to participate
more fully in development programmes.
Key Words:- Social mobilization, Community participation, Development Programmes.
Introduction
UNICEF considers social mobilization as a broad scale movement to engage people’s
participation in achieving a specific development goal through self-reliant efforts. Social
mobilization is an overall process of effecting change within parts of the population in
communities which desire to see marked changes in their populace. Social mobilization is an
essential tool for development. It is aims at creating a major thrust to solve problems of national
magnitude by promoting people’s participation from all possible sectors and civil societies. It is
the mobilization of local resources, use of indigenous knowledge and the enhancement of
people’s creativity and productivity through mass campaign (Oshodi & Imasuen, 2008).
Social mobilization is a process that engages and motivates a wide range of partners and
allies at national and local levels to raise awareness of and demand for a particular development

1
objective through face-to-face dialogue. Members of institutions, community networks, civil and
religious groups and others work in a coordinated way to reach specific groups of people for
dialogue with planned messages. Social mobilization no doubt plays a pivotal role in achieving
rural development and poverty alleviation programmes. It is a powerful instrument in
decentralizing policies and programmes aimed at strengthening human and institutional
resources development at the local level. It strengthens participation of the rural poor in local
decision-making, improves their access to social and production services and efficiency in the
use of locally-available financial resources and enhanced opportunities for asset-building by the
poorest of the poor.
Social mobilization is an important aspect of economic development and a veritable
strategy for the general uplift of the economies of developing countries. Hardly can there be
balanced national economic development without a sound social mobilization through
infrastructural provision. Economic development requires the growth and modernization of both
the rural and the urban sectors of an economy (Laogun, 2002). Many countries of the world have
adopted various strategies for community participation. However, the most appropriate is social
mobilization which has been described by the United Nations Organization as “the process by
which efforts of the people themselves are united with those of governmental authorities to
improve the economic, social and cultural conditions of communities to integrate those
communities into the nation and to contribute fully to the nation’s progress” (Mezirow, 1997).
Social mobilization is multi-dimensional in character and is significantly very wide in
scope. It connotes even and coordinated development in various aspects that make for the totality
of development of people towards a better, fuller and richer life. Such a life as mentioned above
consists of quality education and health, adequate means of livelihood based on the concept of
cooperation, good water supply and sanitation, good communication, adequate shelter and other
infrastructural facilities. These factors form the different essential components crucial to even
development (Nduka, 2008). Social mobilization is a vehicle for overall communal development.
Traditionally, people have been known to come together to arrange for mutual clearing of
paths or pavements of roads leading from the village to the market or to an adjacent village.
There was also mutual agreement to construct houses and homesteads, clearing and preparation
of farmlands for cultivation, digging of water springs, wells or trenches for the community
(Harter, 1998) among other cooperative labour. It is remarkable that in the Western part of
Nigeria, for instance, the mechanism of mutual help was and is still used to provide not only the
needs of the community as a whole but also those of individuals (Lerner, 2002).
Community development is fast growing to a priority level in the development process as
a major factor, not only in the satisfaction of basic needs of rural people, but also in raising their
conditions of living to acceptable standards. Community development aims at motivating and
mobilizing people to develop them through self- initiative and with minimum assistance from the
government. Community participation is an educational empowering process in which people, in
partnership with those able to assist them, identify their needs and encourage them to
increasingly assume responsibility themselves to plan, manage, control and assess their
collective actions. Community participation emphasizes total control by the community
members, and de-emphasizes, to a lesser degree, government imposition of projects on the
community “(Mezirow, 1997).

