Content uploaded by Viviana Chiu Sik Wu
All content in this area was uploaded by Viviana Chiu Sik Wu on May 26, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
Public Management Review
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpxm20
Beyond policy patrons: A ‘MADE’ framework
for examining public engagement efforts of
philanthropic foundations on Twitter
Viviana Chiu Sik Wu
To cite this article: Viviana Chiu Sik Wu (2021): Beyond policy patrons: A ‘MADE’ framework for
examining public engagement efforts of philanthropic foundations on Twitter, Public Management
Review, DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2021.1982328
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1982328
Published online: 21 Sep 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 182
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Beyond policy patrons: A ‘MADE’ framework for
examining public engagement eorts of philanthropic
foundations on Twitter
Viviana Chiu Sik Wu
School of Public Policy, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA
This study conceptualises four mechanisms—Mobilisation, Advocacy, Dialogue, and
Education ('MADE')—through which foundation actors engage the public on Twitter.
We analysed stakeholders targeted and message contents of more than 16,000 tweets
collected from 299 Twitter accounts of U.S. community foundations during two 12-
month periods. We found evidence that foundations tend to serve as 'a knowledge
hub' to educate the public. Notably, the 2020 sample suggests lessened dialogic
messages yet increased mobilisation and advocacy messages amid the COVID-19
pandemic and political movements. This study reveals foundations’ intermediary
and shifting roles in engaging the public in times of normalcy and crisis.
KEYWORDS Public engagement; foundations; Twitter; advocacy; COVID19
Foundation actors are arguably among the most resourceful civil society institutions
for shaping and inﬂuencing public policy and policy communities around the world
(Anheier and Leat 2018; Ferris 2009; Harrow, Jung, and Phillips 2016). For decades,
researchers have characterized foundations as hidden patrons who provide resources
to citizen groups (Walker 1983; Nownes 1995; Lowry 1999). While a growing body of
research has contributed to our understanding of foundations as policy intermediaries
(Reckhow 2016; Tompkins-Stange 2016; Ferris 2009; Bushouse and Mosley 2018;
Williamson and Luke 2020), the intermediary roles of philanthropic foundations in
fostering bottom–up engagement with the public remain unexplored.
Recent years have witnessed escalating policy and scholarly debates whether and
how philanthropic foundations represent public interests and community needs rather
than simply advancing private values and commitment (Reich 2019; Frumkin 2006a;
McGinnis Johnson 2016). To that end, scholars have consistently argued that public
engagement plays a crucial part in maintaining the public beneﬁts and legitimacy of
charitable gifts, potentially reshaping the power dynamics among donors, foundations,
grantees, and the wider community (Ostrander 2007; Eikenberry and Breeze 2019).
CONTACT Viviana Chiu Sik Wu email@example.com
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
However, prior research on their policy roles has yet to pay much attention to
foundations’ interactions with the public in the online space. This article represents
a focused eﬀort to address this gap.
As the modes and means of public engagement have become diversiﬁed, public and
non-proﬁt organizations increasingly use social media to partake in public discourse and
policy advocacy (Agostino and Arnaboldi 2016; Gordon and Mihailidis 2016; Mergel
2013). While online engagement does not substitute traditional oﬄine engagement, the
networking and dialogic aﬀordances of social media enable policy intermediaries and
entrepreneurs to tap into vast and diverse networks of public stakeholders instanta-
neously at a much lower cost (Guo and Saxton 2018). Such networks embody ‘diﬀused
stakeholders’ and ‘issue publics’, who might not be otherwise visible, salient, or identiﬁ-
able in traditional oﬄine settings (Rainie and Wellman 2012; Guo and Saxton 2020).
Given that philanthropic foundations have been emerging as critical policy actors in
many countries, examining their roles to engage public constituents through the social
media space can provide valuable insights into how philanthropic actors advance
public interests and policy change from the bottom up. We thus ask: How do founda-
tions attempt to engage public stakeholders on social media? To answer this question,
we began by reviewing the extant literature and drawing on inductive analysis to
conceptualize four mechanisms through which foundation actors can engage public
stakeholders on social media, ranging from (1) Public Mobilization, (2) Policy
Advocacy, (3) Public Dialogue, to (4) Public Education (‘MADE’). To further develop
the MADE framework, we employed a two-stage analytic approach combining quan-
titative and qualitative content analyses to examine two-year Twitter data from 299
active Twitter accounts of U.S.-based community foundations spanning
1 September 2016 to 31 August 2017 and 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020. The
ﬁrst stage involved classifying the messages based on the ‘who’ – three stakeholder
groups of foundations, including donors, non-proﬁts, and the wider community.
The second stage involved an inductive analysis of tweet messages to theorize key
public engagement mechanisms based on a random sample of 500 community-
oriented messages in the two sample years.
The study oﬀers important theoretical and empirical contributions to the literature.
In light of the debates on the accountability and publicness concerns of foundations, it
sheds light on the undertheorized roles of philanthropic foundations in engaging
public stakeholders, extending a growing body of research that suggests foundation
actors are more than policy patrons, and emerging as catalysts for change in commu-
nities (Reckhow 2016; Wu 2021a). Second, it evidences and contrasts the shifting roles
of community foundations to mobilize, advocate, discuss, and educate the public on
Twitter in times of normalcy and crisis before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Third, this study makes an empirical contribution by presenting a multi-stage process
in analysing ‘thick’ social media messages in terms of stakeholders and purposes. As
the debates surrounding foundations’ policy roles and public accountability continue
to unfold, this study urges future research in this direction and serves as a reminder to
pay attention to the online space of foundations as policy intermediaries to engage the
2V. C. S. WU
The policy roles of foundations and accountability conundrum
While foundations are traditionally characterized as hidden patrons who provide
resources to citizen groups (Walker 1983; Nownes 1995; Lowry 1999), a growing
body of research has identiﬁed that foundations partake in the policy process as
policy intermediaries in many countries (Reckhow 2016; Tompkins-Stange 2016;
Bushouse and Mosley 2018). They act as ‘boundary-spanning groups to provide
a translating function between principals with diﬀerent values and perspectives’.
(Gandara, Rippner, and Ness 2017, 702). However, foundations’ policy inﬂuence
faces no shortage of scrutiny. At the centre of the debate are the accountability and
publicness concerns whether foundations represent public interests and community
needs (Frumkin 2006b; Reckhow 2013; Reich 2019). Foundations are often criti-
cized for being unaccountable, donor-directed, non-transparent, particularistic,
paternalistic, and deﬁcient in democratic values of justice and equality
(Hammack and Anheier 2013; Mosley and Galaskiewicz 2015; Anheier and Leat
2018). On this, scholars have attempted to oﬀer at least two political and economic
rationales for these challenges. Since philanthropy tends to be supply- or donor-led,
wealth and power asymmetry between donor and recipients makes philanthropic
accountability diﬃcult if not altogether absent (Ostrander and Schervish 1990;
Ostrander 2007). On top of power asymmetry, scholars have argued that the very
constitution of self-suﬃciency relieves them from the chronic signals and incen-
tives to be publicly accountable, and as a result, they suﬀer from the ‘benign
fallibility syndrome’. Thus, elitist preferences may be reﬂected, for example, in
the way foundation grants support values and issues favoured by the wealthy and
are insulated from the pressures of democratic accountability (Reich 2019;
Ostrander 2007; Salamon 1987).
Rising call for public engagement in the philanthropic eld
While philanthropic gifts are often claimed to confer public beneﬁts, foundations
tend to be run by the few for the many. The crux of translating monetary gifts to
public interests involves foundations responding to community needs and gaining
public trust and legitimacy in the authorizing environment (Ostrander 2007;
Moore 2000; Leonard 1989). To this end, recent academic and practitioner-
oriented literature has increasingly turned to the concept of public engagement
in hopes of democratizing control and access to philanthropic resources, placing
greater power and voice with public stakeholders who are outside the foundations
(Gibson 2017; Ostrander 2007; Carman and Hefner 2012). Following Nabatchi and
Amsler (2014), this study deﬁnes public engagement as ‘a variety of in-person and
online methods for bringing people together to address issues of public impor-
tance’ (p. 65s). Public engagement is a key step for policy entrepreneurs and
intermediaries to rally for community-led policy change. As Majone (1990, 160)
suggests, ‘ . . . the most basic prerequisite of public deliberation is that the members
of the community agree to focus the debate on some issue of general interest.
Before the dialectic of conﬂicting positions can unfold, there must be widespread
agreement about the nature of the central problems then facing the community’.
