Introduction
Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) have become central agents in community development, especially in the context of new public management and new public governance reforms (Conteh & Harding, Reference Conteh and Harding2023; Mazzei et al., Reference Mazzei, Teasdale, Calò and Roy2020). As governments decentralize public services and adopt collaborative governance approaches, NPOs increasingly assume responsibilities that extend beyond service delivery and function as facilitators of collective governance and problem-solving, especially in local communities (Bauer et al., Reference Bauer, AbouAssi and Johnston2023). We refer to this phenomenon as community governance. Community governance is the process through which communities organize themselves, make collective decisions, resolve conflicts, and build the capacity to address their challenges (Rossi et al., Reference Rossi, Leardini, Moggi and Campedelli2015). This process typically involves diverse stakeholders, such as public, private, and third sector actors, to advance shared goals and sustain social cohesion (Fung, Reference Fung2017; Wright, Reference Wright2018).
Within this space, nonprofit social work agencies (NSWAs) constitute a distinct subset of NPOs. The core mission of NSWAs is to deliver human services through professional social work approaches (Despard, Reference Despard2016). In the international literature, such entities are commonly discussed under the broader label of “nonprofit human service organizations/agencies” (McBeath et al., Reference McBeath, Mosley, Hopkins, Guerrero, Austin and Tropman2019). In China, NSWAs are commonly referred to as social work organizations (shehui gongzuo jigou) (Consistent with the international literature, we refer to these social work organizations (shehui gongzuo jigou) in China as NSWAs.). Compared to other subsets of NPOs (e.g., foundations, environmental NGOs, and arts associations), NSWAs are mission-driven organizations primarily engaged in human service provision and are typically staffed by social workers (Yang et al., Reference Yang, Wang and Chen2021). They combine the institutional characteristics of general NPOs, such as voluntary governance, nonprofit distribution constraints, and community orientation, with the professional attributes of social work, including empowerment, social justice, and thorough assessment and responsive care to those in need (Austin, Reference Austin2018).
Given their position within community governance contexts, NSWAs are frequently required to engage with a wide range of stakeholders, including government agencies, community residents, businesses, volunteers, and other NPOs, in order to mobilize community resources and promote community development (Stephens et al., Reference Stephens, Van Steden and Schoonmade2024). In doing so, NSWAs often act as intermediaries between different sectors and stakeholders. While such governance contexts create opportunities for NSWAs to contribute to community governance, they also expose them to competing expectations, overlapping responsibilities, and conflicting institutional logics (Leung, Reference Leung2013; Renz et al., Reference Renz, Brown and Andersson2023). These challenges are often intensified by hierarchical governance arrangements, unequal power relations, and ambiguous divisions of responsibility, particularly in contexts where nonprofit autonomy is constrained (Van Meerkerk & Edelenbos, Reference Van Meerkerk and Edelenbos2018).
Consequently, NSWAs must continuously navigate the boundaries and negotiate their relationships with diverse stakeholders while maintaining their professional values, organizational legitimacy, and commitment to serving marginalized populations (Despard, Reference Despard2016). Understanding how NSWAs manage these boundaries is therefore critical for explaining how organizations navigate competing demands, balance collaboration with autonomy, and sustain their role within complex community governance systems (Harrow & Jung, Reference Harrow and Jung2016; Oh, Reference Oh2025).
To contend with these competing demands, prior research has identified a range of boundary management strategies, such as role negotiation, stakeholder alignment, and professional translation (Craven et al., Reference Craven, Dickinson and Carey2018; Oldenhof et al., Reference Oldenhof, Stoopendaal and Putters2016). Organizational boundary management has been widely employed to understand how organizations navigate complex stakeholder relationships and institutional environments (Klindt et al., Reference Klindt, Baadsgaard and Jørgensen2024). Research on cross-sector and multisectoral collaboration has generated important insights into partnership formation, coordination mechanisms, and collective outcomes in frontline human service organizations (Anasti, Reference Anasti2026; Mosley, Reference Mosley2021; Vogel et al., Reference Vogel, Göbel, Grewe‐Salfeld, Herbert, Matsuo and Weber2022). Boundary management scholarship extends this perspective by focusing on how organizations navigate competing expectations, authority structures, and professional commitments that emerge from such interactions. However, less is known about how organizations identify, negotiate, and maintain organizational boundaries within community governance settings, particularly for NSWAs, which must simultaneously navigate governmental mandates, community needs, and professional values (Ciabuschi et al., Reference Ciabuschi, Baraldi and Lindahl2020).
Although existing boundary management research has generated valuable insights into how organizations navigate boundaries in democratic and relatively decentralized governance systems (Alam & Hoque, Reference Alam and Hoque2021; Craven et al., Reference Craven, Dickinson and Carey2018), much less is known about how organizations identify, negotiate, and maintain different boundaries within state-led governance systems where collaboration is institutionally mandated and nonprofit autonomy is constrained. In China, for example, community governance has increasingly shifted from direct state provision toward state-led collaborative governance, particularly through government-contracted social services. One prominent example is the “Five-Sector Linkage” (wushe liandong) model, which promotes collaboration among community residents, community organizations, social workers, volunteers, and social charitable resources, with social workers and social work organizations playing important roles in professional support, resource linkage, and service coordination (Feng et al., Reference Feng, Wang, Chen, Tang, Qin and He2025). Within these contexts, NSWAs are expected to collaborate with government agencies, residents’ committees, community residents, businesses, and other social actors to address complex community needs (Cortis et al., Reference Cortis, Fang and Dou2018).
This institutional positioning creates unique boundary management challenges. While responsible for delivering community services, NSWAs must simultaneously respond to governmental mandates, contractual accountability requirements, community expectations, and professional social work values. Boundary negotiations therefore occur within governance arrangements characterized by unequal authority relations and constrained organizational autonomy (Boddie et al., Reference Boddie, Jiao, Webster, Zhao and Hodge2021).
To address these research gaps, this study asks: How do nonprofit social work agencies strategically manage boundaries within state-led community governance systems in China? Drawing on Organizational Boundary Theory ((OBT); Santos & Eisenhardt, Reference Santos and Eisenhardt2005; Stephens et al., Reference Stephens, Van Steden and Schoonmade2024), we conduct an in-depth case study of NPO Q, a NSWA in urban China. The analysis draws on 22 qualitative interviews with diverse community stakeholders, nonparticipant field observations, and organizational documents to examine how NSWAs identify, negotiate, and maintain organizational boundaries in practice.