2
 According to Harter (1998), community participation would be regarded as successful
when the design of the project calls for the identification of felt needs, and when the objectives
of the project is empowerment and capacity building, The implementation of the project requires
dialogue and interactions among beneficiaries. Ejiogu (2001) stresses the need to take into
account the difference, in age, ethnicity, educational level and religious grouping in community
participation because most communities are not homogenous.
It is generally agreed that the core of community participation debate is the idea that
intended beneficiaries of a development programme or project have to be involved in the
decision-making process at every stage of the programme, including the identification of the
problem, planning, implementation and evaluation (Oshodi & Imasuen, 2008).
According to Anyanwu (1992), the principle of community-based participation is deeply
inherent in the very concept of community development, which argues that whatever is done to
improve the welfare of the people must endeavour to elicit the enthusiasm and wholehearted
participation of such people. An additional dimension to this participatory development process
is the understanding that such development activities cannot take place in a vacuum. The custom
of the people, leadership and authority base, their religion, social structure, source of power all
demand particular emphasis. Participation is a vital force in the processes involved in community
development efforts. It is crucial because it brings insights into the identification of the
community resource, the implementation of development programmes and maintenance of the
existing structures (Scales, Benson, Leffert & Blyth, 2000). It encourages collectivism, which
suggests ownership of the project in a collective manner.
Since no development can take place in a vacuum, the influence of the socio-economic
factors on the level of participation is of crucial importance. In addition, the shift from the capital
intensive “top down” growth model of development to people-centred “ bottom- up” basic need
approach has necessitated the urgent need not only to elaborate this participation process but also
to take into cognizance the socio-cultural elements of the community (Eccles & Gootman, 2002).
The central task in this exercise, therefore, rests on the consideration of the socio-economic
factors influencing citizen participation in community development activities.
Social mobilization and participation is knowledge (education) based. By taking part in a
developmental programme going on in one’s domain, one gains knowledge and understanding
and develops a deeper sense of social responsibility. Social mobilization broadens one’s
perspectives beyond the narrow confines of one’s private life, all of which help further in one’s
life endeavours. The participation of the rural populace in development, otherwise known as
planning from bottom, has recently been receiving increasing attention, prominence and even
support by the international community (Freund & Balters, 2002).
This increasing support also cuts across the government circles as well as the recipients
themselves. This is as a result of the hard lesson learned from the past development efforts on the
concept of development through external machinery, which precisely means development from
external agents from developed countries. In view of the predicaments associated with past
development efforts in Africa, the international conference on the role of popular participation in
development concluded that efforts to improve the performance of African economies would
continue to show poor results until farmers, labourers and the rest of the population have a voice
in the decision-making process (Freund & Balters, 2002).

3
 A consensus was arrived at the conference that the success of development in Africa
depends on the participation of its people. At the end of the conference, a charter tagged:
“Charter for Popular Participation in Development and Transformation” was adopted. The
participants called for immediate and far-reaching changes in the conception, planning and
implementation of development strategies (Harter, 1998).
Planning is very essential in any development process. The quality of a plan goes a long
way in determining the success of a programme and such plan should seek and secure local
participation and the needs of the people. Anyanwu, (1992) argued that, without the opportunity
to participate effectively in planning and implementation in development programmes, the
people for whom the programmes are intended stand to benefit least from such programmes. He
therefore, concluded that any meaningful success in serving the people must elicit their
enthusiastic involvement in those programmes intended to improve their lot (Ekong, 2003).
Theoretical and Empirical Bases of the Concept of Positive Community Participation
Beginning from the early 1990s and burgeoning in the first half decade of the 21st century, a new
vision and vocabulary for discussing community as a concept has emerged. Propelled by the
collaborative contributions of scholars like Browne and Cudeck, 1993; Mezirow, 1997; Roth,
Brooks-Gunn, Murray & Foster, 1998, & Lerner, 2002, practitioners like Ejiogu, 2001; Freund
and Balters, 2002 &, Ekong, 2003, and policy makers like Cummings, 2003; Roth and Brooks-
Gunn, 2003, communities are viewed as resources to be developed. The new concept as
championed by these individuals is predicated on the idea that every community has the potential
for successful, healthy development and that they possess the capacity for positive development.
This vision for and vocabulary about community has evolved in the context of the
growth, across the past three decades, of developmental systems theoretical models that stress
that human development derives from dynamic and systemic (and therefore bi-directional and
mutually-influential) relations among the multiple levels of organizations that comprise the
human development system (Harter, 1998). For instance, developmental systems theories, such
as developmental contextualism (Lerner, 2002), eschew the reduction of an individual to fixed
genetic influences and, in fact, contends that such a hereditary conception of behaviour is
counterfactual (Mezirow, 1997). Instead, this instance of developmental systems theory stresses
the inherent plasticity of human development, that is, the potential for systematic change
throughout development. This potential exists as a consequence of mutually-influential
relationships between the developing person and his or her biological, psychological, ecological
(family, community, culture) and historical niche.
Plasticity, then, is instantiated from the regulation of the bi-directional exchanges
between the individual and his or her multilevel context (which may be represented as individual
context relations). When such individual context relations are mutually beneficial, that is, when
there exists adaptive developmental regulations (Harter, 1998; Lerner, 2002), healthy, positive
individual and societal development should occur. Thus, the concepts of relative plasticity and
developmental regulation combine to suggest that there is always, at least, some potential for
systematic change in behaviour and, as such, that there may be means found to improve human
life.
Plasticity legitimizes an optimistic view of the potential for promoting positive changes
in humans. The presence of plasticity in development is a key strength of human development.
When plasticity is combined with adaptive developmental regulation, one may hypothesize that