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 3
Empirical research that explores foundation roles in public engagement is largely
absent, in part due to the nascent development and the lack of access to foundations’
interpersonal communication. Across the global philanthropic landscape, scholars
increasingly look to community foundations, a type of place-based public foundations,
which have begun to incorporate public engagement in foundation work and gran-
tmaking decisions (Bernholz, Fulton, and Kasper 2005; Gibson 2017; Williamson and
Luke 2020; Guo and Lai 2019; Jung, Harrow, and Phillips 2013). The growing
momentum towards engaging public beneﬁciaries is manifested though their roles to
mobilize and advocate for social change as well as to convene policy conversations and
involve the public in grantmaking decisions and strategies about how to better their
communities (Harrow, Jung, and Phillips 2016; Wu 2021a). In 2021, the Foundation
Center reported that 2,236 community foundations distributed $64.4 billion in grants
around the world, with the majority of 1,058 foundations found in the USA and the
rest in Europe, Asia, Oceania, South Africa, and South America (Candid 2021). While
institutional environment and regulation of foundations diﬀer across countries, com-
munity foundations are a breed apart from private foundations, generally enjoying
more favourable tax treatment than private foundations.
Unlike private foundations,
community foundations are ﬁscally supported by public donations and in theory face
public accountability to the communities they serve, not just to the donors (Wu 2021a;
Jung, Harrow, and Phillips 2013; Ostrander 2007). Because of their peculiar public
character, they have to some extent dodged the taint of self-aggrandizement that has
shadowed foundation philanthropy (Hall 1989). However, with the rise of donor-
advised funds that allow donors to inﬂuence grantmaking priorities, there are mount-
ing concerns about their ability to stand for public interests (Wu 2021a; Ostrander
2007; Easterling and Millesen 2015). Fostering knowledge of foundations’ public
engagement with communities becomes even more critical for understanding, and
when necessary, reshaping the power relations among donors and public beneﬁciaries
to ensure the public aspect of philanthropy (Nickel and Eikenberry 2009; Ostrander
Mechanisms of public engagement on social media
Social networking through social media has become a common routine for citizens and
organizations in a network society (Castells and Cardoso 2005; Castells 2010). To date,
social media have become more deeply ingrained in millennials’ daily lives than in
older generations in the digital era (Lee 2020; Paulin et al. 2014). While social media do
not displace the forms of engagement that take place in oﬄine and other settings, the
public space aﬀorded by social media presents an open avenue, as well as new empirical
data to explore various means and mechanisms of public engagement unique to the
social media environment. Intrigued by these interactive platforms, researchers have
started to study social media use among public and non-proﬁt organizations.
Notwithstanding their important contribution, much of this research focuses on the
adoption of social media (e.g. Mergel and Bretschneider 2013; Campbell and
Lambright 2019), and evaluating engagement outputs through metrics such as
retweets, shares, and favourites (e.g. Xu and Saxton 2019; Agostino and Arnaboldi
2016). By comparison, fewer studies have qualitatively examined the concrete mean-
ings conveyed in social media messages, and little attention has been given to how
foundation actors are using social media for public engagement in hopes of advancing
4V. C. S. WU
change. One of the exceptions is Lovejoy and Saxton (2012), who proposed the
Information-Community-Action (ICA) framework that identiﬁed three key commu-
nicative functions in the non-proﬁts’ tweets: Share information, build a community,
and mobilize action. While the ICA framework distinguishes various message func-
tions from a communication lens, the theoretical construct is distinct from and hence
not directly transferrable to inform and characterize messages related to public
engagement that ‘brings people together to address issues of public importance’
(Nabatchi and Amsler 2014).
Given that the intermediary roles of philanthropic foundations in fostering bottom-
up public engagement remain underexplored, a central theoretical task of this paper is
to draw on inductive analysis to conceptualize how foundation actors engage the
public on social media. To start with, we review two distinct bodies of research that
examine the policy roles of foundations and how social media can be used for public
engagement. In bridging the two, we propose the MADE framework (Figure 1) as
a base from which to understand how foundations might involve the public in
addressing important public issues through Public Mobilization (M), Policy
Advocacy (A), Public Dialogue (D), and Public Education (E).
(1) Public Mobilization (M)
Extant research suggests that foundations are positioned to coordinate action and
activity to advance particular policy goals (Bushouse and Mosley 2018). On that, the
connective power of social media for building ties, however weak, is well-suited for
Figure 1. The MADE framework.
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 5
foundation actors to broker diverse stakeholders and bring about collective and
connective action for policy change (Paulin et al. 2014; Pond and Lewis 2017; Vicari
and Cappai 2016). In particular, social media enable personalized engagement that
leads actions and content to be distributed widely across loosely organized social
networks (Lance and Segerberg 2012; Turunen and Weinryb 2019). The social net-
working features enable policy intermediaries and entrepreneurs to tap into and
mobilize vast networks of stakeholders at a much lower cost, particularly ‘diﬀused
stakeholders’ and ‘issue publics’ who might not be otherwise visible, salient or identiﬁ-
able in traditional oﬄine settings (Saxton, Ren, and Guo 2020; Tremayne et al. 2006).
(1) Policy Advocacy (A)
Another way foundations can bring people together to address public problems is
through policy advocacy across varied stages of the policy process (Ferris 2009).
Speciﬁcally, Bushouse and Mosley (2018) identiﬁed four intermediary roles of founda-
tions, which include funding networks of advocates to propose or endorse policy ideas,
orchestrating action to elevate policy frames, encouraging others to advocate, and
coalition building with other organizations to exert political inﬂuence on decision
makers. Social media-based advocacy allows foundation actors to engage the citizens
by broadcasting their policy visions and exerting public inﬂuence extensively beyond
geographical boundaries (Guo and Saxton 2014; Gupta, Ripberger, and Wehde 2018).
A growing line of research suggests that social media platforms are popularly used for
policy advocacy, ranging from galvanizing public attention to policy issues, inﬂuencing
policy frames, and advocating policy changes (An, Wu, and Guo 2017; Guo and Saxton
(1) Public Dialogue (D)
Crowd-sourcing citizen inputs plays an important role in co-production and generat-
ing ideas in the early stage of the policy process (Brandsen and Pestoﬀ 2006; Liu 2021).
As Tompkins-Stange (2016) observed, foundations’ policy inﬂuence goes beyond the
traditional way of shaping legislative outputs. Foundations also engage in various
online and oﬄine policy activities such as convening and changing public conversa-
tions about policy issues (Wu 2021a). Social media may thus serve as a convening tool
for foundations to create dialogue between stakeholders and civil society actors
(Lovejoy and Saxton 2012). The dialogic engagement complements monologic inter-
action, enabling two-way conversation between and across stakeholders in the
(1) Public Education (E)
Just as advocacy eﬀorts can be made to create ‘echo chambers’ that direct targeted
messages at legislators and other policymakers, public education eﬀorts on social
media space can draw widespread public attention and quickly convey important
ideas in the minds of citizens (Feezell 2018; Ferris 2009). Knowledge is the acumen
for catalysing public problem-solving. As Phillips et al. (2016) pointed out, ‘the greatest
asset of a community foundation is not the size of its endowment, but its knowledge of
community and ability to use this knowledge for positive change’ (66). By relaying
6V. C. S. WU
policy knowledge released by research reports and news through social media, founda-
tions can instantaneously inform citizens of the severity and urgency of a policy issue.
Their roles to foster public knowledge and policy innovation are particularly salient
during the agenda-setting stage of policymaking and in the time leading up to
legislative votes, elections, or ballot initiatives (Phillips et al. 2016; Bushouse and
Mosley 2018). Aside from the traditional top-down, insider approach, social media
enable a more transparent and non-hierarchical way of knowledge interaction between
foundations as intermediaries and their policy stakeholders such as knowledge com-
munities, legislators, grantees and the public (Noland and Newton 2015; Bernholz,
Skloot, and Varela 2010).
In sum, this review of existing research serves as a conceptual guide to inform our
investigation of foundations’ public engagement eﬀorts on Twitter. Nonetheless, we
lack empirical evidence that exempliﬁes and corroborates the framework in the extant
literature. Through analysing Twitter data inductively, we further bolster the frame-
work to understand how community foundations attempt to bring people together to
address issues of public importance on Twitter.
Data and method
Data mining and collection with Twitter API
Compared to oﬄine settings, social media platforms such as Twitter have an open
Application Programming Interface (API), which enables scholars to gather data on
the platforms’ public communication activities. While Facebook and Twitter are the
two most commonly studied social media platforms (e.g. Lam and Nie 2020; Guo and
Saxton 2014; Campbell and Lambright 2020), access to Facebook data was highly
restricted at the time of conducting this research.
This study examines community
foundations’ use of Twitter for public engagement. Following prior studies, Twitter is
well suited for analysing online engagement and advocacy, and broadly serves as
a proxy for overall social media use (e.g. Guo and Saxton 2018; Lovejoy, Waters, and
Saxton 2012; Svensson, Mahoney, and Hambrick 2015).
The study uses U.S.-based community foundations (CFs) as the study population.