This study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, it extends organizational boundary scholarship by demonstrating how NPOs identify, negotiate, and maintain spatial, institutional, and professional boundaries within collaborative governance arrangements. Second, it advances understanding of boundary management in state-led governance systems, where NPOs must balance governmental mandates, community expectations, and professional commitments under conditions of unequal authority and constrained autonomy. Third, it contributes to interdisciplinary dialogues between nonprofit and social work scholarship by demonstrating how boundary management enables NSWAs to sustain professional integrity, stakeholder relationships, and service continuity in complex community governance settings.
Literature review
Organizational boundary theory in nonprofit and social work studies
The concept of boundaries has long been a central concern within sociology and organizational studies. Boundary work scholarship views boundaries as socially constructed and continuously negotiated distinctions that define domains of authority, expertise, identity, and legitimacy (Lamont & Molnár, Reference Lamont and Molnár2002; Owens et al., Reference Owens, Petts and Bulkeley2006). Rather than treating boundaries as fixed organizational structures, boundary work emphasizes how actors actively construct, contest, and maintain boundaries through everyday practices and interactions. Scholars have shown that boundary work is particularly important in complex governance settings where multiple actors compete over resources, authority, and legitimacy (Gieryn, Reference Gieryn1983; Lindberg et al., Reference Lindberg and Portinson Hylander2017).
Building on this tradition, OBT shifts attention from boundary construction itself to how organizations strategically manage boundaries in practice. OBT conceptualizes boundaries as the physical and symbolic demarcations that delineate the domains of responsibility, authority, and professional identity in relation to other actors (Quick & Feldman, Reference Quick and Feldman2014; Santos & Eisenhardt, Reference Santos and Eisenhardt2005). The theory focuses on the organizational processes through which actors identify, negotiate, bridge, span, and maintain boundaries in response to environmental complexity and interdependence (Mohr, Reference Mohr2019). As such, OBT provides a useful conceptual lens for analyzing how organizations navigate competing stakeholder demands, coordinate across institutional domains, and sustain their roles within collaborative governance arrangements (Stephens et al., Reference Stephens, Van Steden and Schoonmade2024).
In nonprofit research, OBT has been used to analyze how organizations interact with funders, state actors, and other stakeholders, often under resource constraints (Bakko, Reference Bakko2019; Huang & Yang, Reference Huang and Yang2016). Research has explored how NPOs construct porous boundaries to collaborate while maintaining their autonomy (Mano, Reference Mano2016) and how they span sectors through cross-boundary governance (Högberg, Reference Högberg2023). Within the social work literature, OBT is primarily employed to address issues of role conflict, professional collaboration, and community integration (Austin et al., Reference Austin, Dal Santo and Lewis2012; Grell, Reference Grell2022). Social workers often function as brokers between policy requirements, client needs, and organizational mandates (Johansson et al., Reference Johansson, Arvidson and Johansson2015).
This study adopts OBT because it provides an interdisciplinary bridge between nonprofit studies and social work practice (McBeath et al., Reference McBeath, Mosley, Hopkins, Guerrero, Austin and Tropman2019; Mosley, Reference Mosley2021). By framing boundaries as both organizational interfaces with external environments and professional demarcations of roles and identities, OBT enables us to connect structural analyses common in nonprofit management (e.g., resource dependence and governance arrangements) with practice-oriented concerns in social work (e.g., professional autonomy and beneficiary-centered engagement). In doing so, OBT offers a shared conceptual language for examining how organizations and professionals simultaneously navigate competing demands within community governance (Page et al., Reference Page, Stone, Bryson and Crosby2015).
Nonprofit boundary management in community governance
NPOs engaged in community governance frequently encounter boundary challenges stemming from the diversity and complexity of their stakeholder environments, which include local government agencies, business entities, community residents, volunteers, professional groups, and peer organizations (Cortis, Reference Cortis2017; Moldavanova & Wright, Reference Moldavanova and Wright2020). Community governance requires these actors to work across organizational, sectoral, and professional domains to address increasingly complex community challenges that no single organization can solve independently. As a result, NPOs must engage in boundary work to maintain their operational effectiveness and legitimacy (Wells & Anasti, Reference Wells and Anasti2020).
To navigate these complexities, NPOs adopt various boundary management strategies. One common approach involves boundary bridging through cross-sector collaboration, which enables organizations to access resources, coordinate stakeholders, and address uncertainty in complex governance environments (Chui, Reference Chui2022; Mosley, Reference Mosley2021). Through collaboration, organizations can connect previously separated actors, facilitate information exchange, and mobilize resources across organizational and sectoral boundaries. However, collaboration may also generate new boundary challenges when mission commitments, professional values, stakeholder expectations, and accountability requirements diverge (Campbell & Lambright, Reference Campbell and Lambright2017). As a result, collaboration often creates the need for ongoing boundary management rather than eliminating boundary tensions altogether.
Prior studies have further identified several boundary management processes. First, boundary identification involves mapping relevant actors, domains, and responsibilities to clarify areas of overlap and fragmentation (MacLean & Webber, Reference MacLean and Webber2015). Second, boundary bridging emphasizes creating linkages across sectors through partnerships, cohosted programs, and shared platforms that facilitate collaboration (Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Joshi and Kreiner2023). Third, boundary spanning refers to the use of individuals or teams who act as brokers, translators, or negotiators to align diverse institutional logics and facilitate coordination across stakeholder groups (Glazer et al., Reference Glazer, Shirrell, Duff and Freed2023). Finally, boundary maintenance entails the development of soft infrastructures, such as liaison roles, shared routines, and standardized accounting, to sustain partnerships and manage conflict over time (Alam & Hoque, Reference Alam and Hoque2021).
These boundary management processes become particularly important in community governance settings, where organizations must coordinate diverse stakeholders while balancing multiple and sometimes competing demands (Belanche et al., Reference Belanche, Casaló and Rubio2021). Such challenges are especially pronounced in urban communities, which are often characterized by dense stakeholder networks, multiple funding streams, layered governance arrangements, and high expectations for service delivery (Asén et al., Reference Asén, Julkunen and Saurama2022). Compared with rural communities, where stronger interpersonal ties may facilitate coordination despite resource constraints (Wu et al., Reference Wu, Greig and Bryan2022), urban NPOs frequently operate within more fragmented and institutionally complex environments. Consequently, boundary management in urban communities should be understood as an ongoing and strategic process, which requires further exploration.
