Organizing for Systems Change: Evaluation of a Local Cross-Sectoral Collaborative to Address Racial Inequity

Abstract

Addressing the multidimensional nature of structural racism requires a cross-sectoral response. Chicago United for Equity (CUE) is an organization in Chicago, Illinois that coordinates an annual Fellowship program for individuals from diverse institutions and social systems with the goal of building their capacity to do hyperlocal racial justice and systems change work. Researchers at the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) School of Public Health partnered with CUE to design and conduct an evaluation study to assess the impact of the Fellowship. Twenty-four individuals who completed the Fellowship participated in semi-structured interviews that explored their experiences in the Fellowship. The UIC research team conducted qualitative content analysis of the interview transcript data. We found that the CUE Fellowship influenced the Fellows and their racial justice work by providing tools and exposure to racial justice concepts, fostering valuable relationships, and expanding the thinking of participants. The fellowship influenced the Fellows and their racial justice work within and across local institutions and social systems. This study highlighted how the program helped to build a network of racial justice leaders in Chicago and Cook County that are engaging in cross-sectoral systems change efforts, an essential aspect of addressing structural racism.

1. Introduction

Structural racism is the totality of ways in which interconnected systems and institutions operate across multiple domains and evolve over time to create, maintain, and exacerbate stratification in opportunities, resources, and quality of life across racial and ethnic groups (Dean and Thorpe 2022; Dennis et al. 2021; Michener and Ford 2023). This stratification produces differential conditions for people racialized as white and non-white in all areas of human life (Yearby 2020). Structural racism is multidimensional (Chantarat et al. 2021), cumulative (Michener and LeBrón 2022), and operates in a network over time (Lee 2024). Racism not only shapes differential outcomes within populations within any given life domain, for example, within one’s educational or housing experience, but also across them (Michener and Ford 2023), operating simultaneously and in ways that are interwoven across areas of human life (Francis et al. 2023). It is not possible to consider how structural racism operates and how to address it without contending with the concept of power (Michener and Ford 2023) and adopting a systems change perspective (Collins and Watson 2021).

While power has been theorized and defined in a multitude of ways, in this report we define power simply as “the ability to effect outcomes” (Morriss 2006, p. 126). Importantly, because power plays a role in shaping these outcomes according to race within populations (Reynolds and Galea 2025), ameliorating these racial inequities requires reshaping power structures. Specifically, movement towards racial justice requires both building power among those who are most deeply affected by inequity and breaking the power of those who benefit from the status quo of inequity (Michener 2022).

Systems theory directs our understanding towards the ways that action is embedded within ecological levels, including the individual, institutional/organizational, social systems, and societal. In systems theory, a system can be understood as a set of interacting parts that function as a whole (Collins and Watson 2021). Here, we make a distinction between institutions—which may also be referred to as organizations; major social systems, like the healthcare, education, or legal system; and the systems of systems theory. While the healthcare, education, and legal systems are indeed systems with interacting parts in themselves, they are also part of a larger system—the macrosystem, or the overarching culture and ideology in which racism is embedded (Bronfenbrenner 1977).

Consider how racism operates at multiple levels in a macrosystem: the intraorganizational, the extraorganizational, and the individual (Came and Griffith 2018; Griffith et al. 2007). Racism in the policies and practices of a single organization or social system reflects processes at the intraorganizational level. At the extraorganizational level, racism is perpetuated through the interaction of organizations and social systems and through the policies and practices that define each. For example, the legal system interacts with individual employers and the healthcare system in the lives of formerly incarcerated individuals seeking full-time employment and health insurance amidst discrimination and legal obstacles. At the individual level of the system, racism operates through the attitudes and practices of individual actors. Situating individual actors, institutions, and social systems within this systems perspective allows us to understand each as an interacting part and thus an agent of change. The configuration of a macrosystem’s interacting parts can perpetuate structural racism in a society or work to improve it (Collins and Watson 2021).

