In the ever-evolving landscape of community change and regional development, Economic Development Organizations (EDOs) and Community Foundations (CFs) are at the forefront of convening multi-sector coalitions. These collaborations – essential to addressing complex issues like workforce development, affordable housing, broadband expansion, or racial equity – often struggle not due to lack of will or vision, but due to the absence of structured, repeatable, and inclusive processes. Supporting processes are the connective tissue that binds people, purpose, and progress together. EDOs and CFs both serve as critical intermediaries, brokers of trust, facilitators of funding, and stewards of strategy. Yet, their success hinges not simply on relationships or charisma, but on robust frameworks that guide engagement, ensure accountability, and promote resilience. Supporting processes, such as stakeholder mapping, shared measurement, and structured facilitation, provide these frameworks. These processes help organizations move beyond episodic collaboration and toward sustainable, systemic change.

Supporting processes serve as the backbone of effective coalition work. They enable trust-building, transparency, coordination, and sustainability. In coalitions where EDOs and CFs play the role of convener, processes provide continuity across leadership changes, help navigate power dynamics, and ensure that partners are aligned on goals and implementation strategies. Without them, coalitions often fall prey to familiar traps: meetings that feel performative, agendas that drift, and partnerships that dissolve once the initial excitement fades. Supporting processes build muscle memory within organizations and coalitions alike. They promote clarity in expectations, structure in decision-making, and continuity across leadership or funding cycles. When processes are missing or weak, even the most promising initiatives can collapse under their own weight.

Shared challenges arise not because EDOs and CFs lack dedication or vision, but because collaborative work demands more than good intentions. It requires the ability to coordinate across differences of power, language, timelines, and organizational culture. Below are ten recurring challenges that undermine cross-sector coalitions, each of which can be mitigated with the right supporting processes in place.

In a mid-sized Southern metro region, the local Economic Development Organization (EDO) launched a workforce coalition to address a growing labor shortage in the advanced manufacturing sector. The coalition set ambitious goals: fill 2,500 projected job openings over five years, generate an estimated $150 million in annual wage impact, and deploy $4.2 million in combined state and federal investment to fund training programs, apprenticeship pipelines, and career awareness campaigns.

Initial enthusiasm was strong. Major employers, technical colleges, school districts, and regional workforce boards signed on. Yet within 12 months, momentum unraveled.
The failure to implement foundational supporting processes was a key factor. New partners had no formal onboarding, leading to uneven understanding of the coalition’s goals, roles, and timelines. The EDO lacked a shared governance structure; decision-making defaulted to informal meetings dominated by a handful of stakeholders. Frustration grew as some partners felt excluded or unclear about how decisions were being made.

Even more critically, the coalition failed to establish shared success metrics or a data infrastructure to track employer needs, participant outcomes, or training alignment. This made it difficult to adapt programs in real time or demonstrate early wins to funders and elected officials.

When a new mayoral administration took office, economic development priorities shifted to small business recovery and downtown revitalization. Without formal documentation, knowledge management systems, or backbone support staff, the coalition lacked the continuity to survive the transition. It disbanded quietly in its second year.

The opportunity cost of failure was steep: training funds went unspent, over 20% of critical job openings remained vacant, and at least three employers delayed expansion plans due to workforce instability. The EDO later cited the absence of structured stakeholder engagement and CPIF-aligned implementation planning as a key lesson for future coalition efforts.

In a coastal region prone to flooding and seasonal storm surges, a regional community foundation launched the Neighborhood Preparedness Collaborative, aimed at strengthening local readiness and protecting vulnerable communities from disruptions caused by extreme weather. The foundation committed to raise $15 million over five years to support stormwater management, public education campaigns, and infrastructure improvements such as drainage upgrades and emergency supply hubs.

The initiative convened a cross-sector coalition including local nonprofits, emergency management officials, city planners, utility providers, and resident associations. Early pilot projects included neighborhood risk assessments and the installation of water retention landscaping in three underserved areas.

While the effort directly aimed to protect approximately 1,500 residents living in flood-prone areas, its impact extended much further. The region’s economy relies heavily on small businesses, many of them located in low-lying commercial corridors vulnerable to storm damage. Each major flooding event previously resulted in an average of $2–3 million in damages to local shops, restaurants, and service providers, along with weeks of revenue loss. The Collaborative was positioned to reduce these risks by improving infrastructure and increasing preparedness across the entire community.

Despite early promise, the initiative was hindered by the absence of core supporting processes: There was no structured onboarding for late-joining partners. The governance framework was informal, which caused confusion over decision-making and voting rights. Communication was inconsistent, especially between technical agencies and grassroots organizations.

When a $3 million federal grant for community infrastructure was announced, the coalition failed to act quickly due to unclear internal coordination. Tensions grew as smaller community organizations expressed frustration with a process that felt extractive rather than collaborative.

The opportunity cost was significant: The coalition missed the deadline for a major funding opportunity. Several grassroots organizations withdrew from the initiative. Planned improvements for three flood-prone neighborhoods and adjacent commercial corridors were postponed, leaving over 1,500 residents and hundreds of small businesses exposed to risk during the next storm season.

Supporting processes are not bureaucratic add-ons, they are the mechanisms that transform coalitions from loose collaborations into strategic engines for change. For EDOs and Community Foundations alike, the ability to convene and sustain impactful partnerships depends not just on good intentions, but on a disciplined approach rooted in facilitation, equity, and continuous learning. Integrating CPIF standards into coalition design ensures that processes are not only effective, but resilient and inclusive. To operationalize these processes, EDOs and Community Foundations should invest in facilitation training, process design, and tools that align with the CPIF (Certified Performance Improvement Facilitator) standards. These standards serve as a compass for guiding collaborative action, ensuring that coalitions are not only inclusive and efficient, but also durable and impactful. In a time when communities face increasingly complex and intersecting challenges – economic, social, and environmental – the ability to convene well and sustain momentum is no longer optional. It is the difference between initiatives that fade and those that transform communities.