Boundary management in the urban Chinese context
The role of NPOs in Chinese urban communities has expanded significantly with the institutionalization of government-purchased social services and broader efforts to promote collaborative community governance (Lei et al., Reference Lei, Cai and Chan2023). Within this setting, NSWAs often function as intermediaries that connect governmental agencies, community residents, volunteers, businesses, and other social organizations while delivering community-based services (Boddie et al., Reference Boddie, Jiao, Webster, Zhao and Hodge2021; Cortis et al., Reference Cortis, Fang and Dou2018). This role has become increasingly important under China’s policy emphasis on “co-construction, co-governance, and sharing,” which promotes multiactor participation in social and community governance (Zhu & Deng, Reference Zhu and Deng2025). At the same time, NSWAs remain deeply embedded within state-led governance systems and are expected to simultaneously achieve policy objectives, respond to community needs, and uphold professional social work values (Wang, Reference Wang2022).
In urban China, community governance is characterized by asymmetrical authority structures and constrained nonprofit autonomy (Kan & Ku, Reference Kan and Ku2021; Wang, Reference Wang2020). Local governments exercise substantial influence through funding mechanisms, contractual requirements, performance assessments, and regulatory oversight, while NSWAs remain highly dependent on governmental support for organizational survival and service continuity. At the same time, NSWAs are expected to collaborate with governmental agencies, residents, businesses, and other community actors to address complex social problems. These overlapping responsibilities and competing expectations can render organizational boundaries fluid and contested across public service provision, civic engagement, and professional social work practice.
Boundary complexity is further shaped by both vertical fragmentation across administrative levels (from state-level to community-level) and horizontal dispersion among government agencies, community organizations, residents, businesses, and professional groups (Yi-Bing et al., Reference Yi-Bing, Quan-Cai and Meng2022). Consequently, boundary negotiations are not politically neutral processes but occur within institutional environments where authority, resources, and legitimacy are unevenly distributed. NSWAs must balance accountability to governmental funders with professional autonomy and service values in the communities (Wei & Tsui, Reference Wei and Tsui2018).
In this study, community in urban China refers to the neighborhood and subdistrict levels, where governmental actors, residents, NPOs, and community partners collaborate to address local community challenges. These institutional conditions suggest that boundary management in China may differ from patterns identified in Western nonprofit settings. While existing studies have examined state–nonprofit relations, government contracting, and collaborative governance in China (Sidel & Hu, Reference Sidel and Hu2021; Yang, Reference Yang2017), less attention has been paid to how NSWAs identify, negotiate, and maintain boundaries within these asymmetrical community governance contexts. Thus, understanding these processes is particularly important because boundary management at the community level is increasingly institutionalized through policy frameworks.
Methods
Research design
This study employed a qualitative single-case study design (Yin, Reference Yin2013). The case approach was selected to provide an in-depth, context-sensitive understanding of boundary management as a dynamic and situated organizational process. By adopting a hybrid thematic analysis approach, OBT in this study informed the development of the interview protocol and sensitized the analysis to key boundary management processes. At the same time, the study maintained an inductive orientation, allowing new themes and boundary dynamics to emerge from the empirical data beyond the initial theoretical framework.
Case context
The unit of analysis in this study is NPO Q (pseudonym), a NSWA operating within a government-commissioned community multigovernance initiative (henceforth referred to as “the initiative”) in Guangzhou, China. Guangzhou represents one of the earliest and most developed sites for professional social work and government-contracted social services in China. The initiative serves as the empirical setting through which boundary management processes are examined, whereas NPO Q constitutes the focal organization of analysis.
Founded in 2009 through a collaboration between university-based social work scholars and practitioners, NPO Q is among the earliest professional social work organizations established in Guangdong Province. The organization has extensive experience delivering government-contracted social services and community development programs. At the time of data collection, NPO Q operated approximately 10 service sites and served more than 50,000 residents across multiple urban communities. Its service portfolio included youth development, elderly care, family support, home safety interventions, community education, and community governance programs. Through long-term engagement with local governments, residents, volunteers, businesses, and community organizations, NPO Q has developed substantial experience in coordinating diverse stakeholders within community governance settings.
The focal initiative examined in this study was launched in 2022 as part of broader efforts to strengthen community governance through multistakeholder participation. NPO Q was commissioned by local authorities to coordinate and implement the initiative within a socioeconomically diverse urban subdistrict. The initiative comprised five interconnected subprojects focusing on green space cocreation, residential property governance, commercial–community integration, child-friendly community development, and community leadership training. Each subproject involved multiple stakeholders, including community-level government agencies, Communist Party branches, businesses, property management companies, residents, volunteer groups, and community-based organizations. Within this arrangement, NPO Q served as the primary coordinating organization responsible for stakeholder engagement and community mobilization. Figure 1 illustrates the multistakeholder structure of the initiative, and a detailed overview is provided in the Appendix, Figure A1.
Stakeholder environment of NPO Q within the government-commissioned community multigovernance initiative.
Fig. 1 Long description
At the center of the diagram is a triangle labeled N P O Q, identified as the Focal Organization and Boundary Management Intermediary. Surrounding this central triangle are three rectangular boxes representing different stakeholder sectors.
Directly above the triangle is the Public-sector stakeholders box, which includes:
• District-level government
• Residential communities community-level government
• Public organizations e.g., primary schools located in the communities
• Community Party branches
To the bottom-left of the triangle is the Private-sector stakeholders box, which includes:
• Community business entities
• Property management companies
• Corporate social responsibility departments
To the bottom-right of the triangle is the Nonprofit-Sector stakeholders box, which includes:
• Community actors and self-governance resident groups
• Other N P O s located in the communities
Following purposive case study logic, NPO Q was selected as an information-rich and theoretically relevant case (Huang, Reference Huang2022; Yin, Reference Yin2013). The case is particularly suitable for examining boundary management because it places a NSWA at the intersection of governmental mandates, community participation, and professional social work practice within a state-led governance system. Such positioning requires continuous interaction with actors holding different interests, responsibilities, and sources of authority, thereby creating rich opportunities to observe how boundaries are identified, negotiated, and maintained in practice.
