Gather Around the Table: A Comparative Case Study Bridging Coalitions to Community

This thesis explores how coalitions incorporate community voices in their efforts to address systemic inequities. This was a comparative case study focused on two coalitions in Salt Lake County, Utah. Using a framework grounded in critical theory and undergirded by ecological theory, the research examined how power impacts the work of coalitions. Data collection involved meeting observations, interviews, and artifact analysis. This study highlights the need for intentional coalition design that centers community voice and advocates for inclusion in policymaking processes.

Connecting Coalitions to Community Gather Around the Table: A Comparative Case Study Bridging Coalitions to Community Kayla Mayers Westminster University A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of Master of Arts in Community and Organizational Leadership Westminster University Salt Lake City, Utah May 2025 CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY Abstract This thesis explores how coalitions incorporate community voices in their efforts to address systemic inequities. This was a comparative case study focused on two coalitions in Salt Lake County, Utah. Using a framework grounded in critical theory and undergirded by ecological theory, the research examined how power impacts the work of coalitions. Data collection involved meeting observations, interviews, and artifact analysis. This study highlights the need for intentional coalition design that centers community voice and advocates for inclusion in policymaking processes. Keywords: case study, coalitions, coalition-building, community voice, MACOL, critical theory, ecological theory, policy, policymaking, grassroots CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY Dedications To my daughter, Sophia, who was born in the middle of my work on this research. She gave me a whole new perspective on the term “community” and fills me with hope for the future when hope can be hard to come by. To my husband, Dan, who was right by my side throughout the process of me finishing this degree while we became new parents. This would not have been possible without your unwavering love and support. To my neighbors and peers in Salt Lake City and surrounding communities, we have a lot of work to do, and I am looking forward to standing alongside you while we do the work. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY Table of Contents Chapter I: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 Root Causes ................................................................................................................................ 1 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 2 Research Question ...................................................................................................................... 3 Theoretical Frameworks ............................................................................................................. 3 Significance................................................................................................................................. 4 Positionality ................................................................................................................................ 4 Community Organization............................................................................................................ 6 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................................... 6 Chapter II: Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 8 Root Causes ................................................................................................................................ 9 Defining Capitalism and White Supremacy............................................................................. 9 Capitalism in Nonprofits & Collective Impact ...................................................................... 10 White Supremacy in Nonprofits & Collective Impact ........................................................... 11 The Nonprofit and Coalition Connection ................................................................................. 12 A History of Coalition-Building ............................................................................................... 12 Social Class & Coalition-Building ........................................................................................ 13 Feminism & Coalition-Building ............................................................................................ 14 Race & Coalition-Building .................................................................................................... 14 Accessing the Policy Arena ...................................................................................................... 15 Theoretical Frameworks ........................................................................................................... 15 Participatory Practices in Coalition-Building ........................................................................... 16 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................................... 16 Chapter III: Methods ................................................................................................................. 18 Research Context ...................................................................................................................... 19 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 20 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 21 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 21 Ethical Considerations .............................................................................................................. 22 Validity ..................................................................................................................................... 23 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................................... 24 Chapter IV: Findings .................................................................................................................. 26 CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY The Architecture of Alliance .................................................................................................... 27 Planting Seeds of Grassroots Advocacy ................................................................................... 28 The Steering Force .................................................................................................................... 30 From Passion to Policy ............................................................................................................. 32 Reaching Every Audience......................................................................................................... 35 Coalitional Conflict................................................................................................................... 38 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................................... 40 Chapter V: Discussion & Conclusion ........................................................................................ 42 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 42 Implications............................................................................................................................... 45 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 46 Future Work .............................................................................................................................. 47 Center for Economic Opportunity and Belonging .................................................................... 48 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 48 References .................................................................................................................................... 51 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. 59 Appendix B .................................................................................................................................. 60 Appendix C .................................................................................................................................. 61 Appendix D .................................................................................................................................. 62 Appendix E .................................................................................................................................. 63 Appendix F .................................................................................................................................. 64 List of Figures Figure 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 34 Figure 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 4 ........................................................................................................................................ 37 CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 1 Chapter I: Introduction This study considers the role that nonprofit organizations and coalitions play in addressing complex societal inequities. To set the stage, I want to provide a definition of “coalition” as a frame for the reader, as it does not invoke an immediate definition for all. For the purpose of this study, the researcher will use this definition for a coalition: a group of community members, nonprofits organizations, business leaders, government officials, and other interested individuals who coalesce to achieve a common purpose. This definition combines the Webster’s dictionary definition of coalition and the meaning of “collective impact” to form a direct definition for the purpose of this research (Collective Impact Forum, n.d.; Merriam-Webster, n.d). At times, I have heard other terms used, such as workgroup, committee, or taskforce, to mean this or a similar definition. In this chapter, I provide some background for the problem, root causes, and significance of the study. Additionally, I introduce the theoretical framework for this study and state my positionality on the topic. Root Causes To begin my research, I studied root causes for why the existence of nonprofits and coalitions are necessary. I also studied it from the perspective that they lack the ability to adequately address wicked problems, or societal inequities. The root causes I studied in relation to my topic were capitalism and white supremacy. Mason (2022) theorizes that the nonprofit sector exists because of government and market failure, leading to the need for the sector to fill in a massive gap for programs and services. Racism intersects with capitalism throughout history, sometimes referred to as racial capitalism (Robinson, 2000). White supremacy is deeply rooted in economic systems in European history, and by extension, in United States history as CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 2 well (Robinson, 2000). The key word that is played out in each of these systemic forces is power, which is an important element when studying nonprofits and coalition-building. The very existence of coalitions to solve systemic inequities inherently suggests that there is a breakdown in the system. Nonprofits and coalitions operate within these systems of power, and therefore they are always present in the work being done (Rivera & Leach, 2023). For my research, I attempted to find coalitions that are shirking the status quo and actively trying to combat these systems of power. Problem Statement Nonprofit organizations in the United States play a role that many think the government should play, creating programs and services for the purpose of trying to address social inequities (Bae & Sohn, 2017; Mason, 2022; Siliunas et al., 2019). These programs typically only scratch the surface of the solutions needed to address these inequities. As a response, many regions have started forming collective impact initiatives to advance equity and achieve change at a systems level (Collective Impact Forum, n.d.). These groups are made up of community members, organizations, and institutions (Collective Impact Forum, n.d.). Salt Lake County is home to many of these collective impact initiatives, where people from multiple organizations and businesses come together to attempt to work on significant inequities (Salt Lake County Health Department, n.d.). Locally, United Way of Salt Lake has become a major player in the collective impact space and supports communities in these efforts (United Way of Salt Lake, n.d.). Additionally, the Salt Lake County Health Department encourages the work of health-based coalitions within communities (Salt Lake County Health Department, n.d.). One aspect that collective impact groups have been criticized for is not including enough community voice (Ennis & Tofa, 2020; Spade, 2013). This means that often the approach is CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 3 more “top-down,” where organizations are making decisions for a community, rather than community members making decisions (Ennis & Tofa, 2020; Plural Policy, n.d.). This method of including community voice and building relationships with community members is called “grassroots organizing” (Christens, 2010; Plural Policy, n.d.). Without having the community involved, it is challenging for coalitions to know if the solutions being presented are aligned with community priorities (Ennis & Tofa, 2020). In relation to nonprofit involvement in these groups, the involvement of nonprofit staff is dependent on capacity – at times due to staff, at other times due to financial resources (Rendon, 2024). Additionally, nonprofits and coalitions are also tackling issues that affect people who have different identities than the leaders of the organizations because of “systemic power differentials” (Rivera & Leach, 2023). These roles that people play within coalition spaces create an attitude that is known as the White Savior Industrial Complex (WSIC), which describes a system where white people try to “save” communities of color to feel comfortable about their privilege (Cole, 2012). As a result of this complex, inequities that coalitions are trying to solve are missing crucial community voices throughout their processes, which perpetuates the inequities that they are trying to solve. Research Question I did a comparative case study analysis—comparing two specific coalitions—to explore this research question: “How, if at all, do coalitions include voices of those impacted by the social inequities they are trying to address?” Theoretical Frameworks The focus of this research centered on the challenges encountered by nonprofits and coalitions in effectively addressing complex, or “wicked,” problems within the current operational framework of the United States. I will explore these challenges through the analytical CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 4 lenses of ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), undergirded by critical theory (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002). Using a critical theory analysis allows a critique of how the capitalist system in the United States has influenced the evolution of the nonprofit system as it stands today (Brookfield, 2005). By using a framework of ecological theory, I was able to study the complex systems of coalition-building and how that affects the people participating in the coalitions (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Framing these key components within these theories will lay the groundwork for future research on the efficacy of nonprofits and coalitions in addressing complex societal inequities. Significance Coalition-building has deep roots in history, with many activists using collective impact to fight for a common cause. Throughout history, people from multiple identities have joined together to fight things like labor wages and conditions, racism, and sexism. For example, dating back to the 1800s, Black abolitionists joined forces with white liberals to advocate for the freedom of slaves (Black Feminisms, n.d.). Collective impact and coalition-building are prevalent practices in Salt Lake County as a method for addressing inequities (Collective Impact Forum, n.d.). The way groups do this work will also likely grow and morph throughout the coming years. It is important that these groups continue to care about and try to address social inequities in Salt Lake County. Learning more about this practice could encourage more community-led and grassroots efforts into building coalitions. It will also inform my community work. In the next section, I will discuss my position in relation to this topic. Positionality I came to this topic for my research because I have been a part of collective impact work in the Salt Lake County area for over six years. I have been a part of many coalitions and CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 5 committees that try to improve conditions that create social inequities. I personally have seen this work to be ineffective, with coalitions experiencing analysis paralysis, losing momentum, or disbanding altogether. It can feel disappointing to come together for a common cause and then watch the passion and the progress fizzle out because people do not examine the inequity deeply. Because of this, I took a deep dive into this work locally to learn how to build coalitions effectively. Work often falls to one entity instead of the collective or just dissolves in general, which takes away from important work that should be done in communities. As a researcher, I had to name this relevant background and separate myself as a researcher to emphasize my desire to learn from them and not sway the perspectives of my participants. This topic is important to me because the momentum of coalitions and entities working collectively together is growing (Collective Impact Forum, n.d.), and I want to provide local insight on how to do this work effectively. In my professional life, I am still heavily involved with facilitating coalitions and being a participant in collective impact work. I will be questioning a system that is still considered best practice within my professional circles. Questioning these methods might not be welcome within these groups, but my hope was that the participants will be aware of the challenges that come with this work and will be willing to share those insights with me. To mitigate these challenges, I named my intention for this research up front with participants by stating that I am doing this work with the hopes of improving it and building upon good work that has already happened. As an employee of the city of Millcreek, I am connected to the Millcreek community and surrounding communities as a city official. This might impact my relationships with communities who either love the city they live in or have a bad relationship with it. This was another reason why it was important for me to differentiate myself as a researcher to avoid my CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 6 roles getting muddled. I am both a city employee and an active participant in coalitions. I also identify as a white woman who was born in the United States and am only fluent in English. Salt Lake County is home to people of many races, languages, and cultures that are different from the race, language, and culture with which I identify. I stayed mindful continuously naming the privileges that come with my identity as I explored inequities within Salt Lake County communities. Community Organization The community organization I worked with is called The Center for Economic Opportunity and Belonging. Their mission refers to engaging communities and catalyzing partners, which means much of their work is around coalition-building (The Center for Economic Opportunity & Belonging, 2024). They facilitate coalitions in house and are connected to other local coalitions. They were able to tell me about their successes and challenges with coalition-building before I started my research. I worked with them to develop a document (see Appendix F) outlining my findings to support their coalition-building work. This organization was a perfect partnering organization as I studied how, if at all, coalitions include community voice into their processes. Chapter Summary Nonprofit organizations, businesses, and community leaders come together all over the United States to collectively address social inequities within their local communities (Collective Impact Forum, n.d.). Within these efforts, the role of community involvement or listening to community voice is often an overlooked part of the process when it should be an essential part of the process (Ennis & Tofa, 2020; Wolff et al., 2017). Many of these collective impact initiatives, or coalitions, can be found locally in Salt Lake County. I used my background knowledge and CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 7 experience to study coalitions to see how community voice can be better incorporated into coalition processes. Before diving deeply into studying local coalitions, I set out to understand why forming coalitions to address social inequities is necessary and what critiques already exist about coalitions broadly. I explained how I am connected to the research topic and why I chose to study it further. Next, I dive into the literature that already exists around the root causes of this issue, its history, and critiques about coalitions. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 8 Chapter II: Literature Review In Chapter 1, I introduced key concepts that frame the research of coalition-building, such as the roots that cause a need for the nonprofit sector and, in turn, coalitions to address large social inequities. Additionally, I suggested that this work should be embedded into the theoretical frameworks of ecological theory, undergirded by critical theory. I presented my position on why I wanted to research this and gave some insight into how coalition-building is present locally. In Chapter 2, I dive deeper into these concepts to highlight researchers that came before me and to connect literature around the key concepts that frame this research. The work of nonprofits diverges from work done in the for-profit sector, and yet these organizations are still embedded in systems of power, such as capitalism and white supremacy in the United States. Such systems of power represent root causes of issues. For my study, capitalism and white supremacy illustrate how community voice is omitted in the building of coalitions. Nonprofit organizations are tasked with working on large social issues where government has failed while still steeped in these systems that created the inequities in the first place (Bae & Sohn, 2017; Mason, 2022). These intersecting systems of power are often intertwined in the ways that they show up in nonprofit organizations and create a need for innovative methods to address large societal inequities, such as wealth gaps, access to food, and access to housing. One way in which many regions in the United States have attempted to solve this is by encouraging collaborative work among nonprofits, government agencies, and other community-serving organizations. Collective Impact (CI) was one such method to engage collaborative partnerships and was introduced by Stanford Social Innovation Review in 2011 (Kania & Kramer, 2011). Collective impact is a commitment of a group of people from different sectors to solve social CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 9 problems by abandoning individual agendas and creating a shared agenda for a common cause (Kania & Kramer, 2011). CI was an attempt to take the ineffectiveness of nonprofits to solve social inequities in isolation and to broaden the scope to align multiple agencies with a goal to address social inequities. Critics say that this attempt at introducing a model to allow nonprofits and other community organizations to work collaboratively has been ineffective (Ennis & Tofa, 2020). One key issue with collective impact is that coalitions are operating within the same systems of power in which nonprofits are operating, which makes successful CI initiatives hard to find. This literature review explores these systems of power and explain how they are showing up in nonprofit and collective impact spaces, while framing how these ideas inform the study. Root Causes Nonprofits are existing in U.S. systems of power that affect their ability to adequately address the inequities that these systems created. Among these entrenched systems of power, capitalism and white supremacy are particularly significant in shaping how nonprofits function and the limits they face in pursuing social change. These forces not only impact the distribution of resources but also define the norms and structures within nonprofit organizations operate. To understand how these systems influence nonprofit and coalition work, it is important to first define capitalism and white supremacy, recognizing that these root causes are deeply intertwined, complex and often difficult to separate in practice. Defining Capitalism and White Supremacy Root causes, such as capitalism and white supremacy do not have simple definitions. For this study, I will pull out the definitions that are widely accepted by the authors who are cited throughout this literature synthesis. Robinson (2000) speaks of capitalism as it relates to white supremacy saying that it is “the accumulation and production of wealth for white people through CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 10 exploitation, dispossession, and displacement for Black and non-Black people of Color, and makes racism material and rewarding for white people.” White supremacy and racism are used to refer to one another in the research, and these terms refer to systemic racism and how these concepts perpetuate the dominance of white space and time (Liu et al., 2023). In some cases, throughout the study, patriarchy and gender reference systemic inequities for women in general, but much of the time, researchers are examining the intersections of gender and race, especially how the system affects Black women. Capitalism in Nonprofits & Collective Impact Nonprofit organizations operate within a capitalist system of power, which affects the way they engage their work in many cases. The way capitalism shows up within nonprofit and collective impact spaces is closely tied to neoliberalism and nonprofits needing to exist within a market system (Sanders, 2013). With neoliberalism rising in recent decades, the existence of government operated social safety nets have decreased, and the need for nonprofits to fill in that gap has increased (Bae & Sohn, 2017; Lázaro Castellanos, 2023). The nonprofit sector has grown to a point where the government relies on nonprofits to solve social inequities and even provides funding for doing that work (Bae & Sohn, 2017). This creates a system where the larger nonprofits that can more easily operate within a market economy – and are more aligned with business models - tend to be more successful in receiving funding than smaller grassroots organizations (Chrisman, 2013; Spade, 2013). The way neoliberalism and capitalism show up in nonprofits changes the way in which they operate. Nonprofit organizations start to behave like for-profit companies to find success, which can create a disconnect to their cause. Although they are meant to address social inequities, nonprofit organizations turn to business practices to operate so they can receive funding and CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 11 meet their mission (Ennis & Tofa, 2020; Sanders, 2013). This can create tension for a nonprofit organization’s mission and can threaten their role in solving social issues (Sanders, 2013). The role of a market economy in the nonprofit sector leads to commodification of wicked problems, or large social issues, instead of an effort to address these social inequities at their root cause (Sweeney & Killoran-McKibben, 2016). Capitalism as a foundational root cause that intersects white supremacy to cause further hardships for nonprofits and collective groups to move the needle in social inequities. White Supremacy in Nonprofits & Collective Impact Collective impact efforts often fall short when it comes to including community voice because of the way the spaces exist within white supremacy (Ennis & Tofa, 2020; Spade, 2013). They also do not effectively name the power and equity issues within the social inequities that they are solving, particularly when it comes to ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status, creating an imbalanced power dynamic within these spaces (Ennis & Tofa, 2020). With these spaces being white-dominant, racism is talked about from a frame of whiteness and not from the frame of those with lived experience of social inequities (Ennis & Tofa, 2020; Liu et al., 2023). Often, collective impact spaces will attempt to include underrepresented community voices in inauthentic ways by forcing them into white racialized spaces (Liu et al., 2023). This often creates a need for People of Color to have to adhere to white cultural norms, which does not allow for authentic engagement when trying to solve social inequities (Liu et al., 2023). Additionally, this way of operating not only prevents collective impact groups from solving inequities, but it can also create harm, where Black and non-Black People of Color are existing in racist spaces, which can cause stress (Liu et al, 2023). CI initiatives need to address power dynamics and how coalition-building has shaped civil rights through history. Before diving into CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 