The study subjects were ﬁrst identiﬁed from the list of community foundations on
the Council on Foundations website (www.cof.org) between 2017 and 2018. Through
manual veriﬁcation and screening out irrelevant and dormant organizations, the
complete list contains 956 community foundations in the U.S. At the time of data
collection, a total of 299 CFs had a unique oﬃcial Twitter account, although not all
were active on Twitter. It is worthwhile to note that the sampled foundations with
Twitter presence on average were older and had larger assets, grants and contribu-
tions, incurring more lobbying expenses than those that were not on Twitter
After identifying their Twitter proﬁles, a customized Python programming lan-
guage was used to collect community foundations’ public tweets. To respect Twitter
user privacy and the intellectual property of Twitter, we conducted data mining in
compliance with the terms set by the Twitter API through an authorized academic
developer account. We conducted two rounds of Twitter data collection in 2017 and
2021 respectively. The ﬁrst dataset includes 50,536 original tweets (i.e. non-retweets)
sent by 266 foundations between 1 September 2016 and 31 August 2017. We then
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 7
repeated the same data collection process in 2021. The second dataset consists of
30,900 original messages sent by 200 community foundations between 1 January 2020
and 31 December 2020.
Two-stage analysis procedures
For the purpose of this study, we employed a two-stage process to identify and examine
public engagement messages through stakeholder analysis (who was targeted) and
inductive analysis (what was communicated) as shown in Figure 2. We created
a random stratiﬁed sample of 20% of the original tweets for stakeholder analysis, followed
by an inductive analysis of 500 randomly sampled public engagement messages. In
particular, we argue that distinguishing the stakeholders targeted and deciphering the
actual texts being communicated is crucial to understanding how foundations attempt to
interact and engage the public on social media (here, on Twitter). While social media
engagement might be construed generally as interaction and communication on social
media, our analysis showed they do not signify or fall within the conceptual tenets of
public engagement per se (Nabatchi and Amsler 2014). Additionally, while using metrics
of likes and retweets can quantify and proxy for the reach of message audiences, social
Table 1. Organizational characteristics of community foundations by Twitter Presence.
Community Foundations on Twitter Community Foundations not on Twitter
Statistics N Mean SD Min Max N Mean SD Min Max
Age (as of 2017) 297 31 19 0 101 643 26 15 1 112
297 2209 8027 1 125,639 643 408 1257 0 26,914
Grants (US$100,000) 297 228 1154 0 18,264 643 36 158 0 2974
Contributions (US$100,000) 297 260 986 0 14,625 643 49 195 0 3915
Lobbying Expense (US$) 297 5370 45,825 0 750,000 643 201 2641 0 59,937
A total of 940 community foundations’ IRS 990 records for 2017 were found on the National Center for Charitable
Statistics (NCCS). Since two foundations on Twitter did not have 990 data for 2017, resulting in N = 297.
Table 2. Stakeholder analysis results across 2017, 2020 and the full samples.
2017 Sample 2020 Sample Full Sample
Stakeholders Purposes Count % Count % Count %
Donors Fundraising 1630 16% 1585 26% 3215 20%
Non-Proﬁts Grantmaking 2055 20% 1816 29% 3871 24%
Community Relationship Building 4502 45% 1046 17% 5548 34%
Public Engagement 1609 16% 1659 27% 3268 20%
Nebulous NA 300 3% 74 1% 374 2%
Grand Total 10,096 100% 6180 100% 16,276 100%
Table 3. Content analysis results of public engagement messages across 2017, 2020 and the full samples.
2017 Sample 2020 Sample Full Sample
Count % Count % Count %
Public Mobilization 20 8% 65 26% 85 17%
Policy Advocacy 37 15% 63 25% 100 20%
Public Dialogue 78 31% 34 14% 112 22%
Public Education 115 46% 88 36% 203 41%
Grand Total 250 100% 250 100% 500 100%
8V. C. S. WU
media messages present rich textual data that convey the contexts and meanings
pertinent to inform the types of social media engagement, such as public engagement.
Hence, this study focused on deciphering Twitter messages to explore public engagement
mechanisms on Twitter. The initial analysis revealed that Twitter messages target diverse
stakeholders and serve distinct purposes, warranting a two-step analysis process to
identify and dissect the nuanced meanings embedded in messages.
Stakeholder analysis of Twitter messages
Drawing on the notion of online stakeholder targeting, the ﬁrst step of analysis
involved analysing the tweets based on the three key stakeholders served by commu-
nity foundations: charitable donors, non-proﬁt organizations, and the community at
Step 1: Stakeholder Analysis
Step 2: Inductive Analysis
Random sampling of 250 public
engagement messages by 76 CFs
Random sampling of 250 public
engagement messages by 74 CFs
The full list of 956 community foundations (CFs)
Data collection of 299 CFs’ Twitter
accounts via Twitter API
50,536 original messages
sent by 266 CFs
(Sept 1, 2016 - Sept 1, 2017)
30,900 original messages
sent by 200 CFs
(Jan 1/2020 –Dec 31, 2020)
20% stratified sampling of
10,096 original messages
20% stratified sampling of
6,180 original messages
1,659 public engagement messages
1,609 public engagement messages
Figure 2. Two-step coding procedures on Tweet Messages.
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 9
Figure 3. Ten most common terms for manual classiﬁcation.
10 V. C. S. WU
large (Graddy and Morgan 2006; Leonard 1989; Saxton and Guo 2014). These stake-
holders correspond to the three primary roles of a community foundation as a funder
who reaches out to donors, a grantmaker who oﬀers grants to non-proﬁts, and
a community leader who catalyzes community change (Magat 1989; Wu 2021a). One
experienced coder analysed the messages based on a stakeholder classiﬁcation scheme
proposed by Saxton and Guo (2014) in which community foundations’ tweets are
targeted at one of the primary stakeholders for several strategic purposes: First, Donor-
oriented, which includes tweets for fundraising and providing service to
donors; second, Non-Proﬁt-oriented, which includes tweets that address funding
opportunities, grant-writing, managerial needs of charitable organizations and gran-
tees’ works; third, Community-oriented, which includes tweets for community events,
volunteering opportunities, and sharing information about community needs. Based
on this coding scheme, we assigned a single code – donor-oriented, non-proﬁt-
oriented, or community-oriented – to each tweet according to the primary stakeholder
targeted and related purposes.
Inductive analysis of public engagement messages
In the second step, we analysed the data inductively to identify theoretical con-
structs and conceptual categories pertinent to public engagement. Due to the large
size of the text data, we randomly sampled 250 community-oriented public engage-
ment messages from the 2017 sample and the 2020 sample respectively for in-depth
analysis (n = 500). Two coders conducted open and axial coding to analyse the
sampled messages (Corbin and Strauss 2015; Sloan and Quan-Haase 2017). After
creating codes that described the ﬁrst 100 tweets, we then compared our codes and
created a preliminary codebook for coding the rest of the tweets while adding new
codes as they emerged. We then constructed linkages between the codes through
axial coding, which resulted in a high-level codebook of four thematic categories
and 10 sub-themes of engagement practices (Corbin and Strauss 2015). Based on
the codebook, we repeated the content analysis procedure to analyse the second
sample. Newly coded messages were compared to those previously coded to ensure
reliability and consistency across the two samples (Williamson, Given, and Sciﬂeet
2017). Diﬀerences in codings, when discovered, were resolved through discussion
until consensus was achieved. At this point in the analysis, we considered coding
additional data but concluded to have reached saturation (Corbin and Strauss
Stakeholder analysis results
While being informed by Saxton and Guo’s classiﬁcation described above, the early
rounds of coding revealed two new categories engendered from community-oriented
messages, namely, ‘Relationship Building’ and ‘Public Engagement’ themes.
Eventually, we classiﬁed the stratiﬁed sampled tweets into four categories that
described the primary stakeholders and purposes of tweet messages (see Table 2): (1)
donors for fundraising purposes (n = 3,215, 20%), (2) non-proﬁt grantees for gran-
tmaking purposes (n = 3,871, 20%), (3) community stakeholders for purposes of
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 11
relationship building (n = 5,548, 34%), and (4) community stakeholders for public
engagement purposes (n = 3,268, 20%), with two percent nebulous tweets that did not
contain interpretable text, such as a URL link.
Typical examples of relationship building messages are motivational quotes and
seasons’ greetings, appreciation towards the public or speciﬁc stakeholders, sharing
community news and organizational announcements. For instance, Community
Foundation of Washington County in Mississippi wrote that ‘My heart goes out to
all the people aﬀected by Hurricane Harvey . . . ’ Madison Community Foundation in
Wisconsin replied to a new follower ‘Thank you @UserID for the follow! Be sure to
check out our website to learn more about us . . . ’
Messages coded as ‘Public Engagement’ entailed communication directed at invol-
ving the community for improving community well-being or addressing public pro-
blems. These messages ranged from providing policy information on pressing
community needs, disseminating civic education opportunities, convening civic dia-
logue, such as discussion forums, advocating policy ideas and issues, promoting
political and collective action such as voting and protests, as well as volunteering
and civic action (see Appendix 1 for the codebook for message classiﬁcation). Another
deﬁning feature was that messages coded under public engagement identiﬁed or spoke
to speciﬁc policy issues. For instance, Miami Foundation broadcast a community event
to address youth violence, ‘Tonight: ﬁnal #TogetherForChildren community meeting
at South Dade Regional Library to address youth violence’. The Boston Foundation
weighed in on immigrant communities, ‘Immigrants & their families, have made & will
continue 2 make Greater Boston, Ma & the U.S.A thrive! #sharedfuture . . . ’ Figure 3
displays ten most common terms for stakeholder classiﬁcation.