Data collection
All data were collected between November 2024 and February 2025 through three complementary sources: semistructured interviews, nonparticipant field observations, and organizational documents (In the analysis and citations throughout this paper, abbreviations are used to indicate data sources: SW refers to social workers, G to community-level governmental staff, R to active community residents and volunteers, CB to community business representatives, and D to documents.). The use of multiple data sources enabled triangulation and provided a richer understanding of boundary management processes within the initiative. To protect confidentiality, pseudonyms were used for the organization, initiative, and participants, and all identifying information was removed from the transcripts and fieldnotes. The study is approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Hong Kong.
Semistructured interviews
Semistructured interviews constituted the primary source of data. Participants were selected through purposive and snowball sampling to capture diverse perspectives on boundary management within the initiative. Initial participants were identified based on their direct involvement in the design, implementation, governance, or participation of the initiative. Specifically, social workers were selected because they were responsible for coordinating and implementing project activities; government officials were selected due to their oversight and support roles; residents and volunteers were selected based on their active participation in one or more subprojects; and business representatives were selected because of their involvement in community events or sponsorship. Snowball sampling was subsequently used to identify additional participants who could provide complementary perspectives.
A total of 22 interviews were conducted, including professional social workers (n = 7), community-level governmental staff (n = 4), active community residents and volunteers (n = 6), and community business representatives (n = 5). Social workers were recruited directly through NPO Q, whereas other stakeholders were identified with support from the organization’s stakeholder network. Interviews were conducted in Putonghua or Cantonese, lasted between 45 and 60 minutes, and were audio-recorded with participants’ consent before being transcribed verbatim.
The interview guide was informed by OBT while remaining sufficiently flexible to allow participants to introduce issues they considered important. Questions focused on participants’ experiences of collaboration, stakeholder interactions, and boundary-related challenges. Sample questions included “How do you understandthe boundaries among different stakeholders involved in the initiative?” and “How do you manage these boundaries in practice?” Minor adjustments were made to reflect the specific roles and experiences of different stakeholder groups.
Nonparticipant field observation
To supplement interview data, the researchers conducted nonparticipant observations at three community events and one interorganizational coordination meeting organized by or involving NPO Q. Detailed fieldnotes were recorded to capture stakeholder interactions, organizational routines, and boundary negotiations as they unfolded in real time.
Organizational documents
Organizational documents were used as a supplementary data source to contextualize the initiative and triangulate interview findings. A total of 11 documents were analyzed, including 2 organizational reports and 9 publicly available social media posts related to the initiative. These materials provided information regarding project objectives, stakeholder roles, organizational narratives, and institutional expectations surrounding the initiative.
Data analysis
Data were analyzed using a hybrid thematic analysis approach that combined deductive and inductive coding (Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun, Clarke, Cooper, Camic, Long, Panter, Rindskopf and Sher2012). OBT served as a sensitizing framework that guided the initial coding process while allowing new themes and patterns to emerge from the empirical data. This approach was particularly appropriate because the study sought both to engage with existing organizational boundary management scholarship and to explore how boundary management unfolds within a unique state-led governance system.
The analysis began with repeated reading of interview transcripts, fieldnotes, and organizational documents to achieve familiarity with the data. Initial codes were then generated using a hybrid coding strategy. Deductive codes were informed by concepts from OBT, including boundary identification, bridging, and maintenance. At the same time, inductive codes emerged from participants’ accounts and observational data, including themes related to resident incentives and mobilization, professional embeddedness, stakeholder coordination, and community participation.
Through iterative comparison across data sources, codes were grouped into broader thematic categories. During this process, particular attention was paid to distinguishing different boundary domains. Spatial boundaries referred to tensions surrounding the use, ownership, or governance of community spaces. Institutional boundaries were coded when tensions primarily concerned contractual requirements, administrative mandates, and organizational autonomy. Professional boundaries were coded when tensions centered on bureaucratic expectations, social work values, and professional identities. These coding decisions were refined through multiple rounds of discussion among the research team.
Thematic analysis ultimately identified three interconnected phases of boundary management: boundary identification, boundary bridging, and boundary maintenance. Although informed by OBT, these themes were refined through an iterative process that combined theoretical concepts with recurring empirical patterns across stakeholder groups. As analysis progressed, relationships among the themes became increasingly evident. To capture these dynamics, the researchers developed the boundary recalibration cycle presented in Figure 2. The processes of redefining, reflecting, responding, and adapting were derived inductively from repeated patterns observed across the three phases and represent the ongoing and cyclical nature of boundary management within the initiative. All data were managed and coded using ATLAS.ti. Table 1 presents the coding structure and thematic development process.
Nonprofit social work agencies’ boundary recalibration circle in community governance.
Fig. 2 Long description
A flowchart consisting of three large blue circles connected by curved grey arrows in a clockwise loop.
1. Top-Left Circle: Boundary Identification. It lists three points: 1. Spatial boundaries between the public and private domains. 2. Institutional boundaries between administrative mandates and organizational autonomy. 3. Professional boundaries between bureaucratic expectations and professional identities.
A curved arrow labeled Strategic Response points from this circle to the next.
2. Top-Right Circle: Boundary Bridging. It lists three points: 1. Residents’ empowerment and incentive strategies. 2. Professional embeddedness strategies. 3. Resource integration strategies.
A curved arrow labeled Reflection on Emerging Challenges points from this circle down to the next.
3. Bottom-Center Circle: Boundary Maintenance. It lists three points: 1. Unclear division of labor and responsibility. 2. Unstable financial sustainability. 3. Long-term cultivating civic leadership.
A curved arrow labeled Reflection and Boundary Redefinition points from this circle back up to the Boundary Identification circle, completing the cycle.
Thematic development of boundary management processes
Table 1. Long description
The table is organized into four columns: Boundary phase, Sample raw data, Sub themes, and Final themes.
1. Boundary identification phase:
- Spatial boundaries: Derived from data about resident expectations for revitalizing communal spaces; sub themes include public communal areas and private residential domains.
- Institutional boundaries: Derived from data regarding following funders’ rules to secure resources; sub themes include administrative mandates and contractual requirements.
- Professional boundaries: Derived from data on social workers using community-based methods versus administrative routines; sub themes include bureaucratic performance expectations, social work values, and professional identities.
2. Boundary bridging phase:
- Resident mobilization and incentive strategies: Derived from data on families discovering the joy of planting; sub themes include resident-centered engagement and participation incentives.