There are a multitude of individual actors, institutions, and social systems that shape outcomes according to race across domains (see Michener 2025 for a discussion of this in Medicaid). Given this, power building and breaking efforts must be equally as dynamic, engaging individuals across institutions and social systems in alignment with a systems perspective. While the task is conceptually clear, coordinated action across system parts has proven itself elusive because of distinct silos, strict funding mechanisms, communication differences, and other barriers that exist to separate work (Michener and Ford 2023). As a result, individuals interested in building power for social change may be incentivized to work solely within their institution or social system or engage in action according to their institution type (e.g., academia, government, movement organizations) rather than engaging in cross-sectoral partnership. While the work of the institutions and social systems that make up a macrosystem is undoubtedly interrelated, often individual actors are not practically situated to work in ways that acknowledge that reality. Indeed, there are relatively few known initiatives aimed at bringing actors together across institutions, social systems, and domains of human life to improve the racialized distribution of resources (Payton Scally et al. 2020). Such an intervention has the potential to catalyze cross-sectoral systems change efforts at multiple levels of a local macrosystem.

1.1. Program Description

To meet the need for local cross-sectoral systems change interventions, Chicago United for Equity (CUE) was formed in 2017 with a mission to ‘connect and amplify civic love to transform Chicago into a city that is responsive and accountable to communities of color’ (Chicago United for Equity 2025a). Since its inception, CUE has focused on local institutions and systems reform. To shift local institutions and systems, CUE staff does work in three key areas: (1) Build a network of racial justice actors throughout local institutions and systems by bringing individuals together from various disciplines and sectors; (2) Grow local capacity to apply racial equity tools and concepts that can support the implementation of equitable policies and practices within local institutions and systems; and (3) Develop local public accountability models aimed at promoting racial equity.

Table 1. Description of Chicago United for Equity-specific terms.

Term	Description
Chicago United for Equity (CUE)	A local 501(c)3 non-profit organization with a mission to ‘connect and amplify civic love to transform Chicago into a city that is responsive and accountable to communities of color.’ Funded by individual donations and public and private foundations, CUE maintains a small full-time staff, ranging from 2–5 individuals since formation.
CUE staff	Individuals employed by CUE who lead programming, communications, and other core functions of the organization
Civic institutions	The five broad sectors around which CUE organizes its work: Government, Philanthropy, Research and Policy; Art, Media, Design; Organizing and Advocacy
Racial Equity Fellowship	An annual program that convenes individuals across sectors and builds their capacity to do racial equity work
Fellows	Participants of the Racial Equity Fellowship
Cohort	Fellows who participated in the Racial Equity Fellowship in the same year
CUE network	A collection of racial justice workers who are engaged with CUE by attending events and partnering on local projects; this group includes, but is not limited to, the Fellows

provides a description of CUE-specific language that is used throughout this report.

CUE coordinates an annual Racial Equity Fellowship Program to extend staff efforts in the three key areas. In addition to coordinating the Fellowship, CUE convenes partners across civic institutions and leads and supports a multitude of city-wide racial equity projects (see

Table 2. Examples of Chicago United for Equity racial justice projects.

Co-Governance	Tax Increment Financing (TIF)	National Teachers Academy (NTA)
CUE partnered with the City of Chicago Office of Equity & Racial Justice (OERJ) to develop a Co-Governance Steering Committee made up of residents from historically excluded neighborhoods. Together, they convened 200+ Chicagoans throughout the city to establish a shared definition and values of co-governance for the city and identify pilot initiatives for co-governance (City of Chicago n.d.).	TIF funds are a tool used by the City of Chicago to fund public and private investment across the city (City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development 2010). A coalition of organizers, faith leaders, and business owners asked CUE to facilitate a REIA on the use of TIF for two developments. Three recommendations were shared (Chicago United for Equity 2021).	Chicago Public Schools announced interest in closing NTA, a majority Black elementary school, in 2017. In response, CUE launched Chicago’s first public REIA, bringing together 350 Chicagoans. Still, in 2018 the Board of Education voted to close NTA. CUE, in partnership with the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, Legal Aid Chicago, and Eimer Stahl filed an injunction to stop the closure. The injunction was granted; the first time in national history where a school closure has been halted by court action on the grounds of racial discrimination (Chicago United for Equity 2025b).

REIA = Racial Equity Impact Assessment, a tool to evaluate the effect of new initiatives (Chicago United for Equity 2025c).

for examples).