12 that, I want to create a connection between nonprofit work and coalition work, as I addressed both in this research because they are so closely linked. The Nonprofit and Coalition Connection Nonprofit organizations participate in coalitions for a multitude of reasons. One reason is that nonprofit organizations need to think about how to build capacity within their organization (De Vita & Fleming, 2001; Smith et al., 2021; Taylor et al., 2023). They can do this by working in the collective and thinking about their goals (De Vita & Fleming, 2001). Nonprofits can build coalitions to pool resources to address a community need (Cohen, et al. 2002; Rabinowitz, n.d.). Nonprofits also need to build social capital to be a part of the communities with which they work (De Vita & Fleming, 2001; Grant & Crutchfield, 2007). Nonprofits may find partnerships with businesses and other organizations to benefit their mission by creating shared goals (Taylor et al., 2023; Grant & Crutchfield, 2007). Nonprofits are extremely dedicated to accomplishing their mission, which often goes beyond providing services and into addressing root causes of issues (Grant & Crutchfield, 2007). Coalitions can serve as an avenue for advocacy, which is not often seen as the function of individual nonprofits but becomes more powerful when organizations come together (Cohen, et al. 2002). Next, I will showcase how groups of people came together in history to address these inequities. A History of Coalition-Building Coalition-building has deep roots in American history. Coalitions were often formed out of identities, such as gender, race, socioeconomic status, and at the intersections (Castledine, 2012; Phillips, 2013; Mantler, 2013). Coalitions became a popular mode of addressing inequities during the Civil Rights Movement between the 1930s to the 1970s in the United States (Conner, 2014). In the 1930s, the Popular Front Movement brought together individuals and organizations CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 13 from different political views to fight fascism (Castledine, 2012). This was also a time when unions started in New York City to fight unfair labor conditions (Phillips, 2013). In the following decades, women came together for social justice causes, such as feminist movements, civil rights, and peace movements (Castledine, 2012). Although racial groups were at times at odds with one another, there were instances where they came together to fight racial discrimination and poverty (Mantler, 2013). There is a history of nonprofits forming out of the necessity to bring coalitions together to solve some of these inequities, for example, Salvation Army and YWCA were formed out of the fight for fair labor practices (Nee, 2019). The spirit from the history of individuals and organizations coming together to fight oppression and inequity is alive in coalition building today. Social Class & Coalition-Building Coalition-building as it related to social class shows up in United States history as a fight for income inequality, often in the form of labor unions. One of the main vehicles for people to form unions dating back to the 1800s was through the American Federation of Labor (AFL) organization (Britannica, 2024; Kimeldorf & Stepan-Norris, 1992; Phillips, 2013). Unhappy with AFL’s stance on how to organize, several unions formed a new committee, called the Committee for Industrial Organization, or CIO (Britannica, 2024). After operating separately for twenty years, the two labor union groups joined forces in 1955 to form the AFL-CIO (Britannica, 2024). Labor unions were thought to be a method to advocate for the interests of the working class (Camou, 2014; Fletcher & Gapasin, 2008). Throughout the history of labor unions, the question of who holds power (the workers or the institutions) has permeated the movement (Camou, 2014; Fletcher & Gapasin, 2008). Today, this question of worker voice still exists within the CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 14 work of the AFL-CIO (Britannica, 2024; Fletcher & Gapasin, 2008). During this time of labor unions, there were also coalition-building practices to fight specifically for women’s rights. Feminism & Coalition-Building Women came together to build coalitions to fight for women’s rights throughout history. The catalyst for this was the fight for the passage of the Suffrage Amendment in 1920, which gave women the right to vote (Cott, 1994; Feree & Hess, 2000). Instead of ending in the 20s with the right to vote, coalition-building remained steady as a method for achieving positive outcomes from feminist issues (Feree & Hess, 2000). This type of activism continued to be defined by multiple waves of feminism that still affects women’s issues today (Feree & Hess, 2000; Keating, 2005). In the 1960s, the practice of consciousness-raising among feminist coalitions became popular where groups of women aimed to share their experiences with others (Firth & Robinson, 2016; Keating, 2005). Coalition-building has also been an important method for activism for racial issues. Race & Coalition-Building Coalition-building for racial inequities in the United States is most present during the Civil Rights Movement starting in the 1960s. Racial justice is often seen as just Black Americans fighting for freedom, but the movement included people from multiple racial and ethnic backgrounds (Behnken, 2011; Mantler, 2013). There was also a need to specifically focus on Black people in America for this movement also as they had been segregated in society and victims of violence at the hands of police (Hayes, 2021). Today, People of Color continue to come together as coalitions to fight ongoing racial injustice in the United States (Behnken, 2011; McKanders, 2010). The fight for racial justice often intersects with other histories of coalitionbuilding, including with economic justice and feminism (Mantler, 2013). CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 15 Despite all these movements being broken into different demographics and identities, the identities of people who organized them were complex. These causes then were fought through complex systems, and now even more, coalitions are nested within systems of power that can push against individuals, making it hard for individuals to fight back (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). I relate this history of coalition-building to modern coalition-building, in which addressing policy change is at the forefront. Accessing the Policy Arena Engaging with policymakers is essential for successful coalition-building. Coalitions address inequities at a systems level by connecting their cause to relevant policy advocacy (Foster-Fishman et al., 2001; Post, 2015). In the realm of policy change, large numbers matter, and coalitions provide that collective power (Post, 2015). This mass engagement lends credibility to coalitions and strengthens their influence within the political sphere (Nelson & Yackee, 2012). By advocating in the policy arena, coalitions can effect change, as policy determines how resources are allocated and how systems operate at the federal, state, and local levels (Cuevas et al., 2023). Access to policy processes at the local level in Salt Lake City will be further explored in the “Findings” chapter. In the next section, I dive into the theoretical frameworks that shape this research. Theoretical Frameworks This study was grounded in critical theory and links with ecological theory, which seeks to study complex systems by viewing the systems as nested within each other. This theory indicates that individuals interact with their environment, and in turn, experience systems differently (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). I studied how these systems affect coalitions and the individuals in them, and vice versa, how the individuals were working to fight back at the CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 16 system. Critical theory, with its focus on power, ideology, and social justice, helps uncover how historical and systemic inequalities impact coalition formation, including those whose voices are prioritized (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002). Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) model of ecological theory provides a framework for understanding how coalitions are influenced by multiple levels of political environments, from relationships within the coalition to broader institutional forces. These intertwined perspectives allowed me, as a researcher, to analyze the collective action within coalitions, as well as the dynamics at play with larger systems. This approach illuminated how coalitions get community buy-in and how they interact with policy that affects their issues. Participatory Practices in Coalition-Building As a method of questioning power dynamics within coalition-building, I will highlight the concept of Participatory Action Research (PAR) as a method for facilitating coalitions. Participatory Action Research (PAR) rejects traditional research, instead emphasizing the need for collective investigation and commitment to social action (Hocevar, 2023). It invites groups to research and analyze a local issue and to act on the findings (Hocevar, 2023). By involving community members in the design of coalition research initiatives, this approach ensures that social change processes are grounded in community voice (de Jong et al., 2023; Johnson, 2014). Although this kind of inclusive engagement requires additional time, it facilitates deeper and more meaningful research at the intersections of community experience, which creates lasting changes within community systems. Chapter Summary When a neoliberalist view on capitalism reduces government involvement in social services, nonprofit organizations must pick up the slack. This leads to nonprofit organizations trying to solve social inequities within the confines of existing power structures, such as CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 17 capitalism and white supremacy. Coalition-building has been seen throughout history as a way for people to come together to fight for a common cause, and the essence of this still exists today. Collective impact was created as a solution to close equity gaps within the nonprofit world, but these collective impact spaces carried with them the same power structures the coalitions intended to disrupt (Ennis & Tofa, 2020). Without attending to the inequities and power structures that create social structures or making authentic attempts to include community voices, collective impact initiatives fall short of this goal of making big social change. The failing of the collective impact model begs for further study about successful coalitions and grassroots organizing to inform a better way for communities to work together to create social change. In the following chapter, I share my research methodology and methods executed for this study. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 18 Chapter III: Methods In Chapter 2, the foundational work was set around root causes, synthesis of the literature, and theoretical frameworks. The dominance of capitalism and white supremacy in nonprofit and coalitional spaces has created a need for research around how that affects the ability for these institutions and groups to address these issues from an equitable lens. The literature takes us through how the nonprofit sector system creates a need for coalition-building and how the United States has seen coalitions formed throughout history. This history showcases a need to adopt a lens of critical and ecological theories. This chapter introduces the context in which this research is taking place and the research design in which findings from this research will be extracted. Coalition-building is used as a strategy for addressing social inequities (Collective Impact Forum, n.d.). The theory is that social change cannot be achieved by one single entity alone, but through collective action, groups can move the needle forward (Butterfoss & Kegler, 2009; Collective Impact Forum, n.d.). Communities have become aware that including community voices of those with lived experience is an important part of the process for creating social change (Brady, 2015). Community voice as a priority varies depending on the coalition. Salt Lake County has many governmental entities and organizations that participate in coalitions, and these are likely to have varying degrees of community participation (Community Coalitions, n.d.). In this comparative case study, I employed observations and interviews to answer this overarching research question: “How, if at all, do coalitions in Salt Lake County include voices of those impacted by the social inequities they are trying to address?” CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 19 Research Context This study of local coalitions took place in Salt Lake County, Utah. Salt Lake County covers 752.9 square miles and is home to the capital city, Salt Lake City (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). The total population is close to 1.2 million people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). This county outnumbers the population of surrounding counties by a large number (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). I studied coalitions with differing focus areas, both in terms of content and geography within the county. The work of local coalitions was likely informed by national models, which is relevant, but the goal was to study coalitions in a local context. While there is much to learn from coalitions around the world, I believe that coalitions in Salt Lake County will benefit from a study around local lived experience and how to incorporate community voice in the work, as I have witnessed that being one of the missing pieces in coalition work. At the time of this research, politics are divisive on a national scale. People who are politically engaged are participating in battles about social inequities, such as whether Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives within governments and public universities should continue to exist (Confessore, 2024). This research took place immediately after a big election in which Donald Trump was overwhelmingly elected as President of the United States for a second term. During the time I was conducting my primary research, Donald Trump was inaugurated and signed large sweeping executive orders to dismantle the federal government and eliminate DEI wherever possible (Goldstein, 2025). In the same week that President Trump was inaugurated, the 2025 Legislative Session was starting. In the legislative session, there were bills being considered that would directly impact the work of the coalitions I studied, and most of these bills had negative elements to them from the perspective of the coalition members. The combination