Results from inductive analysis of public engagement messages
A closer examination of the 500 public engagement messages from the 2017 and 2020
samples (Table 3) led to the development of four mechanisms and 10 practices through
which community foundations engage with the public on Twitter. The following
section discusses how the community foundations we studied engage the public on
Twitter, with illustrations and thematic proportions of the four mechanisms(see Tables
4 and 5).
(1) Public Mobilization (M)
Mobilization involves the engagement mechanisms of securing community-based
support, calling public members to act, and rallying resources to exert policy inﬂuence.
The 2017 sampled tweets showed a very limited mobilizing role played by community
foundations; only eight percent of tweets (N = 20) were classiﬁed in this category.
Nonetheless, the mobilization messages mounted to 26% (N = 65), i.e. more than
tripled in the 2020 sampled tweets.
The data revealed multiple ways that the sampled community foundations mobi-
lized public action, including calling for political participation (such as voter registra-
tion, census and voter mobilization), civic participation (such as volunteering for
community service), social movement (such as protests and marching) and driving
behavioural change (such as #PublicTransitDay, supporting black-own businesses).
For instance, the Brooklyn Foundation (@BklynFoundation) encouraged citizens to
12 V. C. S. WU
participate in the census, ‘Have you ﬁlled out your census yet? 10 minutes is all it takes
to #makebrooklyncount and ensure our communities get their fair share of represen-
tation and resources for the next decade . . . ’ Similarly, Northern New Jersey
Community Foundation (@NNJCF) sought to mobilize voters for the 2020 presidential
election, ‘Vote today in the general election. Polls are open in New Jersey from 6 a.m. to
8 p.m . . . . #vote #generalelection’. To pledge support to black-owned and black-
operated businesses, North Valley Community Foundation (@NVCF) tweeted, ‘Let’s
support our community, check out this list of black-owned and black-operated busi-
nesses right here in butte county to support . . . #blacklivesmatter #juneteenth #wear-
eresilient #buttestrong.’ These messages point to foundations’ mobilizing roles to call
for public to act on social causes and policy issues.
(1) Policy Advocacy (A)
The second public engagement mechanism that emerged from the analysis corre-
sponds to policy advocacy, which involves proposing or endorsing ideas, visions and
priorities that foundations see for the community, and coalition building with other
organizations to exert political inﬂuence on decision makers. We found that advocacy
was little used in the 2017 dataset, but more prevalent in the 2020 dataset. It might be in
part due to the fact that 2020 was not only an election year during a global pandemic, it
Table 4. Content analysis of public engagement messages (1 September 2016–31 August 2017).
Category Example Freq (%)
Public Mobilization (M) 20 8%
Cfectnews: November 1 is the deadline to register to vote online or by
mail before Election Day (11/8)! Click for all the . . . https://t.co/
2. Social Movement Miamifoundation: 4.29: ‘March for jobs, justice and climate’ Miami
People’s Climate March with @ UserID. https://t.co/xxN39sazSi
Miamifoundation: ‘Are you on board with #PublicTransitDay? Join
hundreds of Miamians pledging to ride transit on 12.9 . . . ’
4. Civic Action Miamifoundation: @UserID weighs in on driving civic engagement in
#ourmiami – vote, volunteer, share your stories. https://t.co/
Policy Advocacy (A) 37 15%
5. Endorse or Propose
Tsﬀ: ‘Housing is looked at as a proﬁtable good, not as a basic right’.
@UserID @UserID #aﬀordablehousing
6. Coalition Building Nycommtrust: Victory! Our grants backed increasing NY’s age of criminal
responsibility to 18. NY Assembly passes #RaiseTheAge https://t.co/
Public Dialogue (D) 78 31%
Miamifoundation: How can we ensure all Miamians live within a 10-min.
walk of a park? Host a #MyMiamiStory conversation, spark ideas
8. Convene public
CommFound: Join us for A Public Aﬀair on @UserID on 7/24 @ 8:35 re:
our county’s educational achievement gap & the role of ELPASO.
Public Education (E) 115 46%
9. Civic education KBCFoundation1: Come to our Citizen Science lecture this Thursday
10. Policy information cfsww: The types of homeless people had changed . . . so too might
have the conditions that put them on the streets. https://t.co/
Total 250 100%
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 13
was a year, among other things, marked by the rising call for racial justice and equality
in the U.S. The results showed that the advocacy messages went up from 15% (N = 37)
to 25% (N = 63), although it consistently ranked as the second smallest category of the
four engagement mechanisms in both years.
As the results have shown, Twitter served our studied foundations as a public
channel for broadcasting their visions for social and policy change and their attempts
to steer public awareness and government policies. For instance, the San Francisco
Foundation (@TSFF) tweeted, ‘Housing is looked at as a proﬁtable good, not as a basic
right’. The Boston Foundation (@bostonfdn), ‘Immigrants & their families, have made
Table 5. Content analysis of public engagement messages (1 January 2020–31 December 2020).
Category Example Freq (%)
Public Mobilization (M) 65 26%
NNJCF: ‘Vote today in the general election. Polls are open in New Jersey
from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. for information, go to . . . #vote
2. Social Movement BklynFoundation: ‘This weekend, join the #census2020 march for
#racialjustice! The census isn’t just a numbers game, it is what guides
resource allocation in NYC and across the country. Join @UserID this
Sunday, August 2nd, at 1:30 pm to demand resource justice and to
NVCF: ‘Let’s support our community, check out this list of black-owned
and black-operated businesses right here in butte county to support.
We will continue to add to this list . . . #blacklivesmatter #juneteenth
4. Civic Action NVCF: ‘looking for ways to celebrate Juneteenth in our community?
Check out this list of events happening near you. Don’t forget to
protect your community and wear your mask. Let’s celebrate as
a community and stand united in the ﬁght for racial justice.
#juneteenth #blacklivesmatter . . . ’
Policy Advocacy (A) 63 25%
5. Endorse or Propose
Colsfoundation: ‘The Columbus foundation is proud to stand with
hundreds of businesses in support of the Columbus city council
resolution declaring racism to be a public health emergency. Read
more . . . ’
6. Coalition Building Siliconvalleycf: ‘In a letter to @UserID (Governor of California), nearly 40
philanthropic orgs, driven by our shared commitment to a just &
equitable California, elevated the need to protect & support
immigrants & their families who are integral to our social, economic
& civic fabric’.
Public Dialogue (D) 34 14%
CommFound: ‘Did you know? Trends diary is a place for boulder county
residents of all ages to share personal experiences that relate to
a pressing community need. Learn more and submit your story.
#communitycatalyst #bldrctytrends #doingourpartco’
8. Convene public
cﬀound: ‘Now, more than ever, central Florida needs to talk. not just
about the good and the bad we’re facing today, but about how we’ll
create the future. Join us 10/1 for the conversation our community
needs now. Get ready for table talk by visiting . . . #cﬀtabletalk’
Public Education (E) 88 36%
Siliconvalleycf: ‘Have you been sent an email w/ misinformation about
#covid19 or the #2020elections? You’re not alone. Learn more about
“Democracy in the Covid-19 Infodemic” on Thursday, May 28 @1pm
with @UserID & SVCF program oﬃcer @UserID Register . . . ’
10. Policy information PittsburghFdn: ‘@UserID presents four recommendations from a public
health expert on how Allegheny county can reduce the toll of the
pandemic and improve equity in vaccine distribution . . . ’
Total 250 100%
14 V. C. S. WU
& will continue 2 make Greater Boston, MA & the U.S.A thrive! #sharedfuture . . . ’ In
one of its tweets, Columbus Foundation (@colsfoundation) wrote it was ‘proud to
stand with hundreds of businesses in support of the Columbus city council resolution
declaring racism to be a public health emergency’. Foundations also advance their
policy agendas by sponsoring and forging coalition with other organizations. In some
instances, their eﬀorts successfully changed the policy agenda, as reported by the
New York Community Trust (@NYCommTrust), ‘Victory! Our grants backed increas-
ing NY’s age of criminal responsibility to 18. NY Assembly passes #RaiseTheAge . . . ’
Similarly, community foundations initiate or join campaigns with other organizations
to put political pressure on governors and lawmakers. Silicon Valley Community
Foundation (@siliconvalleycf) advocated its position with others on Twitter, ‘In
a letter to @gavinnewsom (Governor of California), nearly 40 philanthropic orgs,
driven by our shared commitment to a just & equitable California, elevated the need
to protect & support immigrants & their families who are integral to our social,
economic & civic fabric’.
(1) Public Dialogue (D)
Public Dialogue reﬂects the public engagement mechanism through which a civil
society actor convenes community dialogue on policy issues for multisectoral pro-
blem-solving. The engagement level of dialogue is distinct from the mobilization
level as it involves less participation from the community, with no speciﬁc calls for
action to inﬂuence public decisions, other than making public dialogue on commu-
nity or policy issues (Fung 2015). As seen from the full results listed in Tables 1, 22%
of the engagement tweets (N = 112) were primarily for building dialogues, which
constituted the second largest category of public engagement and was slightly higher
than the proportion of tweets sent for policy advocacy and public mobilization.