The CUE Racial Equity Fellowship Program, launched by CUE staff in 2017, convenes individuals from diverse racial and gender identities, neighborhoods, and fields who are interested in doing racial justice work within their institution or system. The program aims to build their capacity to do racial equity work by connecting them to racial equity tools and frameworks, as well as like-minded peers. The program structure has shifted over the years; since 2019, the Fellowship has been implemented as an annual 9-month-long program that brings individuals together in cohorts to participate in monthly didactic meetings. The main objective of the Fellowship is to enhance the expertise and effectiveness of the Fellowship participants (i.e., the Fellows) in advancing racial equity practices in their respective institutions and systems in Chicago and Cook County. Over the years, the Fellows have focused on individual and group racial justice projects, each with the goal of reimagining local civic institutions, policies, and practices through the lens of racial equity.

Table 3. Chicago United for Equity Racial Equity Fellowship Program Logic Model.

Inputs	Activities	Outputs	Short-Term Outcomes (<5 years)	Mid-Term Outcomes (5–10 years)	Long-Term Outcomes (10+ years)
Request for applications to participate Individuals who work in Cook County across sectors, institutions, and systems Grants to support the program CUE full-time staff and consultants Coaches	Welcome Retreat: Relationship-building and norm-setting event for fellows Training: 7 sessions with content, networking, and work time provided by consultants and invited speakers over 9 months Coaching: Senior racial justice workers provide technical assistance Fellowship showcase: Fellows share their racial justice project at the end-of-fellowship event CUE events: CUE staff coordinates events that bring fellows together across cohorts	Fellows will: Increase knowledge of racial justice concepts; Gain skills and tools for advancing racial justice and systems change within their respective institutions and systems; Increase connections with local racial justice workers; and Apply the knowledge and skills to action addressing racial inequity in their institutions and systems.	Increase the supply of local individuals who are trained in racial equity frameworks and analysis Changes to practices of fellows to address racial justice within local institutions and systems Increase intentional partnerships between fellows	Increased involvement of local institutions and systems in advancing racial justice Changes to policy and practice of local institutions and systems Increased coordination among fellows across institutions and systems	All fellows will form a network of racial justice workers working to diminish the ability of local institutions and systems to maintain the status quo that produced unequal outcomes according to race

presents the Fellowship logic model developed to inform this evaluation study.

1.2. Present Study

This study contributes to the literature on social change interventions in two ways. First, the evaluation of efforts to ameliorate racism within institutions and social systems is an essential aspect of anti-racism praxis (Came and Griffith 2018). This article evaluates the impact of the CUE Racial Equity Fellowship program on the racial justice landscape in Cook County, Illinois. Drawing on insights from qualitative interviews with CUE Fellows, we explore the following evaluation question: What has been the impact of the CUE Equity Fellowship on the individual CUE Fellows and their work? Specifically, this study was hoping to find evidence of racial equity capacity building, practice changes, and the formation of new relationships within the short-term (i.e., within 5 years of Fellowship completion) (see short-term outcomes detailed in Table 3). Evaluating this intervention can inform CUE staff of ways to refine the program for increased impact. Additionally, demonstrating the effectiveness of the intervention offers insight for anti-racism practitioners and for researchers interested in potential avenues through which anti-racism interventions may lead to change. Second, this study contributes to the understanding of power as a force “that emerges from the coalescence of individuals into group,” (Reynolds and Galea 2025, p. 886) a concept which is underdeveloped in the literature. Organizing, or power-building efforts that shift individuals into effective groups, is a lesser studied component of policy and systems change (Michener 2025). The findings from this evaluation study provide insight into the potential impact of a coordinated, cross-sectoral anti-racism intervention made up of individuals engaged in hyper-local organizing efforts (Michener 2025). By evaluating this effort, this study may contribute to the knowledge of how power can be shifted within major societal institutions, like government, and in social systems that transcend a single organization (Reynolds and Galea 2025).