4
there will be an alignment between the assets of an individual and the assets that exist in the
ecology of human development (Folorunsho, 2005) and that as a result, positive human
development will be promoted.
The Concept of Community
In biological terms, a community is a group of interacting organisms sharing an environment. In
human communities, intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risks, and a number of other
conditions may be present and common, affecting the identity of the participants and their degree
of cohesiveness.
In sociology, the concept of community has led to significant debate, and sociologists are
yet to reach agreement on a definition of the term. There were ninety-four discrete definitions of
the term by the mid-1950s (Harter, 1998). Traditionally a “community” has been defined as a
group of interacting people living in a common location. The word is often used to refer to a
group that is organized around common values and social cohesion within a shared geographical
location, generally in social units larger than a household. The word can also refer to the national
community or global community.
Since the advent of the Internet, the concept of community no longer has geographical
limitations, as people can now virtually gather in an online community and share common
interests regardless of lack of a physical location. If a community exists, both freedom and
security may exist as well. The community then takes on a life of its own, as people become free
enough to share and are secure enough to get along. The sense of connectedness and formation
of social networks comprise what has become known as social capital (Scale et al, 2000).
Nature of Human Community
The definition of a community as “organisms inhabiting a common environment and interacting
with one another,” (Folorunsho, 2005) though scientifically accurate, does not convey the
richness, diversity and complexity of human communities. The classification likewise is almost
never precise. Untidy as that definition might be, one sure fact is that the community is vital for
humans. Ekong (2003) expresses this in the following way: “There can be no vulnerability
without risk; there can be no community without vulnerability; there can be no peace, and
ultimately, no life without community.”
Community and Social Capital
Social capital is defined by Folorunsho (2005) as “the collective value of all social networks
(who people know) and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other
(norms of reciprocity).” Folorunsho (2005) noted however, that social capital has been falling in
the United States over the past 25 years. According to him, attendance at club meetings has
fallen to 58 percent, family dinners are down to 33 percent, and having friends visit has fallen 45
percent.
These same patterns are also evident in several other Western countries. Western cultures
are thus said to be losing the spirit of community that were once found in institutions including
churches and community centres. Nduka (2008) stated that people need three places: 1) the
home, 2) the office, and, 3) the community hangout or gathering place. With this philosophy in
mind, many grass-roots efforts are being channeled to creating this “Third Place” in
communities. They are taking form in independent bookstores, coffeehouses, local pubs, and

