While I'm not exactly sure what the questioner(s) mean by a "single content approach" to community organization (I've never heard this particular term before), I'd venture to guess that the term refers to one of two things. One - Organizing around a single issue (e.g., neighborhood crime) vs. a variety of issues (e.g., community well-being). In general, I believe most activists suggest a concrete single issue as the initial focal point, wiht divergence from this as the organization matures. Two - this could refer to the value of utilizing one approach versus multiple, synergistic approaches. For example, as the Community Tool Box (CTB) points out, the literature (academic & practice) conistently points to the desirability and strategic value of a multiplicity of approaches / strategies in organizing. The questioner(s) might find the following piece in CBT useful: "Some Lessons Learned on Community Organization and Change": http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1386.htm The CBT describes several broad "Models of practice" (i.e., social planning, social action, locality development, & community partnerships / coalitions). While any one of these may be appropriate in on of itself, depending upon the nature of the problem or issue, under the section titled "What are some lessons learned about community organization and change?" - Point 5: "Intervention and maintenance of efforts" - the authors underscore the desirability of multiple approaches (versus a single approach or strategy): This section states in part: The strategy of community organization should fit the situation. The broad and specific means of intervention should match the ends, and the context. For example, social planning -- using technical information often with the guidance of outside experts -- may assist in defining goals when people share common interests. Similarly, locality development -- featuring self-help efforts of local people -- may be appropriate for reducing a particular problem, such as substance abuse or neighborhood safety, around which there is widespread agreement. In contrast, social action -- with its disruptive tactics and related conflict -- may be needed in contexts of opposing interests such as in reducing discrimination or disparities in income or power. Using multiple strategies usually has an advantage over any single strategy. Some initiatives -- for instance, a campaign for school reform -- get stuck using one preferred means of action, such as collaborative planning or disruptive tactics, even when the goals or conditions shift. By invoking only one strategy, the organization's actions may be easier to ignore and the benefits of complementary approaches may go untapped. For example, the threat of disruptive tactics (social action) may make support for self-help efforts (locality development) more likely. Flexibility in strategy, and use of multiple means, may enhance community efforts and outcomes. Celebrated organziners like Saul Alinsky (see for example, "Rules for radicals: A pragmatic primer for realistic radicals," 1971) and organizations that develop leaders / community organizers such as the Midwest Academy (see for example Bobo, K., Kendall, J., & Max, S. (2001). "Organizing for social change: Midwest Academy: A manual for activists," 3rd ed. Santa Ana, CA: Seven Locks Press) have long suggested a multiplicity of approaches is valuable. Related to this, the literature (and those who practice c.o.) also suggest that community organizations that develop around multiple issues typically fare better than those focused upon single issues. I hope that you will find this helpful!