2. Materials and Methods

We conducted individual in-depth interviews with former CUE Fellows to evaluate the impact of the CUE Racial Equity Fellowship on the racial equity knowledge and skills, practice, and relationships of CUE Fellows. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research Studies 32-item checklist was used to describe the methods and results of this study (Tong et al. 2007). See the COREQ checklist in Supplemental File S1. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Illinois Chicago (#2024-0155).

2.1. Research Team and Reflexivity

The study team consists of three Black research assistants (two women, one non-binary individual), two Black and Latina women staff members of Chicago United for Equity (CUE), and a Black woman study principal investigator (PI). All members of the study team were trained in introductory qualitative research skills and had a working understanding of politics in Chicago and Cook County. The CUE staff members and the study PI each had prior relationships with many of the research participants; the research assistants did not. The study PI was a CUE Fellow in the first cohort (2017/2018) and served as a member of the Board of Directors of CUE until April 2025, which overlapped with data collection for this study. The PI has ongoing relationships with some of the CUE Fellows who participated in this study; others she met for the first time in the interview. Because of her detailed knowledge of the CUE Fellowship and of the sociopolitical environment in Chicago and Cook County, the study PI conducted all individual interviews. At the beginning of each interview, the PI introduced herself, shared the importance of the study, how it aligned with her professional and personal goals, and the intended use of the data after collection. The PI then discussed consent and privacy to ensure that participants knew their data would remain deidentified and would not be shared beyond the research team without additional consent.

The PI’s dual role as an “insider-outsider” (Dwyer and Buckle 2009) (i.e., Fellow, board member, data collector) could have introduced bias into this study. It is possible that Fellows felt uncomfortable participating in the study due to the PI’s role as a board member; however, the level of comfort (as evidenced by laughter and joking throughout the conversations), detailed description, and transparency displayed by participants during interviews does not suggest that this was the case. Indeed, a benefit of engaging in insider research is the acceptance and willingness to share of research participants (Dwyer and Buckle 2009). This comfort, detail, and transparency was displayed by participants who both had and did not have prior relationships with the PI. It is also possible that given the PI’s relationship with CUE, she wanted to prepare an evaluation report that indicated success. To help mitigate this potential source of bias, the study team engaged in a collaborative analysis and interpretation process that involved: multiple members of the study team who had varying levels of knowledge about CUE and relationships with CUE Fellows; research participants; members of the CUE network. This process is described in more detail in Section 2.5. Importantly, while the PI was an insider in multiple ways, she was not knowledgeable about the details surrounding the implementation of each Fellowship year or of each participants’ racial justice work. One issue that can arise in insider research is an over-assumption of familiarity that leads participants to provide less explanation of their experience; the PI’s lack of prior knowledge about other Fellowship cohorts and their work meant that this was not a concern in this study. Despite these potential sources of bias, the study team feels that the dual role of the PI improved participants’ trust, increased their level of honesty during the interviews, and improved data quality overall. The PI wrote field notes throughout the study which allowed her to reflect on her insider-outsider positionality, the limits of her knowledge and experience, and the insight that she was gaining from study participants along the way.

2.2. Evaluation Approach

The design and implementation of this study was guided by the CDC Program Evaluation Framework (Kidder et al. 2024) and the Equitable Evaluation Framework (EEF) (The Equitable Evaluation Framework 2023). The CDC Program Evaluation Framework communicates the 6 essential elements of program evaluation (Assess context; Describe the program; Focus the evaluation questions and design; Gather credible evidence; Generate and support conclusions; Act on findings), as well as the cross-cutting actions (engage collaboratively; advance equity; learn from and use insights) and standards (relevance and utility; rigor; independence and objectivity; transparency; ethics) to be incorporated throughout (Kidder et al. 2024). This report has been written in alignment with the elements, actions, and standards described in the federal framework. EEF is comprised of 3 principles that support decision-making in evaluation research (The Equitable Evaluation Framework 2023). This study aligned with EEF principles in the following ways: (1) the goal is to advance progress towards health and racial equity for people racialized as Black in Cook County; (2) the study was designed and implemented in community with CUE staff and the findings are collectively “owned” by CUE, the PI, and the CUE network; and (3) the study aims to answer critical questions about the ways in which the changing sociopolitical context shapes both the structural conditions and the CUE Fellowship itself.