of national politics and local CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 20 politics both cast a pall on local politics and catalyzed their activity quite a bit during the time that I was studying them. There was regular conversation about the impact of federal funding cuts and concerns about power being stripped away from the people who are trying to impact the work. In the next section, I will describe the data collection that was done for this study. Data Collection I did a comparative case study of two coalitions by observing the meetings and interviewing two participants from each coalition. In this study, I observed a total of three coalition meetings. I tracked my observations and interpretations from these meetings (Atkinson et al., 2001). Additionally, I gathered meeting agendas, meeting notes, and website or social media assets to include in my materials to study. I used all these materials to compare the way that the two coalitions operate. I recorded these interviews using my phone and used Microsoft Teams for virtual interviews and Otter.ai software for one in-person interview to aid in transcribing. These interviews were semi-structured because I created guiding questions ahead of time to make sure key points were touched on (see Appendix C), but I also allowed room for the participants to share their experiences without too many constraints (Spradley, 1979). Interviews are a proven method for getting more in-depth experiences of participants in coalitions (McGhee & Haynes, 2022). All these data collection methods combined provided important information that gave me insights about coalitions locally. Since this research relied heavily on the participation of coalition members, I remained flexible to meet on their time schedule and in a method that worked for them. When I reached out to them, I asked them to provide me with times that they were available and told them I was flexible to meet virtually or in-person (see Appendix A). For the most part, the participants were willing to answer my questions and the conversation was easy. They were told up front that they CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 21 could decline to answer questions, or they could stop the interview at any time. They were also asked to sign a consent form to allow me to use the information they shared with me in my research (see Appendix B). At times when relying on technology, it was slow and glitchy, but on all occasions, I was able to complete the interviews with participants. I was able to use the automated transcriptions to clean up the interview before diving into analyzing the data. This allowed a first pass at the data before I dove into the coding process. Data Analysis I worked on cleaning up the interview transcriptions within a week of conducting the interviews. I also took time immediately after each observation to edit my notes and add important information from the observations that I did not write down in that moment. I began data analysis by first going through the initial interview and developing a potential list of codes through a process known as emergent coding (Saldaña, 2009). With each subsequent interview, I continued to revise and refine this list of codes until all data were gathered. Once data collection was finalized, I coded the data set with the finalized coding framework, which consisted of process codes, descriptive codes, and in-vivo codes that capture the essence of participants’ iterations (Saldaña, 2009). Through this process of coding, I was able to identify patterns and themes that emerged from the data and ensured that the assertions I made were fully warranted. Participants The participants for this study were people who identified as coalition members, one of them being on the board associated with the coalition. When identifying coalitions to study, I had to search for coalitions who met on a schedule that allowed me to physically observe their meetings. I was able to choose coalitions that varied on topic, meeting cadence, and length of the coalition’s existence which allowed me to make comparisons within my research. Additionally, CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 22 the coalitions I studied had varying methods for including community voice in their processes. I found coalitions that I had not already been connected to with the goal of not coming in with any preconceived notions about their work. I asked people in my network to connect me to coalitions and used the snowball method of sampling, where participants were able to refer me to other participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Working on social issues within coalitions will continue to be a strategy within the geographic area, and I was able to pull practices that work from these different coalitions to share with my audience, which is defined by people who participate or facilitate coalitions. I found coalitions that on the surface seemed “grassroots” in nature to study a type of coalition that was new for me. Ethical Considerations One ethical consideration I made in my research is the proximity I have to the subject matter in my professional role as a city employee for Millcreek. In this role, I facilitate and participate in coalitions, working closely with those who believe strongly in the local collective impact efforts. This means that as I did this research, I distinguished between these roles internally for my benefit, and, when necessary, with my participants. I did this by being up front with the participants about what my role is with the city and how my role as a researcher is different or related. I was not “on the clock” for these observations and interviews, and I located the research away from my work office. Additionally, since I am so involved with local coalition work, I have a bias about the work. As mentioned previously, I mitigated bias, so it did not interfere with the research and determine any research outcomes. I used pseudonyms for both my participants and the names of the coalitions. I also replaced some of the words referring to the work of the coalition to not give away the exact CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 23 coalition to which I was referring. This decision was made to ensure the privacy of my participants, as the work of these entities could be searched online with enough information. Overall, I worked to establish trust in relationships with all people involved with my research. I will take my findings and share them with local coalitions to open dialogue about how to improve the work and include more community voice in the work they are doing. Validity As a qualitative researcher, the experiences and stories of my participants were important to my findings. Part of the process for reporting my findings was to engage in measures that confirm the validity of my research. The three validity procedures I used for my research were reflexivity, member checking, and triangulation (Creswell & Miller, 2000). These validity measures are discussed in Creswell and Miller’s work to study paradigm assumptions in qualitative research, which uncovers the fact that researchers have historical knowledge and experiences that cause bias in their research (Creswell & Miller, 2000). These validity measures helped to confirm the trustworthiness of my research. The use of researcher reflexivity allows the researcher to disclose their biases within their research (Creswell & Miller, 2000). This validity measure does not question whether the researcher will come into the research with assumptions and bias; it gives the researcher an opportunity to simply name them (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Chapter 1 had a section called “positionality,” which displays my historical knowledge and experience with coalitions and how that experience might have created a bias for my research. Throughout my research, I named biases when appropriate. To mitigate biases, I also engaged the participants in validity measures for my research. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 24 Member checking was an important validity measure that helped to ensure I did not misrepresent my findings. Since my study relied heavily on the experience of others, through observations and interviews, I checked my data with those who participated (Creswell & Miller, 2000). I shared my findings with them to determine whether any of my representations seemed inaccurate or incomplete. This practice allowed me to critically examine my interpretations and helped reduce the likelihood that my biases would distort the data. While the potential for misrepresentation always exists, my hope is that this final validity measure minimized that risk as much as possible. The third validity measure I employed was triangulation, through observations, interviews, and analyzing documents. This measure allowed me to cross-reference multiple data sources to confirm the accuracy of what I reported in my findings (Creswell & Miller, 2000). My observations were of coalition meetings, where I took detailed notes of how these meetings operated and how the members of the coalitions were connected. Interviewing participants was a way for me to dive deeper into what I observed at coalition meetings. Additionally, I used documents, such as communications from the coalition’s secondary communication platforms to supplement what I learned from observations and interviews. By employing these validity measures, I aimed to ensure the integrity of my research findings while minimizing the impact of personal biases. Chapter Summary I aimed to answer a research question about coalitions and their inclusion of community voice. This research took place during major political transformation, both nationally and locally. During the data collection and analysis process, I considered ethical implications of how they present themselves to participants. I engaged in validity measures to ensure the accuracy of the CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 25 research before publication. With this foundational work in place, I share my findings in the next chapter. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 26 Chapter IV: Findings For this comparative case study, I examined the work of two local coalitions in Salt Lake County. The first coalition, referred to as Coalition X, was formed to advocate against a specific large infrastructure change proposed by the state. The second coalition, Coalition Y, has a focus on promoting regular and incremental improvements to local infrastructure. Over approximately two months, I studied these coalitions through meeting observations, interviews with coalition members, and an analysis of artifacts associated with the coalition. I conducted two interviews per coalition. For Coalition X, I spoke with Jan, a community member directly affected by the issue, and Annie, a local advocate who cares about environmental issues. For Coalition Y, I interviewed Gersh, a community member passionate about the issue and Benji, a board member for the coalition’s host organization. In this chapter, I present findings from the analysis of these data. Figure 1 outlines the operational structures of each coalition and serves as a guide for the themes explored in the findings that follow. Figure 1 Coalition Structure Coalition X Coalition Y Structured Meetings Informal Meetings Single Leader Board-Led State Policy Local Policy Email Listserv Discord CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 27 The Architecture of Alliance As I entered the virtual Zoom room where Coalition X met, participants trickled in gradually, their names appearing in small boxes on the screen. The atmosphere was quiet, with only half of the participants keeping their cameras on. Those who did have their camera on tended to be the most engaged, often being the ones who responded to prompts from the facilitator of the coalition meeting. Coalition X met weekly, and every meeting was packed with discussion around the issue at hand. The leader, Jenny, referred to people by first name, suggesting a familiarity with the people involved in the meeting. Her tone was urgent as she recapped the past week’s developments, outlined the group’s immediate priorities, and facilitated discussions about ongoing and emerging action items. She discussed the need for the group to tell their story about their successes to get the word out. She also discussed the upcoming legislative session and that, as a group, they needed to prepare for advocacy. At the time I was observing this coalition, Utah’s elected officials were getting ready to meet for the 2025 legislative session, and Jenny emphasized the importance of the group organizing around advocacy on the hill. There was little room for casual conversation; every moment was dedicated to pushing the coalition’s agenda forward. Coalition Y, by contrast, operated in a different way. This group met at a bar in Salt Lake City, which is an unconventional, yet telling, choice for a grassroots coalition. I stepped into the bar on a cold January day, searching for the group, as it was not immediately clear where they were meeting inside. Only after being led to the correct table by the bartender, did I see a sign indicating the table’s affiliation with Coalition Y. I was the fourth person to arrive, and as more members trickled in, the group relocated to a long table, pulling in an extra smaller table to accommodate latecomers. This format led to smaller group discussions and during the time I was CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 28 there, there was no formal discussion or agenda about the topic. I spent my time informally talking with people about their involvement in the coalition. There was a stark contrast in the structures of the organizing efforts of Coalition X and Coalition Y. Coalition X operated with a strategic approach aimed at legislative advocacy, while Coalition Y demonstrated a loose model, where action seemed to emerge from relationship-building and ongoing dialogue rather than a defined agenda. Planting Seeds of Grassroots Advocacy Coalition X operates with a blend of grassroots and top-down elements. While its members initially came together out of a shared desire to make change, they also looked to the coalition’s leader for direction, information, and assignments. When speaking with coalition members about why they joined the coalition, their motivations came from a deep personal passion for the issue at hand. One participant, Jan, discussed her involvement being centered around the geography of her home being impacted by the proposed project. They were talking about putting an infrastructure project in Wool County; they were talking about 12,000 square acres and it was definitely something I was not a fan of. I was opposed to it, so I did some research, and I found several newspaper