- Professional embedding strategies: Derived from data on social workers bringing fresh thinking and mobilizing resources; sub themes include professional recognition and adaptive innovation.
- Resource integration strategies: Derived from data on the temporary nature of external organization support; sub themes include external partnerships and stakeholder coordination.
3. Boundary maintenance phase:
- Maintain stakeholder commitment: Derived from data on the lack of standardized maintenance leading to participants giving up; sub themes include ambiguous roles and shared responsibility.
- Maintain financial sustainability: Derived from data on social workers becoming key resource mobilizers through micro-grants; sub themes include resource dependence and financial continuity.
- Maintain civic leadership: Derived from data on the long-term nature of cultivating civic leadership; sub themes include leadership cultivation and community ownership.
Results
The findings show that NSWAs manage organizational boundaries through three interconnected phases: boundary identification, boundary bridging, and boundary maintenance. Across these phases, NPO Q encountered spatial, institutional, and professional boundaries and developed corresponding strategies, including resident mobilization and incentives, professional embedding, and resource integration, to address these boundaries. At the same time, sustaining these boundary arrangements generated new challenges related to stakeholder commitment, financial sustainability, and civic leadership. These findings suggest that boundary management is not a linear process but an ongoing cycle of adaptation and recalibration.
Boundary identification: Mapping spatial, institutional, and professional boundaries
The first phase of boundary management involved identifying key boundary tensions that shaped NPO Q’s interactions with stakeholders in the government-commissioned community multigovernance initiative. Three boundary domains were identified: (1) spatial boundaries between public and private domains; (2) institutional boundaries between administrative mandates and organizational autonomy; and (3) professional boundaries between bureaucratic expectations and professional identities.
First, spatial boundaries refer to the distinctions between public communal areas and the private domains of residents. The initiative takes place in a geographically defined community established in the 1980s, where services provided by the property management company have become inadequate. Residents expressed high expectations for revitalizing underutilized communal spaces, particularly by enhancing green areas and fostering stronger community engagement. Many public spaces had deteriorated, often misused as dumping grounds, highlighting the need for community spatial reorganization.
In response, NPO Q launched a subproject focused on shared community gardening. Through negotiation with the community-level governmental staff and participatory investigation with residents, the social workers from NPO Q mapped available communal land and invited households to “adopt” and cultivate one-square-meter plots of their own. Through this process, NPO Q helped transform previously neglected communal spaces into shared community assets and encouraged residents to participate in the stewardship of public areas. Spatial boundary challenges extended beyond community gardening and were also evident in other forms of shared community infrastructure and public resources.
Another spatial boundary issue emerged around the deteriorating housing infrastructure, especially regarding installing additional elevators. Disputes arose over financial responsibility and ownership status of the shared spaces involved, blurring the line between private and public responsibility. To mediate these tensions, social workers invited residents to serve as volunteer “housing managers” and form self-governance groups (maximum three members) responsible for coordinating public affairs. As noted in a public organizational document:
These groups engaged residents in collective decision-making by creating building-specific communication channels and organizing participatory votes to select elevator contractors. In buildings with heightened complexity or resident conflict, social workers provided facilitation and modeled deliberation processes to support more inclusive and effective decision-making (D1).
This example illustrates how spatial boundaries in community governance extend beyond the physical use of shared spaces to community ownership and collective decision-making. In both cases, NPO Q played a facilitative role by creating participatory mechanisms through which residents could negotiate these boundaries and develop a shared understanding of public and private responsibilities.
Second, institutional boundaries emerged between administrative mandates and organizational autonomy. NPO Q implemented the initiative within a municipal policy agenda aimed at revitalizing aging urban communities and strengthening community governance. Although NPO Q was expected to exercise organizational discretion, the initiative was funded through the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) development funds and subject to strict budgeting, reporting, and accountability requirements (In this study, “CCP development funds” refers to financial resources made available through local Party-led initiatives to support Party building, community governance, and service activities. Such funding reflects broader efforts to integrate social organizations into Party-led grassroots governance and service provision [Kan & Ku, Reference Kan and Ku2021; Thornton, Reference Thornton2022].). Consequently, governmental actors retained substantial influence over project priorities and resource allocation, while NPO Q possessed limited autonomy in implementation. As one social worker noted:
The project funding comes with requirements. If we do not follow the funders’ rules, we cannot secure any long-term resources, even when urgent community needs are clearly identified. Sometimes we know residents’ diverse needs, but we still have to spend considerable time adjusting our plans to accountability purpose and administrative procedures. Otherwise, the initiative cannot move forward (SW 4).
The institutional boundary was further complicated by different interests and priorities of governmental actors, community business, and residents. In a subproject aimed at addressing recurring disputes between local businesses and residents over issues such as noise complaints and neighborhood disturbances, social workers at NPO Q identified the boundaries and adopted a relational, negotiation-based approach which emphasizes trust building, dialogue, and collaborative decision-making rather than top-down enforcement. As one social worker explained:
Rather than relying on administrative directives and punitive measures, we emphasize participation, coordination, and communication to balance different interests and promote community engagement (SW 1).
Through a series of consultations, NPO Q then facilitated the development of the 2023 Friendly Community Business, Harmonious Neighborhood Pact, which established voluntary agreements on noise control and dispute mediation. This process enabled NPO Q to align governmental expectations with the interests of businesses and residents, thereby negotiating the institutional boundary between administrative mandates and organizational autonomy.
Third, professional boundaries emerged between bureaucratic expectations and professional identities. While community-level governmental actors often emphasized task completion, procedural compliance, and short-term problem-solving, social workers at NPO Q understood their role through the professional values of participation, empowerment, and long-term community development. As one government official observed:
Professional social workers use community development methods that differ from administrative routines, focusing on resident participation and asset mapping. Their approach often reaches people whom the administrative system cannot effectively mobilize (G1).
To maintain their professional identity, social workers positioned themselves not merely as service providers but as facilitators of community capacity building. As one social worker explained:
We divide our work into basic safety-net services and community development. This project is about empowering residents to solve their problems. We are here to build the residents’ capacity for sustainable community development (SW2).
Despite these efforts, confusion regarding the social work profession remained common. As one community-level governmental staff member acknowledged, “many in the administrative system don’t understand the profession or where it fits” (G2). Nevertheless, residents viewed social workers as trusted and neutral intermediaries. One resident recalled that a long-standing dispute between local businesses and residents was resolved after social workers facilitated dialogue alongside the police and different stakeholders. This case highlights the distinctive value of NPO Q’s professional mediation and community engagement.