Comparing the analysis results across the two years, dialogic messages made up
14% (N = 34) in the 2020 data, which was nearly half of that in the 2017 dataset
(31%, N = 78). The pandemic and social distancing regulations likely explain the
reduced dialogic engagement in the 2020 sampled data, which featured little in-
person gathering and public discussion, but mostly virtual events and online
We found that dialogue-related tweets contained two primary mechanisms, in
which community foundations (a) invited citizens to engage in informal conversa-
tions around community issues and (b) convened a formal event for public delib-
eration on speciﬁc policy areas, be it online or oﬄine. Discursive form of
engagement is a unique mechanism for producing collective decisions and an
important ﬁrst step in fostering civic identity and inviting citizen inputs on com-
munity issues (Carpini et al. 2004; Cooper 2005; Grønbjerg & Prakash 2017). The
data showed that this engagement mechanism involved two-way participation,
including inviting ideas from the community, through convening face-to-face for-
ums, online and oﬄine events for creating continuous online dialogues with the
public. For example, the Community Foundation Boulder County (@CommFound)
Trends Diary initiative asks community members to share personal experiences on
pressing community needs: ‘Did you know? Trends Diary is a place for boulder
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 15
county residents of all ages to share personal experiences related to a pressing
community need. Learn more and submit your story. #communitycatalyst #bldrcty-
Community foundations’ savvy use of hashtags should be noted. A Twitter hashtag
is a string of characters preceded by the # character, used to annotate tweets pertaining
to the same topic. For instance, many community foundations created event hashtags
such as ‘#MyMiamiStory’, ‘#WhatMotivatesMeIn4Words’ and ‘#OntheTable2017ʹ to
invite community-wide, cross-sector dialogue and deliberation surrounding problem
deﬁnitions or to co-create possible policy solutions (Gastil 2008). Hashtagging is not
merely a technical tool but can be used to signify a user’s identiﬁcation with a cause and
an issue-based community (Pond and Lewis 2017). Hashtags can also create ‘hashtag
publics’ connecting strangers in conversations who share common concerns and
grievances on public problems such as #vote and #blacklivesmatter (Bruns et al. 2016).
(1) Public Education (E)
One crucial way foundations can translate public interests and respond to commu-
nity needs is by illuminating local policy problems and disseminating policy infor-
mation. The results from the content analysis showed that public education was the
most common engagement function of our studied foundations in the sample years.
Compared to the other mechanisms, educational messages involved one-way inter-
action as the tweets were mostly informational (Lovejoy and Saxton 2012). A large
part of the sampled tweets (N = 203, 41%) was classiﬁed under this category; many
tweets supplied policy-related information. For example, the Community
Foundation for Southwest Washington (@CFSWW) tweeted about homelessness
and sought to raise community awareness of how the housing market might alter
homeless populations. ‘The types of homeless people had changed . . . so too might
have the conditions that put them on the streets . . . ’ Pittsburgh Community
Foundation (@PittsburghFdn) shared health information on vaccine distribution
during the pandemic, ‘ . . . four recommendations from a public health expert on
how Allegheny county can reduce the toll of the pandemic and improve equity in
vaccine distribution . . . ’ Community foundations also sent out opportunities to
build civic leadership and community problem-solving skills by organizing public
education events, citizen science workshops and design thinking classes. For
instance, Silicon Valley Community Foundation (@siliconvalleycf) promoted a vir-
tual educational event on ‘Democracy in the Covid-19 Infodemic’ on misinformation
about #covid19 or the #2020elections.
Discussion and conclusion
This article represents a focused eﬀort to address the paucity of research in under-
standing public foundations’ roles in engaging the public on Twitter. Our inductive
analysis of Twitter messages revealed that community foundations attempt to bring
people together to address issues of public importance through ten engagement
practices under four key mechanisms ranging from Public Mobilization, Policy
Advocacy, Public Dialogue, to Public Education (MADE). The analysis indicated
varying levels of publicness among the sampled foundations over two years
(Moulton and Eckerd 2012; Bozeman 2007). In particular, the foundations remained
16 V. C. S. WU
more active at the early stage of engagement to serve as ‘a knowledge hub’ to inform
and educate the public about policy issues. Interestingly, their public engagement roles
changed over time between the two halves of the sample. Compared to the 2017
sampled tweets, the 2020 sample showed an upsurge in mobilizing and advocacy
roles to call for actions and policy changes, yet a lessened dialogic role of foundations
in fostering public discourse.
The upsurge of community foundations’ roles in public mobilization (M) and
policy advocacy (A) in 2020 warrants particular attention. For one, 2020 was an
unprecedented year for countries around the world and for the U.S. The presidential
election, the global COVID-19 pandemic, and eﬀorts to advance racial justice created
widespread unmet needs in local communities. The results from the 2020 sample
reﬂected responses to these major social and political events, echoing the early evi-
dence that community foundations have demonstrated leadership to establish new
philanthropic funds, solicit community feedback, and advocate for change in public
policy during the pandemic (Paarlberg et al. 2020; Finchum-Mason, Husted, and
David 2020). The rise in mobilizing and advocacy messages signals foundation capacity
to advance social change and to be seen as a ‘community leader’ in times of crisis (Wu
2021a). Nonetheless, relatively fewer messages were devoted to the mechanisms of
advocacy and mobilization in the 2017 data, indicating that mobilizing and advocating
on Twitter tend to be less notable in regular times among the sampled foundations.
While the societal contexts can be a confounding factor that explains the discrepancy,
others have noted that commitment to mobilizing and advocacy work requires institu-
tional investment and organizational learning to take place (Millesen and Martin 2014;
Williamson and Luke 2020). Other concerns observed by Scaife et al. (2012) around
engaging in advocacy were reputational damage, political ramiﬁcations, unwillingness
to go against government policy and potential negative media coverage.
The ﬁnding that community foundations may play a much greater role in building
policy knowledge and disseminating policy-related information (E) is an important
one, suggesting their role as intermediaries to inform the public of community needs
and policy issues. A possible explanation for the large proportion of policy knowledge
messaging is that community foundations serve as a knowledge hub to supply neces-
sary policy knowledge and position themselves as ‘a knowledge leader’ on Twitter
(Phillips et al. 2016; Wu 2021a; Manetti, Bellucci, and Bagnoli 2017). While the public
education role tends to be unidirectional and lack a participatory element, the founda-
tions help translate and frame information so that the public and multi-stakeholders
understand the issues at hand for solving wicked problems (Fung 2015). They also help
prioritize community discourse on important policy issues in the long run, which in
turn helps set a community’s change agenda (Phillips et al. 2016).
Following public education, the content analysis revealed that the second largest
proportion entailed messages aimed at initiating policy dialogue and public delibera-
tion (D). This dialogic mechanism implies the intermediary role of community
foundations as conveners to connect multi-stakeholders on addressing policy issues
(Wu 2021a). Their public engagement eﬀorts in convening public dialogue might
suggest their capacity as ‘a bridging convener’ on Twitter that bridges various policy
networks when there is a lack of direct contact or tie between two or more parties
(Bushouse and Mosley 2018). The two-way exchange of information can often cross-
sectoral boundaries with participants from public, private, and non-proﬁt sectors.
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 17
Foundation actors can spark online, two-way community dialogues and invite com-
munity members to participate in deliberative communication in an oﬄine, more
structured setting (Nabatchi 2012; Lovejoy and Saxton 2012).
Taken together, this study responds to the rising call in the philanthropic ﬁeld for
foundations to represent public interests and community needs rather than simply
advancing private values and commitment (Reich 2019; Frumkin 2006a; McGinnis
Johnson 2016). To that end, public engagement plays a crucial part in placing greater
power and voice with public stakeholders who are outside the foundations (Gibson
2017; Ostrander 2007; Carman and Hefner 2012). The upsurge in mobilizing and
advocacy roles of community foundations during the challenging year of 2020 signals
foundations’ pivot to online public engagement as a mechanism to respond to soaring
community needs. Given that the intermediary roles of foundations in fostering
bottom–up public engagement remain underexplored, this research contributes to
conceptualizing their roles in engaging the public on Twitter and fanning the winds
of change in the scholarly and philanthropic communities.
Limitations and future directions
There are, of course, limitations to this research. While the content analysis of the
Twitter messages has rendered an understanding of how public foundations engage
citizens online, it has not allowed us to explore other data sources, such as interviews
and surveys, to understand the governance and management aspects of social media
use. Second, it does not speak squarely on the outcomes and eﬀectiveness of these
public engagement eﬀorts. There is growing evidence that online engagement is related
to oﬄine activities and the data presented seems to support that foundations promoted
both oﬄine and virtual events on social media (Guo and Saxton 2020). A third
limitation relates to the use of social media data. While social media use of foundations
might vary along demographic, ethnic, socio-economic, and ecological lines, this study
cannot explain the factors that promote public engagement on social media nor delve
into the variations of social media users because of study scope, data restrictions and
privacy reasons (Wu 2021b; Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 2012; Piatak, Dietz, and
Mckeever 2019). The study is limited in analysing Twitter data alone. Hence, the
ﬁndings might inform but not necessarily reﬂect public engagement taking place in
other means and on other social media platforms such as Facebook. Facebook appears
to be used more to publish content in a dialogic perspective that creates two-way,
collaborative conversations with users (Manetti, Bellucci, and Bagnoli 2017).
