RESEARCH

SUMMARY

Backbones need adequate, long-term funding to operate effectively. Funding is especially critical during early stages when backbones are engaging with the community and building momentum. Providing funding is a strong incentive for engaging members and significantly improves perceptions of collective organizing.

EVIDENCE

According to research conducted by the Coalitions for Sport Equity in partnership with Temple University, University of Washington, Louisiana State University, and Adelphi University, members of coalitions with backbones that provided funding had significantly stronger perceptions of collective organizing processes (46% vs 24% on resource mobilization). These perceptions also extended to collaborative processes, external legitimacy, and equity.

KEY QUESTIONS

• Does your backbone have adequate resources to implement a strategic vision?
• What combination of funding sources (grants, foundations, memberships) creates stability?
• Can members understand the value of backbone funding even if it doesn't directly service their programs?
• How do we communicate to funders why backbone organizations need sustained investment?

SUMMARY

External legitimacy impacts perceptions of coalition effectiveness. There are many factors that drive positive perceptions, including funding capacity, standalone governance status, and coalition size.

EVIDENCE

74% of members felt that their coalition had external supporters outside the coalition who could champion their strategy. External legitimacy was one of the strongest predictors of perceived impact.

KEY QUESTIONS

• Do our members see us as credible with key decision-makers?
• What signals legitimacy to our members (ex: funding capacity, name recognition, formalization, size)?
• How are we building our legitimacy at different phases?
• Do we want to become a funder if we aren't one already?

SUMMARY

Trust is developed when coalitions genuinely act in alignment with their members' best interests and provide opportunities for ongoing feedback. Moving "at the speed of trust" emphasizes a focus on process over productivity.

EVIDENCE

Trust was the highest rated measure on the survey, with 88% of respondents agreeing that their coalition carries out its role with fairness. In interviews, members appreciated structures for involvement even if they didn't currently participate.

KEY QUESTIONS

• Have we built communication structures that allow members to engage when they have time and capacity?
• Are we proactive in attempting to engage members that are not currently active?
• How do we balance the need for rapid policy decisions with inclusive processes?
• Are we transparent about when decisions need to be made quickly and why?
• How are we building trust beyond inclusion in decision-making?

SUMMARY

Coalition work is fundamentally different from traditional programming. Capacity building, systems change, and networking require collaborative effort and processes that are challenging to quantify.

EVIDENCE

Collaborative processes and equity were the only measures that significantly influenced the perceived impact of coalitions on capacity building and systems change. Backbone leaders acknowledged the substantial time required to manage relationships, even though most of this work "is below the surface."

KEY QUESTIONS

• How do we communicate to funders that relationship-building, coordination, and inclusive processes are key to productivity and impact?
• What does it take to build the equity that we're relying on and how do we bring attention to that work?
• Are we accounting for what happens "below the surface" when discussing coalition management?
• How do we set reasonable expectations when systems change can be slow and complex?

SUMMARY

Organizations should pay close attention to members' reasons for joining and how those reasons align with coalition's aims. There are important tensions between immediate functional needs and long-term transformational goals.

EVIDENCE

66% joined to gain access to new funding; 76% joined to expand program services. However, members with stronger transformational motivations had weaker perceptions of coalition impact on systems change, suggesting "big picture" expectations hadn't been met.

KEY QUESTIONS

• Are we transparent with members about what our goals are?
• Can we truly do both intermediary and backbone work?
• How do we balance transformational goals with members' immediate functional needs?
• Are we explicit about what members should expect in short and long-term?
• If we don't provide funding, what other functional value can we deliver?

SUMMARY

Growing membership is effective for building momentum and legitimacy. However, growth creates challenges for organizing activities and coordination. Coalition size requires intentional consideration with implications for structure and trust-building.

EVIDENCE

Perceptions of collaborative processes, trust, and external legitimacy were stronger in mid-size coalitions compared to small, but tapered off for large coalitions. Members in large coalitions felt less involved and had weaker perceptions of impact on capacity building.

KEY QUESTIONS

• At what size do we need to shift from "everyone around the kitchen table" to formalized governance?
• How do we balance membership growth with authentic engagement?
• Is our growth strategic and planned or are we growing to grow?
• How do we utilize sub-committees and working groups for flexible engagement?

SUMMARY

Shared measurement is crucial for successful collective action yet one of the most challenging elements. More time and resources are needed to support local coalitions in this work.

EVIDENCE

Only 26% of members were aware of a shared measurement system for their coalition. Backbone leaders acknowledged difficulty in clarifying role to funders, and many members were confused about benchmarks for success.

KEY QUESTIONS

• How do we regularly collect data that tracks coalition progress, not just individual outputs?
• Are we measuring metrics of process as well as productivity?
• How do we center and prioritize storytelling within shared measurement?
• How do we shift funder mindsets about appropriate metrics?

RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP

The Coalitions for Sport Equity partnered with academic researchers at Temple University, University of Washington, Louisiana State University, and Adelphi University to conduct a comprehensive mixed methods research project examining coalition effectiveness and impact.

SCOPE

• 14 local coalitions across the CSEq network
• 700+ community-based organizations
• 23 cities across the United States
• 18 backbone leader interviews
• 200+ member organization surveys
• 60 member organization interviews

RESEARCH AIMS

• Understand the impact and shared characteristics of backbone organizations and the coalitions they lead
• Provide meaningful data and synthesized information to backbone organizations to support their operations, funding, leadership, and programming

CORE COMMITMENT

The CSEq research is centered on understanding and supporting community organizations doing direct service work with youth, especially those furthest from resources—youth more likely to not participate or quit youth sports due to structural barriers.

WHAT THIS MEANS

Coalition work is fundamentally about empowering community organizations to address systemic barriers. This requires authentic partnerships, genuine power-sharing, and commitment to addressing root causes of inequity—not talent identification or program expansion alone.

REFLECTION QUESTIONS

• Are community organizations at the center of our decision-making and strategy?
• Are we addressing structural barriers or just expanding services?
• Do community organizations have real power and voice in our coalition?
• How are we building capacity with community partners rather than for them?