It is important to discuss more about the specificity of regional homophilious clusters. Taking into an account the density of network, the definition of cluster in the given case is about sparse networks of “countrymen”, which form so called clusters, and almost total absence of ties between them. These features begin to appear more clearly when the structural factors are introduced (see Models 4-10). First of all it is worth to note that both the regional homophily and financial homophily among fully integrated NGOs remain demonstrate robustness after introducing of structural factors. At the same time structural terms enable to get more precise understanding of tie formation processes. The civic network does not form on the basis of triadic closure. Moreover a negative coefficient of “gwesp.ISP.fixed.0.639” demonstrates that the probability of ties between nodes that shared common incoming partner is negative. Thus popular organizations that have many incoming ties are unlikely to be connected. It is possible to suggest some interrelated explanations on the basis of this nontrivial result.