5
through many innovative means to create the social capital needed to foster the sense and spirit
of community (Folorunsho, 2005).
Community and its features are central to anthropological research. Cultural (or social)
anthropology has traditionally looked at community through the lens of ethnographic fieldwork
and ethnography continues to be an important methodology for study of modern communities
(Ekong, 2003). Other anthropological approaches that deal with various aspects of community
include cross-cultural studies and the anthropology of religion. Cultures in modern society are
also studied in the fields of urban anthropology, ethnic studies, ecological anthropology, and
psychological anthropology. Since the 1990s, Internet communities have been the subject of
research in the emerging field of cyber anthropology, (Lerner, 2002).
The term “community” is used in two ways in archaeology, paralleling usage in other
areas. The first is an informal definition of community as a place where people live. In this sense,
it is synonymous with the concept of an ancient settlement, whether a hamlet, village, town, or
city (Eccles and Gootman, 2002). The second meaning is similar to the usage of the term in other
social sciences: a community is a group of people living near one another who interact socially.
Social interaction on a small scale can be difficult to identify with archaeological data. Most
reconstructions of social communities by archaeologists rely on the principle that social
interaction is conditioned by physical distance. Therefore, a small village settlement likely
constitutes a social community, and spatial subdivisions of cities and other large settlements may
have formed communities. Archaeologists typically use similarities in material culture—from
house types to styles of pottery—to reconstruct communities in the past. This is based on the
assumption that people or households will share more similarities in the types and styles of their
material goods with other members of a social community than they will with outsiders (Oshodi
and Imasuen, 2008).
The process of learning to adopt the behaviour patterns of the community is called socialization.
The most fertile time of socialization is usually the early stages of life, during which individuals
develop the skills and knowledge and learn the roles necessary to function within their culture
and social environment (Browne and Cudeck, 1993). For some psychologists, especially those in
the psychodynamic tradition, the most important period of socialization is between the ages of
one and ten. But socialization also includes adults moving into a significantly different
environment, where they must learn a new set of behaviour (Browne and Cudeck, 1993).
Socialization is influenced primarily by the family, through which children first learn community
norms. Other important influences include school, peer groups, people, schools, mass media, the
workplace, and government. The degree to which the norms of a particular society or community
are adopted determines one’s willingness to engage with others. The norms of tolerance,
reciprocity, and trust are important “habits of the heart,” as de Tocqueville, (2005) put it, in an
individual’s involvement in community (Nduka 2008).
Community Development
Community development, often linked with Community work or community planning, is often
formally conducted by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), universities or government
agencies to promote the social well-being of local, regional and, sometimes, national
communities. Less formal efforts, called community building or community organizing, seek to
empower individuals and groups of people by providing them with the skills they need to effect
change in their own communities (Folorunsho, 2005). These skills often assist in building

6
political power through the formation of large social groups working for a common agenda.
Community development practitioners must both understand how to work with individuals and
how to affect communities’ positions within the context of larger social institutions.
At the intersection between community development and community building are a
number of programmes and organizations with community development tools. One example of
this is the programme of the Asset Based Community Development Institute of Northwestern
University, in the United Kingdom. The institute makes available downloadable tools to assess
community assets and make connections between non-profit groups and other organizations that
can help in community building. The institute focuses on helping communities’ development by
“mobilizing neighbourhood assets-building from the inside out rather than the outside in (Oshodi
and Imasuen, 2008).
Socio-Economic Development
Socio-economic development builds the capacity of people to realize their full sustainable
potential. The purpose of socio-economic development is to help and implement local solutions
to local problems. It gives room for a programme that provides financial support in collaboration
with partners in development and other stakeholders to assess situations and develop strategies to
meet the need to provide support to small and medium-sized enterprises and social enterprises in
order to undertake appropriate community socio-economic development initiatives (Folorunsho,
2005).
In an era of fast-changing economic development, the concept of socio-economic
development helps communities to adapt their economies to the new global environment. The
concept of socio-economic development focuses on community planning and development by
working with communities to assess local problems. It also establishes objectives, plans and
implements strategies to develop human capital, institutional and physical infrastructure,
entrepreneurship, employment, and economy (Freund, & Baltes, 2002).
The concept also provides access to capital to assist small and medium enterprises and
social enterprises or to help entrepreneurs to create more businesses. It also supports community-
based projects and special initiatives by collaborating with other partners in the public sector and
the civil society to implement strategic community projects or deliver special initiatives targeted
to communities (Mezirow, 1997). These projects would vary considerably from one community
to another and could exist on a wide range of local initiatives in areas such as tourism,
entrepreneurship and economic opportunities for specific client groups that exist among women
youth or projects which respond to specific challenges facing communities, such as downturns in
important industries (Laogun, 2002).
Equally, socio-economic development provides business services by delivering a range of
business in counselling and information services to small medium enterprise and social
enterprises. The concept of socio-economic development provides the ultimate objectives of
assisting communities to successfully pursue economic stability, growth and job creation. It
enhances diversified and competitive rural economies. It also enhances sustainable communities
(Lerner, 2002 and Cummings, 2003).
Relationship Between Socio-Economic Development and Community Mobilization
Socio-economic development depends on the growth of modernization and development of
communities through community mobilization. According to Oshodi and Imasuen (2008), for