While the Twitter data uncovered online endeavours of community foundations to
connect with the public, this study paves way to various lines of future research. In
particular, scholars, non-proﬁts and civil society actors continue to wrestle with the
impact question, what makes an eﬀective digital activism and mobilization, beyond
‘clicktivism’ or “slacktivism”(Freelon, Mcilwain, and Clark 2018; Pond and Lewis
2019)? How and under what conditions and institutional contexts would non-proﬁts
’ social media eﬀorts draw public attention and translate into impact that shapes public
agenda and policy making (Guo and Saxton 2020; Feezell 2018)? Since organizations
might use social media platforms diﬀerently, future studies that diﬀerentiate social
media channels for various message purposes and audiences will be insightful. Who
are the key civil society players in the advocacy ecosystem that can pose as ‘transfor-
mative’ central nodes in bringing about policy changes? What are the community and
18 V. C. S. WU
organizational factors explaining the varied engagement practices across civil society
organizations (Neumayr, Schneider, and Meyer 2015; Hong and Nadler 2016)?
Comparative studies on the nexus of public policy and advocacy roles of foundations
as well as the community obligations of such entities are much needed (Ferris 2009;
Williamson and Luke 2020). Community foundations outside the U.S. context might
display other forms of public engagement that are not explored in the article, due to
varied institutional contexts, government-foundation relationships and social media
ecology (Anheier 2018; Rey-Garcia 2019; Chan and Lai 2018). Cross-country exam-
ination will be a fruitful avenue to enhance generalizability, expanding the theoretical
knowledge of foundations’ dispositions and ways of public engagement.
Future work that explores the governance aspect of social media strategy will also be
insightful. Speciﬁcally, who manages social media accounts and sends out social media
messages, be it the board member, staﬀ member or volunteer? Potentially, various
types of social media management can aﬀect the foundations’ tendency to engage with
the public and partake in advocacy and mobilization. Board members who provide
strategic directions of foundations might be inclined to do more advocacy and
mobilization, whiles staﬀ and volunteers who manage day-to-day operations might
focus on promoting events and activities, as well as policy information on social media.
Network scholars can further investigate the extent to which foundations are each
other’s audience and uncover the isomorphic patterns and potential ‘peer pressure’ in
their tweets (Kerlin et al. 2021; Paarlberg, Johnson, and Hannibal 2020). As this study
only utilizes community foundations as the study subject, future scholarly research is
warranted to investigate the sector diﬀerences between public and private foundations
in public engagement eﬀorts and how philanthropic organizations might diﬀer from
local governments, advocacy non-proﬁts, and human services non-proﬁts in their
capacities and mechanisms in facilitating public engagement and policy change.
1. Public foundations enjoy less operational restrictions as 501(c)(3) public charities in the U.S. (I.
R.C. §§ 4940 – 4948 2012)
2. Given the increased restrictions to access platform API after the infamous Cambridge
Analytica scandal, major platforms including Facebook have tightened up public access to
platform data (Freelon 2018). Because of the restricted access to Facebook data at the time of
conducting this research, this study is limited to collecting and analyzing Twitter data using
Twitter API through an authorized academic developer account.
The author thanks Chao Guo, Susan Phillips, Femida Handy, Ram Cnaan, Editor Stephen Osborne
and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on previous drafts of this
manuscript. Thanks also go to Adrienne Nunez and Ievgenii Demianov for their research assistance.
No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the author(s).
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 19
Notes on contributor
Viviana Chiu Sik Wu, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst,
School of Public Policy. Using mixed methods and computational approaches, her work features the
emerging roles and unequal capacities of nonproﬁt and philanthropic organizations to advance public
problem solving online and oﬄine–through philanthropy, advocacy, and public engagement on social
Viviana Chiu Sik Wu http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5692-3224
Agostino, Deborah, and Michela Arnaboldi. 2016. “A Measurement Framework for Assessing the
Contribution of Social Media to Public Engagement: An Empirical Analysis on Facebook.” Public
Management Review 18 (9): 1289–1307. doi:10.1080/14719037.2015.1100320.
An, Seongho, Viviana C. Wu, and Chao Guo. 2017. “How Stakeholder Mobilization Saved Sweet Briar
College.” Journal of Nonproﬁt Education and Leadership 7 (2): 4–10. doi:10.18666/JNEL-2017-V7-
Anheier, Helmut K. 2018. “Philanthropic Foundations in Cross-National Perspective:
A Comparative Approach.” American Behavioral Scientist 62 (12): 1591–1602. doi:10.1177/
Anheier, Helmut K., and Diana Leat. 2018. Performance Measurement in Philanthropic Foundations:
The Ambiguity of Success and Failure. Oxford: Routledge.
Bernholz, Lucy, Edward Skloot, and Barry Varela. 2010. Disrupting Philanthropy Technology and the
Future of the Social Sector. Durham, NC: Center for Strategic Philanthropy and Civil Society,
Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University. http://cspcs.sanford.duke.edu/sites/default/ﬁles/
Bernholz, Lucy, Katherine Fulton, and Gabriel Kasper. 2005. On the Brink of New Promise: The Future
of U.S. Community Foundations. San Francisco, CA: Blueprint Research & Design and Monitor
Company Group Ltd. http://www.communityphilanthropy.org/pdf/fullreport.pdf .
Bozeman, B. 2007. Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic Individualism.
Washington: DC: Georgetown University Press. https://books.google.com.hk/books?hl=en&id=-
Brandsen, Taco, and Victor Pestoﬀ. 2006. “Co-Production, the Third Sector and the Delivery of Public
Services. An Introduction.” Public Management Review 8 (4): 493–501. doi:10.1080/
Bruns, A, B Moon, A Paul, and F Münch. 2016. “Towards A Typology of Hashtag Publics: A
Large-Scale Comparative Study of User Engagement across Trending Topics.” Communication
Research and Practice 2 (1): 20–46. doi:10.1080/22041451.2016.1155328.
Bushouse, Brenda K, and Jennifer E Mosley. 2018. “The Intermediary Roles of Foundations in the
Policy Process: Building Coalitions of Interest.” Interest Groups & Advocacy 7 (3): 289–311.
Campbell, David A., and Kristina T. Lambright. 2019. “Are You Out There? Internet Presence of
Nonproﬁt Human Service Organizations.” Nonproﬁt and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48 (6):
Campbell, David A., and Kristina T. Lambright. 2020. “Terms of Engagement: Facebook and Twitter
Use among Nonproﬁt Human Service Organizations.” Nonproﬁt Management and Leadership
30 (4): 545–568. doi:10.1002/nml.21403. February, nml.21403.
20 V. C. S. WU
Candid. 2021. “Community Philanthropy Directory.” https://maps.foundationcenter.org/#/list/?sub
Carman, Joanne G., and Rebecca A Hefner. 2012. “Using Civic Engagement and Collaboration to
Create Community Change: Lessons from Charlotte, NC.” The Foundation Review 4 (2): 30–43.
Carpini, M. X. D., F. L. Cook, and L. R. Jacobs. 2004. “Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation,
and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature.” Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci 7: 315–59.
Castells, Manuel. 2010. “The Rise of the Network Society.” Blackwell Publishing Inc. www.wiley.com/
Castells, Manuel, and Gustavo Cardoso. 2005. The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. Center
for Transatlantic Relations. http://transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu .
Chan, Kin Man, and Weijun Lai. 2018. “Foundations in China: From Statist to Corporatist.” American
Behavioral Scientist 62 (13): 1803–1821. doi:10.1177/0002764218773444.
Cooper, Terry L. 2005. “Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century: Toward a Scholarly and
Practical Agenda.” Public Administration Review 65 (5): 534–35. http://www.jstor.org/page/info/
Corbin, Juliet M., and Anselm L. Strauss. 2015. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE PublicationsSage.
Easterling, Douglas, and Judith L Millesen. 2015. “Achieving Communitywide Impact by Changing
the Local Culture: Opportunities and Considerations for Foundations.” The Foundation Review
7 (3): 23–50. doi:10.9707/1944-5660.1253.
Eikenberry, Angela M., and Beth Breeze. 2019. “Growing Philanthropy through Giving Circles:
Collective Giving and the Logic of Charity.” Social Policy & Society 17 (3): 349–364. doi:10.1017/
Feezell, Jessica T. 2018. “Agenda Setting through Social Media: The Importance of Incidental News
Exposure and Social Filtering in the Digital Era.” Political Research Quarterly 71 (2): 482–494.
Ferris, James M., Ed. 2009. Foundations and Public Policy: Leveraging Philanthropic Dollars,
Knowledge, and Networks for Greater Impact. New York, NY: Foundation Center.