Boundary bridging: Strategic responses to spatial, institutional, and professional boundaries
Having identified these three boundaries, NPO Q developed a range of strategic responses to address the tensions emerging across multiple boundary domains. These strategic responses served as the mechanisms through which boundaries were bridged. The second phase of boundary management involved implementing strategic responses to the three boundary domains identified above. Specifically, NPO Q adopted: (1) resident mobilization and incentive strategies; (2) professional embedding strategies; and (3) resource integration strategies.
First, NPO Q employed resident mobilization and incentive strategies, which refer to efforts designed to encourage residents’ participation in community affairs through engagement opportunities, recognition mechanisms, and collective action. Through deliberative forums, residents expressed strong concerns about the deteriorating environment and skepticism about the actual solutions proposed by NPO Q. To overcome these concerns and skepticism, social workers organized a community gardening workshop, attracting families with children and older adults to foster engagement. As one social worker explained:
This activity helped families discover the joy of gardening and its educational value. At the beginning, many residents were hesitant. However, once they started interacting with their neighbors, they became much more engaged. From there, we were also able to identify a group of core participants who later became active contributors to other community governance activities (SW3).
These families became key participants in launching the community garden subproject. To sustain momentum and reinforce participation, NPO Q also hosted annual recognition ceremonies to honor active residents and supportive community businesses who attended and provided support in the project.
Community-level governmental staff highlighted the importance of these strategies in fostering changes in residents’ attitudes and sense of responsibility:
This project helped residents realize that managing the residential building is everyone’s responsibility. That change in mindset is the real goal. Social workers must cultivate local leadership to realize self-governance (G2).
Residents also reported a gradual shift from skepticism to participation. One resident admitted that she initially dismissed the initiative as “just for show.” However, joining a community land-clearing event, she became convinced of its value: “It was then that I understood the power of joint action, and that convinced me to keep going” (R1).
These mobilization and incentive strategies enabled NPO Q to transform residents from passive beneficiaries into active participants in community governance, thus bridging the spatial boundaries that had previously separated public communal areas from residents’ private concerns.
Second, NPO Q employed professional embedding strategies, referring to efforts to integrate social workers into routine community governance processes and decision-making structures. Rather than operating as external service providers, social workers at NPO Q actively participated in neighborhood committee activities, resident consultations, and community day-to-day problem-solving processes, for the purpose of community development. As one social worker introduced:
Our goal is to mobilize internal community capacity, not just deliver social services. We work closely with residents and neighborhood committees so that community members gradually learn how to identify problems and organize solutions themselves (SW5).
A government official echoed this: “While the community-level government handles administrative and basic care tasks, social workers focus more on activating residents. We’ve also invited them into our decision-making process” (G1). Through the embedded role, social workers became recognized governance actors rather than external contractors. As another government official noted:
We’ve seen real changes, Social workers bring fresh thinking, mobilize resources, and apply for philanthropic micro-grants. Their institutional reputation benefits the whole community. (G2).
Professional embedding also facilitated adaptive innovation. Field observations showed that social workers introduced digital feedback mechanisms, such as QR codes at garden entrances to collect real-time feedback and codesigning mascot figures that symbolized neighborhood identity (Fieldnote 2). These initiatives connected social work with cultural expression and reinforced the national discourse of “co-construction, co-governance, and co-sharing.” These efforts strengthened their legitimacy among governmental actors and helped bridge institutional and professional boundaries within the community governance.
Third, NPO Q employed resource integration strategies, referring to efforts to connect and coordinate resources, expertise, and networks from diverse stakeholders to support community governance objectives. A key example emerged during the early planning of the community garden, where NPO Q collaborated with a university urban planning department and engaged professional gardeners. However, these partners lacked deep engagement with local realities, resulting in short-lived contribution. As one social worker reflected:
The external organizations were helpful at first, especially in providing technical advice and design ideas. However, most of them were involved only for a short period. Once their mission was done, their participation gradually disappeared. (SW 5).
These experiences underscore that crossing professional boundaries in multiactor initiatives requires more than technical inputs; it demands sustained relationships and alignment with community needs.
In contrast, partnerships with local community businesses proved more sustainable because they were grounded in ongoing relationships and mutual benefits. For example, a café owner collaborated with a privately operated education center to cohost coffee workshops that blended vocational skills with community engagement. Other community businesses, such as art studios and eco-friendly retailers invited by the NPO Q, participated in the community garden’s upcycling art events. One community business representative reflected:
Participating in community events enhanced our brand image and demonstrated social responsibility. More importantly, it deepened our relationship with residents and earned their trust. (CB 1).
Through these resource integration efforts, NPO Q connected actors with different forms of expertise, resources, and interests while maintaining alignment with community needs. In doing so, social workers bridged professional boundaries and facilitated sustained collaboration across diverse stakeholder groups. Taken together, these strategies demonstrate how NPO Q translated boundary identification into practical action. Rather than relying on a single mechanism, social workers combined resident mobilization, professional embedding, and resource integration strategies to address tensions arising across multiple boundary domains.
Boundary maintenance: Sustaining organizational and community relationships
The third phase of boundary management involved maintaining community governance and organizational boundaries established through boundary-bridging strategies. Unlike boundary bridging, which focused on creating connections among stakeholders, boundary maintenance is concerned with the ongoing work required to sustain these relationships, clarify responsibilities, secure resources, and cultivate long-term participation. As community governance evolved, new tensions emerged that often challenged previously established understandings and required NPO Q to revisit earlier assumptions and strategies. Three recurring maintenance challenges were identified: (1) unclear division of labor and responsibility, (2) fragile financial sustainability, and (3) long-term cultivation of civic leadership.
First, NPO Q identified that the most immediate challenge is the unclear division of labor and responsibility in community governance, particularly following the formal handover from NPO Q’s professional services to the community gardens to resident groups. While the withdrawal of professional guidance and oversight emboldened local autonomy, it also exposed the limitations of volunteer-based management systems. One resident shared:
We loved the garden, but someone damaged the decoration I placed. And there was no clear system [to appeal] and for maintenance. Eventually, I gave up (R3).
This highlights the erosion of morale and trust in the absence of transparent and enforceable accountability mechanisms. Unregulated deterioration, competing interpretations of responsibility, and the fading presence of professional partners (e.g., university teams and professional gardeners) further weakened the structure of collective governance.