articles had quoted Jenny in the articles as people giving comments. I found e-mail addresses for them, and I reached out to them about how I could possibly get involved in opposing it. And I was like, “I don’t have a lot of time, but I would love to help out because it’s something that I’m not okay with.” They finally reached back out to me and mentioned that there was this coalition and so, I joined in. And I was very glad I did. Jan discussed the infrastructure project being close to her home and wanting to find a way to get involved. She actively sought out a way to get involved, found this coalition of like-minded CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 29 individuals, and joined them to oppose the proposed project. After years of participating in the coalition, she still feels glad she joined, showing the coalition’s lasting impact on its members. Another participant, Annie, shared that she joined out of personal passion, as well as her desire to follow the person who leads the coalition. When asked why she joined the coalition, she said: I kept reading about their activities and I would go occasionally to, I guess you can't call them demonstrations, but a presence…And so, I contacted Jenny. I told her I just feel like I want to be more involved and she said, well, the first step is to do these coalition meetings. You'll hear Jenny's name a lot, but I had been following her since the 90s. Annie’s experience highlights another key aspect of Coalition X’s structure: the influence of long-standing leadership. Her decision to get involved wasn’t just about the environmental cause, but also her trust in Jenny’s long history of activism. Coalition Y also has an organic, grassroots-driven structure. That became immediately apparent when I attended the meeting in the bar and listened to the coalition members talking about local projects that they were pleased with or ones that they felt needed attention. This group truly felt like everyone, from the board to the long-time and new members, were friends and belonged there. In this structure, all people were able to discuss their passions and things they would like to see happen in the community. It was notable to me that there was no formal agenda or large group discussion of any kind. I discussed that with the participants. One of the coalition members, Gersh, talked about how he viewed the purpose of these meetings. On the topic of the in-person meetings, he said: The most important thing is networking…I would say usually everyone that shows up has some idea that they actually want to see implemented. It’s kind of like an incubator for CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 30 getting resources to ideas. One of the things that I was super surprised how quickly it actually happened, was the Campaign. It just went from an idea that people had brought to the coalition, to getting it before City Council. Gersh suggested that even though there is no set agenda at every single meeting, that there are still tangible results. Another participant from Coalition Y, Benji, is a board member of the organization that hosts the coalition and commented on this structure as well: Initially we had some structure to them. It would really depend on the time of year and if we have something coming up. Once in a while, we have something organized, but in the nature of moving from place to place, we’re trying to move throughout Salt Lake City to give representation of all the community. So, there’s just some places where there’s no way. No one can hear me trying to talk. Benji highlighted that they prioritize hearing from diverse community voices over hosting a formal meeting. Rather than meeting in the same location with a set format, they intentionally move around the city to engage different communities. The goal is not just to hold meetings but to ensure that anyone interested in joining has an opportunity to participate, regardless of where they live. The Steering Force The observations and interviews show that Coalition X has some top-down elements to the way that it operates. Jenny is both a dedicated community member and activist, and she also acts as the central leader in the group; she disseminates information, sets priorities, and directs action. This was not necessarily seen as a negative thing by the members. When discussing CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 31 action items with the coalition, she emphasized which ones required urgency and giving direction on the priority order of the tasks. Jan spoke to Jenny’s leadership: One thing that Jenny always likes to remind everyone of is that it’s a team effort. She is exceptional at organization, and she’s extremely knowledgeable. She’s very involved in things. But she can’t do it by herself. We need experts, and we need people that care about their local areas to get involved. Jan recognized that although Jenny is a great leader, the work from everyone in the coalition was important since Jenny cannot be expected to do it all herself. Annie also highlighted a key aspect of Jenny’s leadership—her ability to keep the group motivated. Annie posited: I think what Jenny is so good at is saying “Well, if this didn’t work, then we’re going to do this.” So, there’s always something. I do think it’s sometimes one step forward and two steps back. But there is one step forward, and that’s what keeps me coming back. Annie’s perspective shows how Jenny’s leadership style provided both direction and resilience, reinforcing the coalition’s persistence in the face of challenges. Both participants expressed respect for Jenny’s ability to keep the group focused and engaged, even when obstacles arose. Although structured differently, Coalition Y had some elements of top-down coalitionbuilding as well. Their structure had more than one leader at the top, and, in this case, it was the organization’s board that kept the action items moving. Benji alluded to this when he discussed how they wanted to structure their coalition in the future to alleviate some of the work from the board and share those responsibilities with some of the coalition members. He described that by asserting: We’re planning to launch something called “committees.” It will be a topic-based discussion and with that, people who aren’t on the board can join and be an organized CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 32 volunteer and actually work on something directly. So, we’re working on that now…We’re starting with events since there’s a lot that goes into that. We would also hope to do something with our campaigns to have some kind of structure with that for volunteers to help out with. Where our structure is set up so that if there is some special thing that comes up, we can establish a committee. Benji was telling me here that the board members, although volunteers, were responsible to ensure the coalition’s action items were complete. They wanted to distribute that work through committees. This shift was intended to engage more members in the coalition’s initiatives and alleviate the workload placed on the board. While Coalition Y did not operate with a singular leader like Coalition X, the presence of a structured board suggested a level of top-down coordination that ensures the group’s advocacy efforts remain organized and actionable. The structures of the coalitions are important to bring forward because it directly relates to the root causes of this issue. As mentioned previously, capitalism encourages a free market, and when that fails, the nonprofit sector, and by extension, coalitions, form to make up for where the government fails (Mason, 2022). Once these spaces are established, they have the potential to be dominated by voices who have traditional power, begging the question: how are community voices included (Ennis & Tofa, 2020)? Coalition X and Coalition Y showed new ways in which power can be distributed to its members, sometimes providing access to policy changes that may have been hard to reach for these members previously. From Passion to Policy One of the main purposes that these coalitions serve was to provide pressure against institutions and structures. Both Coalition X and Coalition Y had a goal of influencing policy with the power of their coalition. Within Coalition X, the members saw their goals as a group as CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 33 making comments at the Infrastructure Board meetings, lobbying the Utah legislature, and raising awareness through op-eds and other written pieces. The participants from Coalition Y emphasized their engagement with local community councils and city government using their influence to push for incremental changes at the municipal level. During my observations of multiple Coalition X meetings, a recurring topic of discussion was the participation of members in recent Infrastructure Board meetings. When the meetings returned in the new year in January of 2025 and the Utah Legislature convened for its new session, the coalition’s focus shifted toward legislative advocacy, particularly tracking relevant bills and ensuring their voices were heard. Annie talked about the difficult, but necessary task of having a group to push back on the powerful people who want these large infrastructure projects, by saying: They are moving so quickly. It’s just not making sense. It’s too fast. It’s not stable. People in the community are caught off guard. I have multiple conversation with people about how well they are letting the surrounding community know ahead of time, and I’ve been to meetings where the people show up and say I just heard about this last week, and it’s getting approved…I’m frustrated with how fast they have gone, and it just leaves a group like ours almost paralyzed. Everybody is working as hard as possible, but they have these professionals who are getting paid huge bucks. They have a lot of power. They work with these people in the legislature who have way too much power. They changed the board to a 5-member board instead of a 9-member board. They’re just bulldozing through as fast as they can go. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 34 Annie was frustrated at how hard it can be to push against powerful forces, but she also talked about that being the importance of having a group like Coalition X: to be able to speak against policy choices that do not represent what local communities want. Below is an example of an email (with coalition name and member names redacted) that was sent out to coalition members where many of them were set to be a part of a policy process. Figure 2 Coalition X Email on Policy In Coalition Y, Benji talked about how their group works with community councils and city councils to try to make policy change. He talked about how the board connected with these groups here: We know some of them are actually like a Local Project community lead for one of the community councils right now. So, it’s really just if a board member or even our followers, if they’re available to go to those meetings and they’re one of the places that the city always CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 35 goes to, to discuss a new project…We do also try to chat with the City Council, but that’s a separate format. Within Coalition Y also, both participants, Gersh and Benji discussed a successful campaign that the group was able to push through with Salt Lake City that made a real change in communities. Members of both Coalition X and Coalition Y discussed these goals and action items through regular meetings, but what struck me as I was studying these cases was that both groups had a defined second communication channel outside of their meetings for their members to communicate about things relevant to the coalition. Reaching Every Audience Both coalitions amplified community voice through a secondary communication channel. Coalition X had regular weekly meetings for coalition members to communicate with each other, as well as an email group where coalition members could send relevant news articles and other items for the good of the whole group. In Coalition Y, the group met monthly, attended events together, and also communicated on Discord, which was a platform specifically designed for building an online community and chatting with people within that community (Discord, Inc., 2020). Many members in Coalition X utilized the email group for communication about the issue. In the time that I was studying this coalition, I saw emails come through with relevant news articles, documents shared as action commitments, and other communications about highs and lows about what they were seeing with discussion around the topic. An example of this communication channel being used in this way can be seen in Figure 3 below. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 36 Figure 3 Coalition X Email on Feelings and Hope This artifact from Coalition X’s email group showcases a member who I never heard speak in the meetings I observed. This person was connecting with another coalition member and also providing a resource to help others cope with the news cycle. The email group is a channel for people to communicate with one another outside of the meetings. Similarly, Coalition Y had a secondary platform for communication called Discord on which members who might not have been able to connect in the meetings were able to discuss other topics of interest. The platform they used was called Discord, which was a web-based chat platform that was originally made for gamers and is now used for all kinds of online communities. Gersh talked about how he used Discord by stating: The Discord is really good for those times when I find myself really motivated to do something right then, because basically, I was biking home that night for an hour or so to think about everything. And so, I got home and instantly created a quick map to illustrate my idea and knew that I would get some pretty quick feedback from people. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 37 Gersh discussed how the Discord communication channel came in handy for him to be able to discuss something on his mind right at that moment rather than waiting until the next time he saw the coalition at their meeting. Coalition Y’s Discord community had multiple “channels” that act as topics for the group to talk about. Right at the very top of the list of channels was a section called “welcome-andrules,” which outlined the reasons to get involved with Coalition Y. On there, they also outlined that their rules for the group were “Be Sweet, Be Safe, and Be Optimistic.” Additionally, the channels available to the people on the Discord are outlined below: Figure 4 Coalition Y Secondary Communication Channel Figure 3 highlights the multiple chatting channels that the members could use to discuss the topics associated with the coalition. The usage of the various communication channels by both Coalition X and Coalition Y was a strategy for allowing more involvement from their members, which both coalitions alluded to that being a challenge. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 38 Coalitional Conflict Coalition-building always comes with challenges, especially when it comes to getting the participation that the coalition needs to be successful. In Coalition Y, they hoped to restructure their coalition to host committees to give people more ownership over tasks, because the board was taking on most of the work. Members from Coalition X found that accessing coalitions to be a challenge for the community. While they all believe in the work of their respective coalitions, they also thought there could be more done to bolster the work. Coalition Y was set up to network and to talk about shared interests, but their board was taking on many of the action items at the time of this research. While they were trying to improve their structure to change this dynamic, they also saw some challenges with their new structure of having committees, particularly around accountability. Benji outlined that by stating: I think it's like us staying organized and making sure that once we ask them to do something, we follow through with it and make sure we have all the next steps planned out, we ask them to structure for accountability. Like if people join that committee and then don't show up to the meetings, we need to be kind of on top of those things, especially if people are organizing our events, and that committee just does nothing, then, essentially, we're scrambling. The board will need to make sure things are happening. Benji wanted to make sure the committees were structured with accountability in mind so that the board did not need to come in to clean up any messes. He recognized that they had to make these considerations as they formed the committees. In Coalition X, Jan and Annie were more concerned about the fact that the general public did not know that they were able to join coalitions and affect policymaking. On this subject, Jan spoke about her own experience learning about public processes for this coalition, by saying: CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 39 I have learned practically everything from participating in the coalition. If I was not participating in the coalition, I probably would know nothing of what was going on. Honestly, I mean that is the only way I've learned stuff, and in fact, the coalition is where I learned about even getting the public notices for meetings. It's always been difficult to know what's going on at different public meetings. And so, it was only because of the coalition that I learned that Utah has a website for public notices where you can go, and you can actually subscribe to different meetings. Jan thought that coalitions could have done a better job at advertising their work and sharing their meeting times with the public. She thought there could have been more people interested in participating in this work. She continued by saying: So, you can get notifications about meetings that are coming up. And so, if it wasn’t for the coalition, I would have no idea that existed, and I would have missed so many things by not getting the notifications about it because I don’t read the paper and our local paper doesn’t mention all these other meetings either. They're just mentioning the local meetings so there would be a lot of things that I would miss. And literally it was only because of hearing people talk about getting notifications and mentioning it that I even knew that existed. I don’t know that it’s well known among the residents that that is a resource, which is horrible to not know that there is a place to learn about what our government’s up to. She wanted more people to know about coalitions and getting involved with policy because she felt like she had learned so much by being on the coalition. Annie said something similar on this subject by discussing her confusion about coalitions before joining one: CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 40 I wish there was a way for community members to know more about the coalitions because there's so many people who are interested and just don't know how to start. I don't know how to explain it. I just wonder if there might be a way to have information, meetings or announcements or something to help people even know how to begin. There are meetings at the legislature. I don't know the League of Women Voters does a great job. You know, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, they're trying to give training about writing and maybe there's more out there than I thought. I think it's just frustrating to see how few people either have time, interest, or even know how to get involved and you know I wish there was a “community activism for dummies,” some kind of handbook. Annie felt similar to Jan and wanted the work of coalition-building to spread to others in the community. These coalition-building challenges showed that there is still work to be done in the coalition-building process. Chapter Summary When answering the question, “How, if at all, do local coalitions include community voice,” the answer had many variables. These coalitions were not always clearly a top-down or grassroots organizing body. The coalitions studied in this comparative case study exhibited elements of both. These coalitions connected everyday people to policy, both at the state and at the local government level. Additionally, these coalitions had to consider the engagement of their members when choosing a secondary communication space, which was a tactic to include more members than in their typical meetings. Neither of these coalitions had learned a perfect system for getting community involvement, but they were taking active steps to try to include as many people as possible in their work. The people who led these coalitions were aware of the power imbalance that researchers refer to when discussing nonprofit leadership and coalitional spaces. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 41 The inclusion of community voice in these local coalitions was steeped in the same root causes outlined in previous chapters. In the next chapter, I discuss these themes in relation to literature and discuss ideas for future research on the subject. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 42 Chapter V: Discussion & Conclusion When studying the question “How, if at all, do coalitions include community voice?” the answer is not necessarily straightforward. Exploring two coalitions through a comparative case study analysis was one piece of the puzzle for studying this question. This was complicated because within that question, the terms “coalitions” and “community voice” can encompass different meanings for various communities. While existing research provides valuable insights, much of it only scratches the surface, leaving gaps to be explored. Throughout history, coalitions have been seen to harness the power of the people by connecting them to policy and social change. Modern day coalitions do not always know how to do that effectively (Ennis & Tofa, 2020). As a researcher who believes in the transformative potential of coalition-building, I am left asking “What if?” What if more time, effort, and resources were invested in strengthening coalitions as a deliberate strategy to amplify the voices of those who might otherwise remain unheard? This research adds to the foundation that can be built upon to foster deeper civic engagement and encourage broader participation in political processes. The path forward is not a quick fix, but an ongoing, intentional effort. That effort can benefit not only local communities here in Salt Lake County, but also communities across the country. Discussion When studying community voice within the coalition-building process, I kept root causes in mind, especially when it came to how power was distributed within the spaces I observed. Drawing from previous research, I anticipated systemic power differentials to be present, with some individuals or organizations holding more influence than others (Rivera & Leach, 2023). Critics claim that collective impact initiatives do not name these power imbalances, leaving room for inequities within the spaces (Ennis & Tofa, 2020). For example, within both coalitions, I CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 43 studied, there were references to the “west” side of the valley, yet little discussion about the systemic reasons for why that geographic region is a focus. It is possible that these inequities were explicitly spelled out in previous meetings, but it was evident the topics being discussed disproportionately impacted certain populations. Both coalitions exhibited elements of top-down and grassroots organizing, they did not fit in with the definition of one or the other. Grassroots coalitions are typically characterized by community-led efforts where power and decision-making stem from the bottom up, often driven by the lived experience and needs of residents (Plural Policy, n.d.). In contrast, top-down coalitions are usually guided by established organizations or institutions, where leadership, strategy, and resource allocation come from the “top,” without any input from those at the “bottom” (Plural Policy, n.d.). Both Coalition X and Coalition Y were seeking methods for how to include community voice into their processes. One way that they engaged with the community was by connecting members to policymaking. Coalitions historically have connected everyday people to policy change (Post, 2015), which was a major component of Coalitions X and Y. Throughout history, coalitions have mobilized to challenge unfair labor wages, secure the right for women to vote, and fight for civil rights for Black Americans (Behnken, 2011; Britannica, 2024; Cott, 1994; Feree & Hess, 2000). This type of activism continues in modern coalitions and was evident in the coalitions from this comparative case study. Coalition X connected residents affected by the project they were opposing to larger board meetings with the goal of making public comments. They also connected people to various legislative views that they thought might affect their cause. Without the coalition’s structure, many of these people might not have accessed these advocacy channels. On a smaller scale, Coalition Y took the passions of their coalition members to local community CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 44 councils and Salt Lake City Council meetings. They also led a charge on a successful campaign that resulted in changes to the city code (Salt Lake City, Utah, Ord. 24-22, 2022). This push for individuals to join coalitions to then effect change on a policy level is a great example of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory around nested systems at work. Urie Bronfenbrenner originally theorized about ecological systems theory, which layers human existence and the systems of which they are a part (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). He posited that to make change, one must change one’s individual behavior, but also address needs in larger systems, such as local policy and national policy. Coalition-building embodies the spirit of this theory, as was shown in the work of Coalition X and Coalition Y. The time at which I was studying these coalitions was significant because it aligned with the time in which the state legislature met for their 2025 session. This timing allowed me to see the commitment from both coalitions to be involved in policy change as a systemic approach to social change. They were also committed to the space between individual contributions and systemic changes by extending their efforts to create public awareness and building networks of like-minded advocates. When affecting this change, many coalitions turn to participatory action research to move the needle forward with the work. Coalition X conducted Participatory Action Research (PAR) (Fals-Borda, 1987) by asking the members of the coalition to read documents, research information, and share findings to be used to move their work forward. With PAR, coalitions can go against traditional research methods by involving community members and focusing on action (Hocevar, 2023). In some cases, Coalition X reached out to third parties to conduct research to keep the information unbiased, but there were other instances in which the members were tasked with researching information related to their core issue. In some cases, they also were asked to survey people and CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 45 put together reports for the purpose of taking action. PAR was not a core part of Coalition Y’s work, but it did seem to be an important component of moving the work forward for Coalition X. In the next section, I will talk about the implications for the future of coalition work. Implications With the state of politics at the time this research was conducted, attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) were occurring and have a direct effect on coalition work. Part of this work from politicians is actively trying to reduce the amount of community involvement in politics. For example, Donald Trump has signed executive orders and is acting on creating policy without the input of Congress, who are elected representatives. On a state level in Utah, there were bills passed in the 2025 legislative session alone to take away union rights, reducing the amount of community voice from the public sector (H.B. 0267, 2025). The goal of coalitions is to bring diverse voices to the forefront to participate in affecting social change. If policymakers continue this work of making it harder for everyday people to share their voice, the work of coalitions becomes more difficult, but also more necessary. It makes me wonder what could happen if right now we started taking the work of coalitions and formally putting it into policymaking processes. This formalized process would be a way to ensure many community members are heard when policies are created. In a future where the work of coalitions and community voice is valued, the work of government could reflect what citizens of the United States want to see. With efforts to bolster coalition work and emphasize community voice, coalitions could move the needle for social issues in a major way. When thinking through the lens of ecological theory, this method of making change can become powerful enough to push against oppressive systems of institutions and policy. We can recognize coalitions as a crucial part of policymaking process by seeing them CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 46 as vessels that represent important experiences that should be taken into consideration when making decisions. This can be done by