Finchum-Mason, Emily, Kelly Husted, and Suárez David. 2020. “Philanthropic Foundation Responses
to COVID-19.” Nonproﬁt and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 49 (6): 1129–1141. doi:10.1177/
Freelon, Deen. 2018. “Computational Research in the Post-API Age.” Political Communication 35 (4):
Freelon, Deen, Charlton Mcilwain, and Meredith Clark. 2018. “Quantifying the Power and
Consequences of Social Media Protest.” New Media & Society 20 (3): 990–1011. doi:10.1177/
Frumkin, Peter. 2006a. Strategic Giving: The Art and Science of Philanthropy. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Frumkin, Peter. 2006b. “Accountability and Legitimacy in American Foundation Philanthropy”. In
Legitimacy of Philanthropic Foundations, edited by Kenneth Prewitt, Mattei Dogan,
Steven Heydemann, and Stefan Toepler, 99–122. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Fung, Archon. 2015. “Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen
Participation and Its Future.” Public Administration Review 75 (4): 513–22. https://doi.org/10.
Gandara, Denisa, Jennifer A Rippner, and Erik C Ness. 2017. “Exploring the ‘How’in Policy Diﬀusion:
National Intermediary Organizations’ Roles in Facilitating the Spread of Performance-Based
Funding Policies in the States.” The Journal of Higher Education 88 (5): 701–725. doi:10.1080/
Gastil, J. 2008. Political Communication and Deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gibson, Cynthia. 2017. Participatory Grantmaking: Has Its Time Come? New York, NY: The Ford
Foundation. https://www.fordfoundation.org/media/3599/participatory_grantmaking-lmv7.pdf .
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 21
Gordon, Eric, and Paul Mihailidis. 2016. “Civic Media : Technology, Design, Practice.” https://mitpress.
Graddy, Elizabeth A., and Donald L. Morgan. 2006. “Community Foundations, Organizational
Strategy, and Public Policy.” Nonproﬁt and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35 (4): 605–630.
Grønbjerg, Kirsten, and Aseem Prakash. 2017. “Advances in Research on Nonproﬁt Advocacy and
Civic Engagement.” Voluntas 28 (3): 877–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9712-5 .
Guo, Chao, and Gregory D Saxton. 2014. “Tweeting Social Change: How Social Media Are Changing
Nonproﬁt Advocacy.” Nonproﬁt and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43 (1): 57–79. doi:10.1177/
Guo, Chao, and Gregory D. Saxton. 2018. “Speaking and Being Heard: How Nonproﬁt Advocacy
Organizations Gain Attention on Social Media.” Nonproﬁt and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 47 (1):
Guo, Chao, and Gregory D. Saxton. 2020. The Quest for Attention: Nonproﬁt Advocacy in a Social
Media Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Guo, Chao, and Weijun Lai. 2019. “Community Foundations in China: In Search of Identity?”
Voluntas 30 (4): 647–663. doi:10.1007/s11266-017-9932-3.
Gupta, Kuhika, Joseph Ripberger, and Wesley Wehde. 2018. “Advocacy Group Messaging on Social
Media: Using the Narrative Policy Framework to Study Twitter Messages about Nuclear Energy
Policy in the United States.” Policy Studies Journal 46: 1. doi:10.1111/psj.12176.
Hall, Dobkin Hall. 1989. “The Community Foundation in America, 1914-1987.” In Philanthropic
Giving: Studies in Varieties and Goals, edited by Richard Magat, 180–199. New York: Oxford
Hammack, David C., and Helmut K. Anheier. 2013. A Versatile American Institution: The Changing
Ideals and Realities of Philanthropic Foundations. David C. Hammack and Helmut K. Anheier,
Edited by. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Harrow, Jenny, Tobias Jung, and Susan D Phillips. 2016. “Community Foundations: Agility in the
Duality of Foundation and Community.” In The Routledge Companion to Philanthropy, edited by
Tobias Jung, Susan D. Phillips, and Jenny Harrow, 308–21. New York: Routledge. https://www.
Hong, Sounman, and Daniel Nadler. 2016. “The Unheavenly Chorus: Political Voices of Organized
Interests on Social Media.” Policy & Internet 8 (1): 91–106. doi:10.1002/poi3.110.
I.R.C. §§ 4940 - 4948. 2012. “U.S.”
Jung, Tobias, Jenny Harrow, and Susan D. Phillips. 2013. “Developing a Better Understanding of
Community Foundations in the UK’s Localisms.” Policy and Politics 42 (3): 409–427. doi:10.1332/
Kerlin, Janelle A., Saurabh A. Lall, Shuyang Peng, and Tracy Shicun Cui. 2021. “Institutional
Intermediaries as Legitimizing Agents for Social Enterprise in China and India.” Public
Management Review, January. 1–23. doi:10.1080/14719037.2020.1865441.
Lam, Wai Fung, and Lin Nie. 2020. “Online or Oﬄine? Nonproﬁts’ Choice and Use of Social Media in
Hong Kong.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonproﬁt Organizations 31 (1):
Lance, Bennett, W., and Alexandra Segerberg. 2012. “The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media
and the Personalization of Contentious Politics.” Information, Communication & Society 15 (5):
Lee, Young-Joo. 2020. “Facebooking Alone? Millennials’ Use of Social Network Sites and
Volunteering.” Nonproﬁt and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 49 (1): 203–217. doi:10.1177/
Leonard, Jennifer. 1989. “Creating Community Capital: Birth and Growth of Community
Foundations.” In An Agile Servant: Community Leadership by Community Foundations, edited by
Richard Magat, 89–103, New York, NY: Foundation Center.
Liu, Helen K. 2021. “Crowdsourcing: Citizens as Coproducers of Public Services.” Policy and Internet
13 (2): 315–331. doi:10.1002/poi3.249.
Lovejoy, Kristen, and Gregory D. Saxton. 2012. “Information, Community, and Action: How
Nonproﬁt Organizations Use Social Media.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
17 (3): 337–353. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x.
22 V. C. S. WU
Lovejoy, Kristen, Richard D. Waters, and Gregory D. Saxton. 2012. “Engaging Stakeholders through
Twitter: How Nonproﬁt Organizations are Getting More Out of 140 Characters or Less.” Public
Relations Review 38 (2): 313–318. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.005.
Lowry, Robert C. 1999. “Foundation Patronage toward Citizen Groups and Think Tanks: Who Get
Grants? Foundation Patronage toward Citizen Groups and Think Tanks: Who Gets Grants?” The
Journal of Politics 61 (3): 758–776. doi:10.2307/2647827.
Magat, R. 1989. An Agile Servant: Community Leadership by Community Foundations. Edited by
R. Magat. New York, NY: Foundation Center.
Majone, Giandomenico. 1990. “Policy Analysis and Public Deliberation.” In The Power of Public Ideas,
edited by Robert B. Reich, pp 157–178. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.2307/
Manetti, G, M Bellucci, and L Bagnoli. 2017. “Stakeholder Engagement and Public Information
through Social Media: A Study of Canadian and American Public Transportation Agencies.”
American Review of Public Administration 47 (8): 991–1009. doi:10.1177/0275074016649260.
McGinnis Johnson, Jasmine. 2016. “Necessary but Not Suﬃcient: The Impact of Community Input on
Grantee Selection.” Administration & Society 48 (1): 73–103. doi:10.1177/0095399713509241.
Mergel, Ines. 2013. “Social Media Adoption and Resulting Tactics in the U.S. Federal Government.”
Government Information Quarterly 30 (2): 123–130. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2012.12.004.
Mergel, Ines, and Stuart I Bretschneider. 2013. “A Three-stage Adoption Process for Social Media Use
in Government.” Public Administration Review 73 (3): 390–400. doi:10.1111/puar.12021.
Millesen, Judith L., and Eric C. Martin. 2014. “Community Foundation Strategy: Doing Good and the
Moderating Eﬀects of Fear, Tradition, and Serendipity.” Nonproﬁt and Voluntary Sector Quarterly
43 (5): 832–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013486195 .
Moore, Mark H. 2000. “Managing for Value: Organizational Strategy in for-Proﬁt, Nonproﬁt, and
Governmental Organizations.” Nonproﬁt and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 29 (1): 183–204.
Mosley, Jennifer E, and Joseph Galaskiewicz. 2015. “The Relationship between Philanthropic
Foundation Funding and State-Level Policy in the Era of Welfare Reform.” Nonproﬁt and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly 44 (6): 1225–1254. doi:10.1177/0899764014558932.
Moulton, Stephanie, and Adam Eckerd. 2012. “Preserving the Publicness of the Nonproﬁt Sector:
Resources, Roles, and Public Values.” Nonproﬁt and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41 (4): 656–685.
Nabatchi, Tina. 2012. “Putting the ‘Public’ Back in Public Values Research: Designing Participation to
Identify and Respond to Values.” Public Administration Review 72 (5): 699–708. doi:10.1111/
Nabatchi, Tina, and Lisa Blomgren Amsler. 2014. “Direct Public Engagement in Local Government.”