To address this, NPO Q, together with the community-level government, began exploring adaptive governance models, including partnerships with local primary schools to convert gardens into long-term civic education sites. “We transformed the gardens into off-campus learning sites so that the project would have a continuous institutional foundation,” explained a deputy subdistrict secretary (G1). These efforts reflected an attempt to redefine responsibility for maintaining shared spaces by embedding community gardens within more stable institutional arrangements. Rather than relying solely on resident volunteers, NPO Q and its partners recalibrated the governance structure to distribute responsibility across multiple actors.
A second maintenance challenge centered on the fragile funding ecosystem surrounding residential self-governance groups. While NPO Q, together with the government partners, encouraged resident-led initiatives, these efforts often required financial resources for materials, communications, event planning, and facility maintenance. However, as one official noted, “Community-level governments lack independent accounts and cannot directly manage project funds” (G2). This created a gap between administrative endorsement and financial viability.
To bridge this gap, NPO Q acted as resource mobilizers, applying for philanthropic micro-grants and facilitating access to public funds. These efforts were particularly salient under the “Five-Sector Linkage” framework, where NSWAs may serve as fiscal and operational intermediaries. Yet, this model also reinforced dependencies on external funding, making sustained resident autonomy difficult without ongoing nonprofit involvement. These funding challenges prompted social workers to continually reassess existing resource networks and seek alternative funding channels. As a result, resource integration was not a one-time strategy but an ongoing process of adaptation and relationship maintenance.
Finally, a third and deeper challenge involved the slow and complex process of cultivating both civic leadership and governance literacy. While civic leadership refers to the capacity of community members to actively participate in public affairs, mobilize others, and contribute to collective decision-making, governance literacy refers to the understanding of how local decision-making structures work, including knowledge of different stakeholders’ roles, channels of participation, and the skills needed to navigate them effectively. NPO Q implemented several strategies to address this challenge, including rotating coleadership and flexible task sharing. These efforts aimed to reduce the burnout of active residents and encourage shared responsibility. One social worker noted:
As the project progressed, we gradually handed over garden management responsibilities to families themselves. After one full gardening cycle, most were familiar with the process and could continue with minimal support. (SW7).
However, cultivating civic leadership requires long-term investments: “We must be patient. Civic leadership cannot emerge overnight: it may take 10 or even 20 years to cultivate,” reflected a government official (G3). This challenge was further complicated by inconsistent information flow; some residents were unaware of available resources, such as leadership opportunities, channels, and community support, hence leading to underutilized potential and less active engagement.
These findings suggest that cultivating civic leadership extends beyond individual capacity building and involves continuously adapting participation structures as community conditions evolve. As residents gained experience, social workers gradually redefined their own roles, from organizers and facilitators to mentors and supporters, thereby recalibrating the boundaries between professional intervention and resident self-governance.
Boundary recalibration cycle: A synthesis of the previous findings
Across the three phases, boundary management did not proceed linearly. Instead, challenges emerging during boundary maintenance frequently prompted social workers to reflect on existing arrangements, redefine stakeholder roles and responsibilities, and develop new responses to changing conditions. These adjustments often generated new understandings of spatial, institutional, and professional boundaries, leading to subsequent rounds of boundary identification and boundary-bridging activities.
Based on these recurring patterns observed across the three phases, we conceptualize boundary management as a boundary recalibration cycle (Figure 2). Rather than viewing boundary management as a sequence of discrete stages, the framework highlights how NPOs continuously move between identifying boundaries, implementing strategic responses, sustaining community governance, and adapting to new challenges. In this sense, maintenance is not the endpoint of boundary management but a source of ongoing learning, reflection, and recalibration within evolving community governance systems.
Discussion
This study examined how NSWAs strategically manage organizational boundaries within a state-led community governance arrangement in China. Drawing on OBT, the findings suggest that boundary management is not a linear process of identifying and bridging boundaries but an ongoing process of adaptation in which organizations continuously renegotiate stakeholder relationships and power dynamics. Building on these findings, we conceptualize boundary management as a process of boundary recalibration, through which NSWAs continuously adjust spatial, institutional, and professional boundaries in response to changing community governance conditions and stakeholder demands. Several additional insights can be generated.
First, this study advances OBT by conceptualizing nonprofit boundary management as a “boundary recalibration cycle,” particularly salient in community governance. While existing studies have recognized that boundary management is dynamic and involves ongoing negotiation at particular moments in time (Bauer et al., Reference Bauer, AbouAssi and Johnston2023; Conteh & Harding, Reference Conteh and Harding2023), our findings extend this perspective by demonstrating that boundary management unfolds through recurring cycles of boundary identification, boundary bridging, and boundary maintenance. Existing studies typically focus on boundary spanning or bridging as the central mechanism of boundary management (Klindt et al., Reference Klindt, Baadsgaard and Jørgensen2024; Stephens et al., Reference Stephens, Van Steden and Schoonmade2024). Our findings show that boundary maintenance itself generates new boundary tensions, making boundary management a recursive rather than sequential process. In the case of NPO Q, maintenance challenges related to stakeholder commitment, financial sustainability, and civic leadership development did not signal the end of boundary work. Rather, they became the starting point for subsequent rounds of boundary identification and strategic response. By highlighting this recursive process, our study extends OBT beyond the management of existing boundaries and emphasizes how NPOs continuously recalibrate boundaries in response to changing governance conditions.
Second, this study enriches OBT by demonstrating how boundary management operates in state-led governance systems. Recent studies demonstrate that frontline professionals can build multisectoral collaboration through informal relationships and boundary-spanning practices, particularly in the absence of formal state mandates (Anasti, Reference Anasti2026). Our study examines a different context in which collaboration is institutionally mandated and shaped by unequal power relations. In this context, NPOs must manage their boundaries with the state while preserving organizational autonomy and professional values. This finding also complements Bakko’s (Reference Bakko2026) study, which shows that organizational ties to the state create both opportunities and constraints for frontline coordination and adaptation.
Under these conditions, boundary management is not politically neutral. Governmental actors retained substantial influence through funding mechanisms, accountability requirements, and policy priorities (Wei & Tsui, Reference Wei and Tsui2018; Yi-Bing et al., Reference Yi-Bing, Quan-Cai and Meng2022). NPO Q did not directly challenge these arrangements. Instead, it worked within them while promoting resident participation and professional social work values. Strategies such as resident mobilization and incentives, professional embedding, and resource integration enabled the organization to create space for community engagement, professional discretion, and localized innovation. Boundary management in state-led governance is therefore not simply about connecting actors across sectors; it is about continuously recalibrating organizational and professional boundaries under unequal power relationships.