2.3. Participant Selection

We partnered with Chicago United for Equity CUE) to secure a convenience sample of 24 former CUE Fellows to participate in the study. The study team members who are CUE staff make up the Communications team at CUE; a core aspect of their work is communicating with CUE Fellows. The CUE staff sent emails to the CUE Fellow listserv with an IRB-approved study flyer and a message to contact the PI directly if interested in participation. The CUE Fellow listserv included all 195 individuals who had completed the CUE Fellowship since 2018. Interested Fellows emailed the PI (n = 32) and the PI responded with a consent form, instructions to schedule an interview, and an invitation to ask further questions about the study prior to agreeing to participate. Among these individuals, 8 did not schedule an interview.

2.4. Data Collection

A semi-structured interview guide was co-developed by the study team and used to conduct 24 interviews from April 2024–May 2025. The interview guide was organized around three main topics: (1) Participant life experience; (2) Fellowship experience; (3) Current racial justice work and related policy environment. The present study focuses on the participant life experience and Fellowship experience sections of the interview guide (

Table 4. Sections of Interview Guide.

Questions
1. Tell me about yourself and what brought you to the CUE fellowship.
2. Tell me about your experience in the CUE fellowship.
Probe: Are there any key skills, tools, frameworks, experiences that really stand out to you as being an important aspect of your time in the fellowship?
3. Do you feel like your experience of the fellowship and CUE’s community impacted how you think, work, or act?

) as these sections underscored the participants’ responses to the role that the Fellowship played in their individual lives and racial justice work. Other interview guide topics will be addressed in future manuscripts.

Demographic information about individual participants (e.g., race, gender) was not collected and is thus not reported. In alignment with the study research question, data collection efforts were focused on the racial justice work of the Fellow rather than on details about the Fellow as an individual. Given the sensitive political nature of topics discussed in the interviews, the study team felt that not reporting individual demographic data helped to preserve the safety, privacy, and anonymity of participants.

Interviews were conducted by the PI in-person at the PI’s university office (n = 1) or virtually using the Zoom platform (n = 23) according to the participant’s preference. The interviews ranged from 37 to 79 min. Participants received a $100 gift card for their participation in the study. All interviews were audio and video recorded using the Zoom recording feature, transcribed verbatim using Rev.com online transcription software, and cleaned for accuracy by research assistants. Throughout the interviews, the PI wrote field notes that reflected non-verbal responses and other contextual details; after each interview, the PI wrote brief memos in the field notes to reflect key ideas and remaining questions. The PI uploaded all field notes, recordings, and transcript files to a secure cloud location.

2.5. Data Analysis

At the time of data collection, the most recent CUE Fellowship cohort completed the Fellowship in May 2024. To increase the rigor of our evaluation (in alignment with the CDC Framework) (Kidder et al. 2024) and to support the needs of CUE (in alignment with EEF) (The Equitable Evaluation Framework 2023), our team opted to include individuals across all Fellowship cohorts (i.e., 2018–2024) in our evaluation study. Thus, we focused our analysis and reporting on short-term outcomes (see Logic Model in Table 3) as a significant portion of the Fellows had completed their Fellowship within 5 years of this evaluation.

Two UIC members of the study team conducted a rapid and directed qualitative content analysis approach using shared documents in the secure cloud location (Gläser and Laudel 2013; Hsieh and Shannon 2005). Our approach was rapid and directed, as we bypassed coding and instead sorted data into categories, an approach referred to as deductive category application (Gläser and Laudel 2013; Hsieh and Shannon 2005). We began by listening to each audio file and taking notes to create interview summaries based on the evaluation research questions. The two analysts met weekly to clarify discrepancies in our understanding, interpret our notes, and begin to organize our notes into broad categories. When discrepancies could not be resolved between the two analysts, the CUE staff members of the study team were consulted to provide their insight. The two analysts then reviewed, refined, and strengthened our categories in meetings with two other members of the study team to increase the rigor of the analysis by ensuring that additional voices shaped the interpretation of the results (Wright et al. 2024). This involved reducing the categories to eliminate redundancy, creating clear descriptions of the scope and content of each category (Gläser and Laudel 2013), and revisiting the cleaned transcripts to identify exemplary quotes in each category. The final three categories reflect the short-term outcomes from the program logic model, the study research question, and our reviews of the transcript data (see Table 6 in the next section).