American Review of Public Administration 44 (4S): 63S–88S. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/
Neumayr, Michaela, Ulrike Schneider, and Michael Meyer. 2015. “Public Funding and Its Impact on
Nonproﬁt Advocacy.” Nonproﬁt and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 44 (2): 297–318. doi:10.1177/
Nickel, Patricia Mooney, and Angela M Eikenberry. 2009. “A Critique of the Discourse of
Marketized Philanthropy.” American Behavioral Scientist 52 (7): 974–989. doi:10.1177/
Noland, Mariam C., and Eric Newton. 2015. “The Digital Age Foundation.” In Here for Good:
Community Foundations and the Challenges of the 21st Century., edited by T. Mazany and D. C.
Perry, 68–84. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884913505547 .
Nownes, Anthony J. 1995. “The Other Exchange: Public Interest Groups, Patrons, and Beneﬁts.” Social
Science Quarterly 76 (2): 381–401.
Ostrander, Susan A, and Paul G Schervish. 1990. “Giving and Getting: Philanthropy as Social
Relations.” In Critical Issues in American Philanthropy: Strengthening Theory and Practice. edited
by Jon Van Til, 67–98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b3f2/
Ostrander, Susan A. 2007. “The Growth of Donor Control: Revisiting the Social Relations of
Philanthropy.” Nonproﬁt and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 36 (2): 356–372. doi:10.1177/
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 23
Paarlberg, Laurie E, Megan Lepere-Schloop, Marlene Walk, Ai Jin, and Yue Ming. 2020. “Activating
Community Resilience: The Emergence of COVID-19 Funds across the United States.” Nonproﬁt
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 49 (6): 1119–1128. doi:10.1177/0899764020968155.
Paarlberg, Laurie E., Jasmine McGinnis Johnson, and Bryce Hannibal. 2020. “Race and the Public
Foundation Grants Marketplace: The Diﬀerential Eﬀect of Network Status in Communities of
Colour.” Public Management Review 22 (10): 1443–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.
Paulin, Michele, Ronald J Ferguson, Nina Jost, and Jean-Mathieu Fallu. 2014. “Motivating Millennials
to Engage in Charitable Causes through Social Media.” Journal of Service Management 25 (3):
Phillips, Susan, Ian Bird, Laurel Carlton, and Lee Rose. 2016. “Knowledge as Leadership, Belonging as
Community: How Canadian Community Foundations are Using Vital Signs for Social Change.”
The Foundation Review 8 (3): 66–80. doi:10.9707/1944-5660.1314.
Piatak, Jaclyn, Nathan Dietz, and Brice Mckeever. 2019. “Bridging or Deepening the Digital Divide:
Inﬂuence of Household Internet Access on Formal and Informal Volunteering.” Nonproﬁt and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48 (2S): 123–150. doi:10.1177/0899764018794907.
Pond, Philip, and Jeﬀ Lewis. 2017. “Riots and Twitter: Connective Politics, Social Media and Framing
Discourses in the Digital Public Sphere.” Information, Communication & Society 22 (2): 213–231.
Pond, Philip, and Jeﬀ Lewis. 2019. “Riots and Twitter: Connective Politics, Social Media and Framing
Discourses in the Digital Public Sphere.” Information, Communication & Society 22 (2): 213–231.
Rainie, H., and B. Wellman. 2012. Networked: The New Social Operating System. Cambridge, MA: Mit
Reckhow, Sarah. 2013. Follow the Money: How Foundation Dollars Change Public School Politics.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199937738.001.0001.
Reckhow, Sarah. 2016. “More than Patrons: How Foundations Fuel Policy Change and Backlash.”
Political Science & Politics 49 (3): 449–454. doi:10.1017/S1049096516000688.
Reich, Rob. 2019. Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc77jz8 .
Rey-Garcia, Marta. 2019. “Why Foundations Flourish: A Comparative Policy Framework to
Understand Policy Support for Foundations across Countries.” Journal of Comparative Policy
Analysis: Research and Practice 22 (1): 6–29. doi:10.1080/13876988.2019.1612040.
Salamon, Lester M. 1987. “Of Market Failure, Voluntary Failure, and Third-Party Government:
Toward a Theory of Government-Nonproﬁt Relations in the Modern Welfare State.” Journal of
Voluntary Action Research 16 (1–2): 29–49. doi:10.1177/089976408701600104.
Saxton, Gregory D., and Chao Guo. 2014. “Online Stakeholder Targeting and the Acquisition of Social
Media Capital.” International Journal of Nonproﬁt and Voluntary Sector Marketing 19 (4): 286–300.
Saxton, Gregory D., Charlotte Ren, and Chao Guo. 2020. “Responding to Diﬀused Stakeholders on
Social Media: Connective Power and Firm Reactions to CSF-Related Twitter Messages.” Journal of
Business Ethics, March. 1–24. doi:10.1007/s10551-020-04472-x.
Scaife, Wendy, Alexandra Williamson, Katie Mcdonald, and Susan Smyllie. 2012. Foundations for
Giving: Why and How Australians Structure Their Philanthropy. Brisbane, Australia: Australian
Centre for Philanthropy and Nonproﬁt Studies, Queensland University of Technology. www.qut.
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady. 2012. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal
Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Sloan, Luke, and Anabel Quan-Haase. 2017. The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods.
The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications
Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473983847 .
Svensson, Per G, Tara Q Mahoney, and Marion E Hambrick. 2015. “Twitter as A Communication
Tool for Nonproﬁts: A Study of Sport-for-Development Organizations.” Nonproﬁt and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly 44 (6): 1086–1106. doi:10.1177/0899764014553639.
Tompkins-Stange, Megan E. 2016. Policy Patrons: Philanthropy, Education Reform, and the Politics of
Inuence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
24 V. C. S. WU
Tremayne, Mark, Nan Zheng, Jae Kook Lee, and Jaekwan Jeong. 2006. “Issue Publics on the Web:
Applying Network Theory to the War Blogosphere.” Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication Issue 12 (1): 290–310. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00326.x.
Turunen, Jaakko, and Noomi Weinryb. 2019. “Organizing Service Delivery on Social Media
Platforms? Loosely Organized Networks, Co-Optation, and the Welfare State.” Public
Management Review 22 (6): 857–876. doi:10.1080/14719037.2019.1619805.
Vicari, Stefania, and Franco Cappai. 2016. “Health Activism and the Logic of Connective Action.
A Case Study of Rare Disease Patient Organisations.” https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.
Walker, Jack L. 1983. “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America.” The American
Political Science Review 77 (2): 390–406. doi:10.2307/1958924.
Williamson, Alexandra Kate, and Belinda Luke. 2020. “Agenda-Setting and Public Policy in Private
Foundations.” Nonproﬁt Policy Forum 11: 1. doi:10.1515/npf-2019-0049.
Williamson, Kirsty, Lisa M. Given, and Paul Sciﬂeet. 2017. “Qualitative Data Analysis.” In Research
Methods: Information, Systems, and Contexts: Second Edition, edited by K. Williamson and G.
Johanson, 453–76. Cambridge, MA: Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-
Wu, Viviana Chiu Sik. 2021a. “Community Leadership as Multi-Dimensional Capacities:
A Conceptual Framework and Preliminary Findings for Community Foundations.” Nonproﬁt
Management and Leadership, no. April: 1–25. doi:10.1002/nml.21467.
Wu, Viviana Chiu Sik. 2021b. “The Geography and Disparities of Community Philanthropy:
A Community Assessment Model of Needs, Resources, and Ecological Environment.”
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonproﬁt Organizations 32 (1): 351–371.
Xu, Weiai, and Gregory D Saxton. 2019. “Does Stakeholder Engagement Pay oﬀ on Social Media?
A Social Capital Perspective.” Nonproﬁt and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48 (1): 28–49. doi:10.1177/
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 25
Code Book for Classifying Messages by Stakeholders and Purposes
(1) Coded as ‘Fundraising’ any messages directed at donors for:
●Fundraising and appeal
●Information and education about giving
●Facilitating donors’ and their ﬁnancial advisors’ individual charitable interests
●Appreciation and recognition for donations
(1) Coded as ‘Grantmaking’: any messages targeted at grantees/non-proﬁts for:
●The funding info (indicating areas of needs or ﬁelds of interests in grantmaking)
●Managerial needs of charitable organizations (such as training and/or networking opportunities
●Promoting grantee’s work or recognizing grantee’s work
(1) Coded as ‘Relationship Building’: any messages directed at the community for:
●Small talks, motivational quotes, and seasons’ greetings
●Appreciation towards the general public or speciﬁc stakeholders
●Sharing community news and organizational announcement
(1) Coded as ‘Public Engagement’: any messages directed at involving the community for
improving community wellbeing or addressing policy problems:
(NOT for fundraising, grantmaking, or relationship building)
●Provide policy information on pressing community needs
●Disseminate civic education opportunities
●Convening civic dialogue, such as discussion forums
●Advocate policy ideas and lobby for policy issues
●Promote political and collective action such as voting and protests
●Volunteering and civic action
26 V. C. S. WU