Third, this study contributes to the integration of nonprofit and social work scholarship by extending OBT and focusing on NSWAs as a distinct organizational form. NSWAs operate not only as NPOs but also as sites of professional social work practice, where values such as empowerment, social justice, and responsive care shape how organizations engage with communities and external actors (Austin, Reference Austin2018). NSWAs also play professional intermediary roles as community organizers, resource mobilizers, and governance facilitators (Despard, Reference Despard2016; Renz et al., Reference Renz, Brown and Andersson2023). This professional dimension is particularly important because social workers’ agency is embedded in organizational and institutional contexts that both enable and constrain professional action (Guidi, Reference Guidi2025). Organizations therefore constitute an important arena through which social workers negotiate the possibilities and limits of professional action.
Our findings show that professional values are not simply internal commitments but actively shape how organizational boundaries are managed. At NPO Q, social workers translated governmental expectations into community-based practices, mobilized residents as active participants, and used professional expertise to create room for locally responsive action. In this sense, boundary management involved not only coordinating relationships between the organization and external actors but also negotiating the relationship between institutional demands and professional commitments. By incorporating this professional dimension, OBT offers a useful bridge between nonprofit management and social work scholarship.
Finally, this study holds significant practical implications for nonprofit leaders, social workers, and policymakers engaged in community governance. For nonprofit leaders, the findings suggest that boundary management should be viewed as an ongoing process rather than a one-time intervention. As community governance evolves, leaders must continuously reassess stakeholder relationships, clarify responsibilities, and adapt governance strategies in response to emerging challenges. Building sustainable community initiatives therefore requires not only cross-sector collaboration but also long-term investments in relationship building, resource coordination, and stakeholder engagement.
For social workers in NPOs, the findings highlight their role as boundary managing actors who connect diverse stakeholders while safeguarding professional values within complex governance arrangements. Beyond direct service delivery, social workers contribute to community governance through resident mobilization, resource integration, conflict mediation, and the cultivation of civic leadership (Leung, Reference Leung2013). In governance contexts where organizational autonomy is constrained, the findings suggest that social workers may be more effective when adopting participatory, relational, and collaborative approaches, rather than relying on adversarial or confrontational strategies. Developing these capacities may enable social workers to navigate governmental mandates while advancing community participation and professional values.
For policymakers, the findings suggest that effective community governance requires more than administrative mandates. Long-term collaborative outcomes depend on supportive institutional environments that provide stable funding, clarify stakeholder responsibilities, and create opportunities for meaningful participation. Policymakers should therefore invest in collaborative infrastructures that enable NPOs, residents, businesses, and governmental actors to jointly address community challenges and sustain community development efforts over time.
Limitations and future research
This study has several limitations that offer valuable directions for future research. First, as a qualitative single-case study, the findings are derived from one NSWA operating within a specific community governance initiative in urban China. Although the case was selected as an information-rich example of nonprofit boundary management, the findings should not be interpreted as representative of all NSWAs or community governance arrangements. Future research could employ comparative case studies across different organizations, communities, or regions to examine whether similar boundary management processes emerge under varying institutional conditions.
Second, the study focuses on an urban community setting, characterized by dense stakeholder networks, layered bureaucracies, and state-led governance systems. While this provides important insights into urban nonprofit practices, it limits the generalizability of the findings to other contexts (e.g., rural settings). Future studies could explore how boundary management unfolds across different community contexts and governance environments.
Third, the data used in this study were cross-sectional, capturing boundary dynamics in a certain period. Because boundary recalibration is inherently dynamic, longitudinal research would be especially valuable for examining how NPOs adapt their boundary strategies in response to changing political environments, resource conditions, and community needs.
Finally, while this study is grounded primarily in OBT, future studies could integrate complementary theoretical frameworks from nonprofit and social work literature, such as institutional logics (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Zhan and Xu2024), resource dependence, or professional identity frameworks, to further examine the multilevel processes through which boundary management is enacted in community governance settings.
Conclusion
This study examined how NSWAs strategically manage boundaries within a state-led community governance arrangement in China. Drawing on a qualitative case of NPO Q, the findings show that boundary management extends beyond identifying and bridging organizational divides and involves the ongoing maintenance and adaptation of community governance. This study advances OBT by conceptualizing nonprofit boundary management as a boundary recalibration cycle, through which organizations continuously identify, bridge, maintain, and recalibrate spatial, institutional, and professional boundaries. This study suggests that boundary management is not a one-time organizational task but an ongoing process through which NPOs continuously recalibrate relationships, responsibilities, and professional roles in evolving community governance systems.
Funding statement
This research received no external funding.
Competing interests
The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.
Ethical standards
This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Hong Kong.
A. Appendix
The government-commissioned community multigovernance Initiative by NPO.
Fig. A1 Long description
The flowchart is organized into three vertical tiers.
At the top is a central box titled Party-led Good Governance Community Micro-Innovation Governance Project.
Below this, five parallel columns represent Subprojects 1 through 5. Each column contains two boxes.
* Subproject 1: Community Garden Development Project. Aim: To promote more green space and community cohesion. Multiple Actors: community residents, professional gardeners, residential committee, volunteers, supporting agencies.
* Subproject 2: Building Management Initiative. Aim: To enhance residents’ quality of life. Multiple Actors: community residents, property management company, volunteers.
* Subproject 3: Community Commercial-Residential Integration. Aim: To increase business community engagement. Multiple Actors: community commercials, residential committee, volunteers, supporting agencies.
* Subproject 4: Child-Friendly Community Development. Aim: To create better environments for children. Multiple Actors: district-level schools, community residents, volunteers.
* Subproject 5: Community Cadre Training Project. Aim: To increase Party professionalism. Multiple Actors: community Party branches, community cadres, district-level government agencies.
At the bottom, all five columns connect to a single box labeled N P O Q. The connections are labeled with roles:
* Subproject 1: Initiators, Managers.
* Subproject 2: Managers, Brokers.
* Subproject 3: Initiators, Brokers.
* Subproject 4: Initiators, Managers.
* Subproject 5: Trainers, Managers.
Open access