coalitions doing internal work to establish themselves more and to spread the word of their importance and power to the rest of the world, including those who work in politics. Recommendations After observing the way two community coalitions include community voice, I recommend that new or existing coalitions work on their internal policies and strategies. For one, coalitions should consider advertising themselves and reaching their target audiences. This was alluded to by coalition members from both coalitions. Specifically, within Coalition X, the participants mentioned the fact that they can find public meetings in their local papers or government websites, but finding information about coalition work is more challenging. Additionally, the bridge between getting people to attend coalition meetings and getting them to do work for the coalition is important. In both cases, engaging busy, volunteer-based members in sustained action proved difficult. Grassroots coalitions excel at getting passionate people together for shared causes, but to be more effective, they must focus on bridging the gap between interest and active participation. Strengthening outreach and improving internal communication about roles, responsibilities, and opportunities for impact could help address this challenge. While coalitions can do more to focus on their internal processes, the rest of the world can do more to recognize the work of coalitions. The work of coalitions often winds up connecting to policy as a systemic approach to addressing inequities (Post, 2015). In both cases for this comparative case study, coalitions were connected to policy work, and it seemed like an uphill battle. In the case of Coalition X, for instance, their advocacy was at times dismissed by policymakers, and access to implementing community voice became increasingly limited. This CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 47 trend not only weakens the effectiveness of coalitions but also distances policy from the communities it is meant to support. Based on the findings in this comparative case study, I recommend that policymakers take an active role in engaging with coalitions, not as a ceremonial gesture, but as a meaningful, consistent part of the policymaking process. Coalition input should be a nonnegotiable element when drafting, reviewing, and introducing legislation. By treating coalition engagement as essential rather than optional, policymaking can ensure that community voices are not only heard by meaningfully reflected in policy. Future Work The research of including community voice in coalition processes should be studied further to encompass more communities and deeper levels of grassroots involvement. Coalitionbuilding is at its best when it is focused on local work, so research on local coalitions should continue to expand (Butterfoss & Kegler, 2009). One of the participants in this study, Jan who is a member of Coalition X, talked about the benefit of having local voice by saying, “[In this coalition,] it’s not just a bunch of random people there, it’s people that know what they’re talking about, and they care what happens.” Because community voice can be expressed and incorporated in many ways, researchers should continue exploring the diverse strategies coalitions use to engage their communities meaningfully. Especially now when it feels as if power is taken away from the people, coalition building can work to bring power back to individuals in communities across the country. In addition to considering opportunities for future research, this study has also informed me of my own approach to coalition-building. As I work to incorporate more grassroots elements into the coalitions I help to facilitate, I now recognize the importance of more intentionally connecting people to policy and identifying secondary communication channels that can sustain engagement. Since it is challenging to CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 48 navigate, many choose to stay away from advocacy altogether, but my findings reaffirmed the importance of integrating coalition work with policy processes to ensure that community voice plays a central role in shaping public decision. Additionally, communicating with coalitions and convincing them to follow up with action items has been challenging. Watching the work of Coalitions X and Y made me realize that it is worth developing a secondary communication channel that works for the whole group to increase accountability and participation. My hope is that the takeaways from this research can be helpful for the organization I worked with, and others like it, as they continue their work. Center for Economic Opportunity and Belonging The Center for Economic Opportunity and Belonging aims to bring people together to design community-led solutions—in essence, their work centers on coalition-building. Throughout this project, I had ongoing conversations with the founder of the organization and learned that, like many groups working to build community, they face similar challenges to those observed in this study. I do not believe the challenges identified in this study will come as a surprise to this organization. I will provide them with a document (see Appendix F) that outlines my findings with the hope that it will be a useful resource to them. Conclusion Through my years of experience as both a participant and facilitator in coalition building, I have come to understand that the work brings both successes and significant challenges. I recognized that a lot of the efforts I have been a part of have had varying levels of success with authentically including community voice. I know that through the work I am currently doing, it will take a long time to be fully community-led, but I think to strive for that, small incremental changes need to happen to our processes to make it happen. This research project allowed me the CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 49 opportunity to find out what others were doing in a local context around coalition-building. As I have worked to build coalitions, I have wondered about how our coalitions could look if they were fully led by the community, which led me to the research question: How, if at all, do local coalition include community voice? I was not surprised as I investigated the literature to find criticisms of collective impact and how that showed up in coalition work; it is the exact critique I had about the work I saw locally (Ennis & Tofa). I was finding research that outlined the root causes for why this work of coalitions and nonprofits more broadly were struggling to make lasting and deep changes for their communities. Rooted in systemic barriers, coalitions can often leave the inclusion of community voice as an option, rather than a rule. I know from my research on the history of coalition-building that this work has the potential to make a huge impact. The work of the two coalitions I examined for this comparative case study provided good insight into how to better include community voice. From my research, I learned that all coalitions have their challenges, but they also all have wisdom to share about coalition building. These coalitions were engaged with local policy and were persistent in their advocacy. It was arduous for them to do it, but they marched ahead because they believed in their mission. These coalitions successfully expanded the input of community voice by exploring additional communication methods. These efforts are tangible and able to be replicated in other coalitions as they try to give more power to individual community members. At a time when efforts to silence community voice are growing, the work of coalitions is more vital than ever. These groups show us that inclusion is not just an abstract ideal—it is a practice that can be strengthened with deliberate action. Their work carries CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 50 historical significance in the broader movement to address social inequities and reminds us that we, the people, still have the power to effect change in our communities. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 51 References Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of ethnography. Sage Publications. Bae, K. B., & Sohn, H. (2018). Factors contributing to the size of nonprofit sector: Tests of government failure, interdependence, and social capital theory. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations, 29(3), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9888-3 Behnken, B. D. Fighting their own battles: Mexican Americans, African Americans, and the struggle for civil rights in Texas. The University of North Carolina. Black Feminisms. (n.d.). Coalition building and antiracism in the US. Black Feminisms. https://blackfeminisms.com/coalition-building/ Brady, S. (2015, Oct. 20). Building many stories into collective impact. Standford social innovation review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/building_many_stories_into_collective_impact Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopedia (2024, November 23). AFL–CIO. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/AFL-CIO Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press. Brookfield, S. D. (2005). The power of critical theory for adult learning and teaching. JosseyBass/Wiley & Sons Inc. Butterfoss, F. D., & Kegler, M. C. (2009). The community coalition action theory. In R. J. DiClemente, R. A. Crosby, & M.C. Kegler (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research (2nd ed., pp. 237-276). Jossey-Bass/Wiley. Commented [MOU1]: Be sure to “accept” changes throughout references to clear out any of these comment bubbles. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 52 Camou, M. (2014). Labor-community coalitions through urban regime lens: Institutions and ideas in building power from below. Urban Affairs Review, 50(5), 623-647. Castledine, J. (2012). Cold War Progressives: Women’s interracial organizing for peace and freedom. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. Chrisman, R. The crisis of the non-profit sector. (2013). The Black Scholar, 43(3), 36–37. https://doi.org/10.5816/blackscholar.43.3.0036 Christens, B. D. (2010). Public relationship building in grassroots community organizing: Relational intervention for individual and systems change. Journal of Community Psychology, 38 (7), 886-900. Cohen, L., Baer, N., & Satterwhite, P. (2002). Developing effective coalitions: An eight step guide. Community health education & promotion: A guide to program design and evaluation. 2nd ed. Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen Publishers, Inc. Cole, T. (2012, March 21). The white-savior industrial complex. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrialcomplex/254843/ Collective Impact Forum. (n.d.). What is collective impact. Collective Impact Forum. https://collectiveimpactforum.org/ Community Coalitions. (n.d.). https://slco.org/health/community-coalitions/ Confessore, N. (2024, January 20). ‘America is under attack’: Inside the anti-D.E.I. crusade. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/20/us/dei-wokeclaremont-institute.html Conner, C. A. Coalitions and the long civil rights movements. Reviews in American History, 42 (4), 730-738. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 53 Cott, N. F. (Ed.) (1994). History of women in the United States. A Reed Reference Publishing Company. Creswell, J. W. & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Taylor & Francis. Cuevas, E., Rodrigue, S., Aziz, A. (2023). From designing policy solutions to building coalitions: Key strategies for intermediaries to engage in policy and advocacy. Jobs for the Future. de Jong, M. A. J. G., Wink, G., Koelen, M. A. et al. (2023). Unraveling mechanisms underlying action principles of a community-based health promotion programme: A realist evaluation. Archives of Public Health, 81 (9). https://doiorg.ezproxy.westminsteru.edu/10.1186/s13690-023-01027-0 De Vita, C. J., & Fleming, C. (Eds.) (2001). Building capacity in nonprofit organizations. Urban Institute. Discord Inc. (2020). Discord. Retrieved from https://discord.com Ennis, G., & Tofa, M. (2020). Collective impact: A review of the peer-reviewed research. Australian Social Work, 73(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2019.1602662 Fals-Borda, O. (1987). The Application of Participatory Action-Research in Latin America. International Sociology, 2(4), 329347. https://doi.org/10.1177/026858098700200401 Feree, M. M., & Hess, B. B. (2000). Controversy and coalition: The new feminist movement across three decades of change (3rd ed.). Routledge. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 54 Firth, R., & Robinson, A. (2016). For a revival of feminist consciousness-raising: Horizontal transformation of epistemologies and transgression of neoliberal timespace. Gender and Education, 28(3), 343-358. Fletcher, B., Jr., & Gapasin, F. (2008). Solidarity divided: The crisis in organized labor and a new path toward social justice. University of California Press. Foster -Fishman, P.G., Berkowitz, S.L., Lounsbury, D.W., Jacobson, S., Allen, N.A. (2001). Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29 (2), 241-261. DOI:10.1023/A:1010378613583 Goldstein, (2025, January 30). Trump sweeping executive orders, Trump tests local control of schools. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/us/trump-executiveorders-local-control-schools.html Grant, H. M., & Crutchfield, L. R. (2007). Creating high-impact nonprofits. Standford Social Innovation Review, 5 (4), 32-41. https://doi.org/10.48558/CHQ0-FZ58 Hayes, C. (2021). The Harlem uprising: Segregation and inequality in postwar New York City. Columbia University Press. Hocevar, R. (2023). Participatory Action Research. Salem Price Encyclopedia. Salem Press. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment: Philosophical fragments. (Jephcott, E., Trans.) Standford University Press. (Original work published 1987). Johnson, L. R. (2014). Theoretical and Conceptual Background. Community-based qualitative Research: Approaches for education and the social sciences. (pp. 1-37). SAGE Publications. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 55 Kania, J. & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective Impact (SSIR). https://ssir.org/articles/entry/collective_impact Keating, C. (2005). Building coalitional consciousness. NWSA Journal, 17(2), 86-103. Kimeldorf, H., & Stepan-Norris, J. (1992). Historical studies of labor movements in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 18 (1992), 495-517. Lázaro Castellanos, R. (2023). Critical reflections on the western welfare state, racial capitalism, and migratory movements. Social Sciences, 12(5), 271. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12050271 Liu, W. M, Liu, R. Z., & Shin, R. Q. (2023). Understanding systemic racism: Anti-Blackness, white supremacy, racial capitalism, and the re/creation of white space and time. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 70(3), 244-257. https:doi.org/10.1037/cou0000605 Mantler, G. K. (2013). Power to the poor: Black-brown coalition and the fight for economic justice. University of North Carolina. Mason, D. P. (2022). Introduction to the nonprofit sector. Open Oregon Educational Resources. McGhee, C., & Haynes, A. (2022). Rebuilding solidarity through advocacy leadership: Principals building coalitions to fight exclusion and displacement in gentrifying communities. Education Studies: Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, 58 (3), 386-403. DOI: 10.1080/00131946.2022.2033752 McKanders, K. M. (2010). Black and brown coalition building during the “post racial” Obama era. St. Louis University Public Law Review, 30(1), 473-499. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 56 Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Coalition. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 5, 2024, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coalition Nee, M. (2019). Pooling power: Engaging nonprofits in coalitions for social change. Master’s Projects and Capstones. 942. https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/942. Nelson, D. & Yackee, S.W. (2012). Lobbying coalitions and government policy change: An analysis of federal agency building. The Journal of Politics, 74 (2), 339-353. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381611001599 Phillips, L. A. (2013). Renegade union: Interracial organizing and labor radicalism. University of Illinois Press. Plural Policy. (n.d.). What is a grassroots organization? Plural Policy. Retrieved March 23, 2025, from https://pluralpolicy.com/blog/what-is-a-grassrootsorganization/?utm_source=chatgpt.com Post, Margaret. Multi-organizational alliances and policy change: Understanding the mobilization and impact of grassroots coalitions. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 6 (3), 271-295. DOI 10.1515/npf-2014-00300. Public Sector Labor Union Amendments, H.B. 0267. 2025 General Session. 2025. Rabinowitz, P. (n.d.). Coalition building I: Starting a coalition. University of Kansas. Rendon, J. (2024, February 22). Nonprofits find ways to manage a staffing crisis with no end in sight. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. https://jobs.philanthropy.com/article/https-wwwphilanthropy-com-article-nonprofits-find-ways-to-manage-a-staffing-crisis-with-no-endin-sight CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 57 Rivera, J. D., & Leach, K. A. (2023). The time has come: Broadly integrating critical race theory as an analytic lens in public and nonprofit management. Public Integrity, 25(3), 257–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2022.2120711 Robinson, C. J. (2000). Black Marxism: The making of the Black radical tradition. University of North Carolina Press Saldaña, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage Publications Ltd (Newbury Park, California). Salt Lake City, Utah, Municipal Code, § Ord. 24-22, 2022 Salt Lake County Health Department. (n.d.). Community Coalitions. https://slco.org/health/community-coalitions/ Sanders, M. L. (2015). Being nonprofit-like in a market economy: Understanding the missionmarket tension in nonprofit organizing. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013508606 Siliunas, A., Small, M. L., & Wallerstein, J. (2019). We can help, but there’s a catch: Nonprofit organizations and access to government-funded resources among the poor. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 8(1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-04-2018-0018 Smith, E.T., Hammond, H., & Commons Volunteer Librarian. (2021). Coalition building: Start here. The commons library. https://commonslibrary.org/coalition-building-start-here/ Spade, D. (2013). Being together, after nonprofitization. WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly, 41(3–4), 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1353/wsq.2013.0077 Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 58 Sweeney, E., & Killoran-McKibbin, S. (2016). Selling Pink: Feminizing the non-profit industrial complex from ribbons to lemonaid. Women’s Studies, 45(5), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/00497878.2016.1186492 Taylor, L. A., Aveling, E. L., Roberts, J., Bhuiya, N., Edmondson, A. Singer, S. (2023). Building resilient partnerships: How businesses and nonprofits create the capacity for responsiveness. Frontiers in Health Services, 3. https://doi./org/10.3389/frhs.2023.1155941 The Center for Economic Opportunity & Belonging. (2024). Who we are. Belonging in Utah. https://www.belonginutah.org/who-we-are United Way of Salt Lake. (n.d.). Our goals and roadmap for success. United Way of Salt Lake. https://uw.org/our-work/goals/ U. S. Census Bureau. (n.d.) Salt Lake County, Utah. U. S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved September 21, 2024, from https://data.census.gov/profile/Salt_Lake_County,_Utah?g=050XX00US49035 Wolff, T., Minkler, M., Wolfe, S. M., Berkowitz, B., Linda Bowen, Butterfoss, F. D., Christens, B. D., Francisco, V. T., Himmelman, A. T., & Lee, K. S. (2017, January 9). Collaborating for equity and justice: Moving beyond collective impact. Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/collaborating-equity-justice-movingbeyond-collective-impact/ CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 59 Appendix A Recruitment Script Dear [Insert Participant Name], You are invited to participate in a research study designed to explore and understand local coalitions in Salt Lake County. The goal of this study is to identify how, if at all, community voice is built into coalition-building processes and decision-making. You have been identified as someone who participates in one of the coalitions I am studying. If you agree to participate, you agree to be interviewed for around 60 minutes about your experience on this coalition. We can conduct the interview in person or virtually, whichever is more convenient for you. These interviews will be recorded in order for me to be able to go back to the content for my research. There may be a request for a follow-up shorter interview if anything is unclear from the first interview. I will explain the consent form (attached to this message) when we meet so you can ask any questions and receive all information before signing the consent form to take part in this study. You will have the ability to stop the interview at any time or revoke your consent to be a part of this study. If this is of interest to you, please let me know if 3-5 available dates and times you have available in the next few weeks so we can align something that is convenient for your schedule. If you have any questions before committing, please email me at [e-mail] or call me at 260-409-8504. Additionally, I will offer to you a $15 VISA gift card as a thank you for participating in this study. I am excited to learn more about you! Thank you, Kayla Mayers Master of Arts in Community and Organizational Leadership Student CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 60 Appendix B Consent Form Westminster University Institutional Review Board (IRB) For the Protection of Human Subjects Before agreeing to participate in this study, it is important that the following explanation of the proposed procedures be read and understood. It describes the purpose, procedures, benefits and risks of the study. It also describes alternative procedures available and the right to withdraw from the study at any time. It is important to understand that no guarantee or assurance can be made as to the results. See below. You have been invited to participate in a research study, the purpose of which is to understand the experiences of people that participate in local coalitions. In this proposed research, I aim to explore two research questions: “How, if at all, do coalitions include voices of those impacted by the social inequities they are trying to address?” and “How do people describe their experience participating in coalitions?” The study procedure(s) have been identified as doing observations and conducting interviews. The duration of the study is expected to be 9 months. You will be notified of any significant variance from the stated duration of the study. Benefits that may occur from participation in this study have been identified as being a part of dissecting local coalitions and contributing insight into how to authentically include community voice in the work. INVESTIGATORS: Include one of the following two statements as applicable: Projects for which there are no or minimal foreseeable risks: There are no foreseeable side effects/ risks associated with this project, other than the possibility of slight discomfort for participants to talk about some topics associated with coalitions. However, some side effects/risks may be unforeseeable. Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and you may withdraw from the study any time you wish without any penalty to you. If you have any questions about this study or wish to withdraw, please contact: Melanie Lee_______________________________________________816-365-1799 / [e-mail]___ Principal Investigator Phone/Email If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact: Sheryl Steadman_______________________________________________________801-832-2164___________ Chair of IRB Phone: All personally identifiable study data will be kept confidential. However, the results of this study may be made available to you upon request or used in formal publications or presentations. If you feel that you have received a satisfactory explanation as to the risks and benefits of this study as well as your rights as a research participant and you would like to participate, please sign and date below. You will be given a copy of this form for your records. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Subject Date __________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Investigator Date CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY Appendix C Interview Guide Semi-structured questions for 60 minutes sessions Kayla Mayers Interview 1 Name & Pseudonym: Date: Modality: • Introduction (who I am, why I am interested in their story), consent document and purpose of study • Overview of the flow of the interview: consent, recording, questions (I can repeat or rephrase if needed), and follow-up for data analysis Q1: Tell me about the timeline that led to you participating on this coalition. Qa: What made you personally want to join this coalition? Qb: Was this decision encouraged by work reasons or personal reasons or both? Qc: Tell me more about why that is. Q2: How would you describe your participation on the coalition? Qa: Are you actively engaged in the work? Qb: Tell me more about that. Q3: How would you describe the goals of this coalition? Qa: How do these goals translate into strategies? Qb: What is the process for taking on action items in this committee? Qc: How do you feel like the coalition does on making progress towards these goals? Q4: How do you think you fit into the action plan of this coalition? Q5: Tell me about what you would like to see happen with the work being discussed in this coalition for the next 3 to 6 months. Qa: Are there any barriers that you foresee for the vision to be complete? Q6: Is there anything else you want to tell me about related to this topic? 61 CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY Appendix D IRB Approval 62 CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY Appendix E NIH Certificate 63 CONNECTING COALITIONS TO COMMUNITY 64 Appendix F Community Organization Deliverable Strengthening Coalitions Through Community Voice Insights From a Local Comparative Case Study Prepared by Kayla Mayers, Graduate Student in MACOL Program at Westminster University Purpose: This document provides actional recommendations to strengthen coalition-building practices and authentically incorporate community voice, based on a comparative case study of two Salt Lake County grassroots coalitions. Recommendations: 1. Create clear “on-ramps” for community members • Host quarterly “Coalition 101” sessions • Publicize how and where residents can get involved, through social media, flyers in community spaces, and in other local government buildings and communication channels. 2. Support both policy and passion • Help residents connect their personal stories to policy levers • Provide advocacy training or partner with organizations for trainings 3. Develop sustainable structures • Facilitate “committee” models to distribute leadership throughout Utah communities 4. Invest in digital infrastructure • Launch or strengthen shared communication spaces. Find a platform that fits best for the community coalitions and use it for reciprocal communication. 5. Name and address power dynamics • Ensure facilitators are trained to navigate and challenge systemic inequities (name, class, and language) • Create intentional space for critical reflection on who holds power in the coalition and how decisions are made. Closing Thought: Coalitions can be powerful instruments for justice when rooted in authentic community voice. This voice can be strengthened through intention and shared purpose. Mayers_Kayla_approval.pdf APPROVAL of a thesis/project submitted by Author(s): Kayla Mayers | Advisor: Melanie Lee School Department: School of Education Title of Thesis: Gather Around the Table: A Comparative Case Study Bridging Coalitions to Community Chairperson, Supervisory Committee: Melanie Lee Approved on 05-06-2025 Dean of School of Education: Matthew Neves Approved on 05-06-2025 Mayers_Kayla_permission.pdf STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO DEPOSIT & DISPLAY THESIS IN THE INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY Name of Author: Kayla Mayers | Advisor: Melanie Lee Additional Authors: | | | School Department: School of Education Title of Thesis: Gather Around the Table: A Comparative Case Study Bridging Coalitions to Community With permission from the author(s), the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster University has the right to deposit and display an electronic copy of the above named thesis in its Institutional Repository for educational purposes only. I hereby give my permission to the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster University to deposit and display as described the above named thesis. I retain ownership rights to my work, including the right to use it in future works such as articles or a book. Submitted by the Author(s) on 5/6/2025 12:40pm The above duplication and deposit rights may be terminated by the author(s) at any time by notifying the Director of the Giovale Library in writing that permission is withdrawn.