7
any change to be considered as development, such change must connote progress and result to
the uplift of the quality of human life through community mobilization. Socio-economic
development is a self-generation process whereby human potential and relationships are
optimized for the purpose of satisfying needs within the context of changing beliefs and value
systems of the cultural unit and the larger community. This is seen as a strategy of improving the
economies and social life of the society through community mobilization (Anyanwu, 1992).
Socio-economic development in relation to community mobilization is a process of
structural changes in the increasingly complex economic, social, cultural technological and other
spheres of communal development. It aims at improving standards of living and quality of life in
equitable, sustainable and sufficient way (Ejiogu, 2001). Socio-economic development attracts
pre-employment training programmes that involve commitment of resources in order to ensure
availability of community mobilization among men and women in the communities.
It also develops an accelerated apprenticeship programme to become qualified business
men and women, thereby taking advantage of the employment opportunities created by the
project. Socio-economic development brings about positive changes in the society for the
sustainability of people’s participation. Socio-economic development takes place only when the
members of a community are mobilized and are committed to investing themselves and their
resources in acquiring skills based on capacities and assets of the people in the communities
(Ekong, 2003).
Community Participation in Development Programmes
The development principle advocates community participation in community-based projects
because it has long been seen and recognized as an effective means of assisting people to
mobilize their numerous and otherwise untapped resources available within them towards
improving their community. Community participation in community development ensures the
achievement of development objectives. It is also a recognized way of making basic amenities
and services available and accessible to the beneficiaries (Anyanwu, 1992).
Community projects have played a significant role in the socio-economic development of
various parts of Nigeria. They have been effectively harnessed to provide social services in the
rural areas. Community projects which have been playing a significant role in alleviating poverty
at the grass roots level will continue to provide amenities which the government, with all its
resources is unable to provide as quickly as they are needed by the people (Ejiogu, 2001). Lerner
(2002) averred that development is a process of deliberate design based on the knowledge and
application of certain rules. He stated that this process goes through four stages:
1. Pseudo-community: Where participants are “nice with each other”, playing-safe, and
presenting what they feel is the most favourable sides of their personalities.
2. Chaos: When people move beyond the artificiality of the pseudo-community and feel
safe enough to present their “shadow” selves. This stage places great demands upon the
facilitator for greater leadership and organization, but Harter (1998), asserts that
“organizations are not communities” and this pressure should be resisted.
3. Emptiness: This stage moves beyond the attempts to fix, heal and convert the chaos
stage, when all people become capable of acknowledging their own wounds and
brokenness, common to us all as human beings.

8
 Nduka (2008) asserted that building a sense of community is easy but maintaining this sense of
community is difficult in the modern world. Development can use a wide variety of practices,
ranging from simple events, such as potlucks and small book clubs to large scale efforts, such as
mass festivals and construction projects that involve local participants rather than outside
contractors.
Development is sometimes focused on more than just resolving specific issues.
Organizing often means building a widely accessible power structure, often with the end goal of
distributing power equally throughout the community. Community organizers generally seek to
build groups that are open and democratic in governance. Such groups facilitate and encourage
consensus decision-making with a focus on the general health of the community rather than a
specific interest group. The three basic types of development programmes are grass roots
development programme, coalition development, and “institution-based community
development,” (also called “broad-based community development,” an example of which is
faith-based development programme, or “congregation-based community development”) (Scales,
et al 2000).
Social Mobilization and Community Participation
While social mobilization seeks to facilitate change through a range of players engaged in
interrelated and complementary efforts, community participation enables people to become
effectively and genuinely involved in defining issues concerning them in implementing,
developing, planning and delivering services (Rushbrook, 2001). Community participation must
be given priority at all stages of the planning process and not just at the beginning. Authorities
must recognize and understand the empowerment process that is, relinquish some power and
invest in the process to build esteem, confidence, and skills. (Aloway and Ayre, 1997).
The success of problem -solving approaches is influenced by how they are adapted to the
local socio-cultural, political and economic environment and the extent to which they are
adopted by local leaders and community members. They are involved so that central policies can
better reflect community interests and local realities. Encouraging involvement fosters local
response and helps citizens to claim control approaches as their own, ultimately enhancing their
implementation (Lerner, 2002). Like any other strategic plan, enhancement of community
participation also requires a clear understanding of the baseline and the expected target of the
achievement after a certain period of time. Because of the lack of clarity in the concept of
participation, most people find it difficult to define the levels of achievement as they progress
with the programme.

9
Table 1: Simple Methods of Grading Levels of Community Participation in Programme
Development

Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V

Community Some personnel’s, Community Participation goes Programme is

receives benefits financial or material participates in beyond lower level entirely run by the
from the service, contributions from lower level decision-making to community, except
but contributes the community, but management monitoring and for some external
nothing not involved in decision-making policy making financial and
decision-making technical
assistance

Source: Alloway and Ayre (1997)

Alloway and Ayre (1997) view community participation as an active process by which
client groups or beneficiaries influence the direction and execution of the development
programme with a view to enhancing their well-being in terms of income, personal growth, self
reliance, spiritual development and other values they cherish.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Community participation and social mobilization are two key ingredients of empowering the
community. They are far more than a requirement, but a condition for success. Communities that
engage their members and partners deeply in the development raise more resources, achieve
more results, and develop in a more holistic and ultimate more beneficial way. Community
participation and social mobilization are critical to community success. Gate keepers are
important in every community because they are the stakeholders in the community. They are
individuals who have the best interest of the community at heart and desire constant
improvement of their community. Without their consent, it would be almost impossible to hold
programmes in the community. Community members should be actively and influentially
involved in analyzing and addressing their own issues, working with others as needed.
 It is, therefore, recommended that community members should be mobilized and
encouraged to form associations for development programme initiatives.
 Governments and non-governmental organizations should provide skill-based training for
community facilitation and peer educators to develop their skill in facilitating learning
activities in the local language, use songs and stories in the local language to mobilize
them.
 Social workers, governments philanthropists and non-governmental organizations should
organize enlightenment programmes that would encourage the community members to
participate more fully in development programmes.
 Change and development programmes at all levels should start with the target of change.

10
References
Alloway, B. J. and Ayres, D. C. (1997). Chemical principles of environmental pollution:
Blackie Academic and Professional Publishers. Wadsworth Publishing Company.pp.
70-74.
Anyanwu, C.N. (1992). Introduction to community development. Ibadan: Gabesther
Educational Publishers. 104-167.
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit in K.A. Bollen &
J.S. Long eds. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cummings, E. (2003). In D. Wertlieb, F. Jacobs, & R.M. Lerner .eds. Promoting positive youth
and family development: Community systems, citizenship, and civil society. Handbook of
applied developmental science: Promoting positive child, adolescent, and family
development through research, policies, and programs (pp. ix-xi). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Eccles, J.S., & Gootman, J. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Ejiogu, C.O. (2001). “The concept of community development” in The Adult Educator,
Department of Adult Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Ekong, E.F. (2003). An introduction to rural sociology. Doye Publishers Limited pp 390-398.
Folorunso, A.E. (2005). “Community development and youth integration policy in Africa.”
Education administration quarterly, pp 38 – 213.
Freund, A.M., & Baltes, P. B. (2002). Life-management strategies of selection, optimization, and
compensation: Measurement by self-report and construct validity. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 82, 642-662.
Harter, S. (1998). “The development of self-representations” in W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N.
Eisenberg Vol. ed. Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and
personality development 5th ed. New York: Wiley. pp. 553-617
Laogun, E.A. (2002). Rural youth training needs for rural community development. Nigerian
journal of rural sociology Vol. 14, No. 2 pp 75-92.
Lerner, R.M. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mezirow, J.D. (1997). Dynamics of community development. New York, Scarecrow Press pp. 43-
59.
Nduka, D.O. (2008). “A comparative analysis of community (self-help) development effort in
Nigeri. Nigeria Institute of Social and Economic Research (NISER), Ibadan, Occasional
Paper 7.

11
 Oshodi, J.N and Imasuen, O.I. (2008). “Mobilization in the empowerment process: A recipe for
rural development in Edo State, Nigeria.” Global journal of social sciences, Vol. 7, No. 2
pp 100-117.
Roth, J.L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). “What is a youth development program? Identification
and defining principles” in F. Jacobs, D. Wertlieb, & R.M. Lerner eds. Enhancing the life
chances of youth and families: Public service systems and public policy perspectives:
Vol. 2
Rushbrook, P. (2001). Guidance on minimum approaches for improvements to existing
municipal waste dumpsites, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Scales, P., Benson, P., Leffert, N., & Blyth, D.A. (2000). The contribution of developmental
assets to the prediction of thriving among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 4,
27-46.

12

View publication stats