Our study team worked to ensure the validity and credibility of our results in multiple ways. First, because our analysis was ongoing during data collection, the PI was able to include probes in later interviews that helped to clarify or confirm our preliminary conclusions. Second, in alignment with the CDC framework, we engaged in a collaborative analysis process (Kidder et al. 2024). We utilized analyst triangulation, or relying on multiple analysts with varying relationships to Fellows and levels of knowledge about the Fellowship program to review and interpret findings (Raskind et al. 2019). UIC analysts shared early drafts of our findings with CUE staff, allowing them to clarify aspects of our conclusions along the way. Additionally, we shared preliminary findings with members of the CUE network (some of which were study participants) at an event during our analysis and received affirmations from event attendees that our findings were credible and reflected a reality that seemed true (Tracy 2010, p. 842). This form of member reflection enhances qualitative credibility as it allowed for dialogue with study participants and other members of the CUE network about the preliminary study findings (Tracy 2010). We feel that this active collaboration allowed us to reduce individual analyst bias in our results.

3. Results

Interviewee demographic information can be found in

Table 5. Participant Demographic Data (N = 24).

Characteristic	n (%)
Civic Institution
Government	5 (20.8%)
Philanthropy	8 (33.3%)
Research and Policy	6 (25%)
Art, Design, and Media	3 (12.5%)
Other	2 (8.3%)
Fellowship Cohort
2017/2018	6 (25%)
2019	1 (4.2%)
2020	5 (20.8%)
2022	1 (4.2%)
2023	7 (29.2%)
2024	4 (16.7%)

. Our analysis examined individuals’ experiences with the CUE Racial Equity Fellowship, including their time in the Fellowship and their experiences in the CUE network since. We found three distinct channels through which the CUE Fellowship impacted the racial equity capacity, practice, and relationships of the Fellows.

Table 6. Guide for the organization of results: application of Logic Model presented in Table 3.

Logic Model Short-Term Outcome	Analysis Key Category
Increase the supply of local individuals who are trained in racial equity frameworks and analysis	Provided racial justice tools and exposure to concepts
Changes to practices of fellows to address racial justice within local institutions and systems	Fostered useful relationships and became a racial justice network
Increase intentional partnerships between fellows	Expanded the Fellows’ thinking

depicts how we conceptualized the integration of the Fellowship Logic Model by presenting the short-term outcomes aligned with the three channels/key categories from analysis. By organizing our results in this way, our findings offer a guide for understanding the pathways through which the CUE Fellowship may have shifted the individual level (i.e., the attitudes and practices of individual actors) of the local macrosystem (Came and Griffith 2018).

3.1. Provided Racial Justice Tools and Exposure to Concepts

Overall, participants described the Fellowship as a source of tools and concepts that some use in their racial justice work. Specifically, the Racial Equity Impact Assessment (Race Forward 2009) and power mapping tools were most frequently mentioned. Participants without prior exposure to the tools and concepts taught in the Fellowship felt that “the workshops were really helpful.” One participant shared:

“The Fellowship through the workshops and the people they brought in, or even just the conversations that we had a result of them, filled me in on all that knowledge that I never got– like I didn’t go to school for this or anything. So it was really cool, like, I don’t know, coming from my world, coming into this world where like these are some professional policy makers and analysts and directors and everything that can meet me where I’m at.”

Participants in more recent years of the Fellowship (i.e., Fellows in the 2022, 2023, and 2024 cohorts) noted that they had already heard of some of the tools and concepts taught as part of the Fellowship curriculum. Despite their existing exposure, however, many participants stated that the tools (i.e., Racial Equity Impact Assessment) and workshop concepts (e.g., co-design) were a useful starting point to encourage further, deeper conversations within their cohort and a better understanding of their own work:

“While I did find [the Fellowship] to be beneficial, I don’t think that it was beneficial in the traditional ways of like, ‘I learned a whole bunch of stuff.’ I do think that it was beneficial in that I was able to apply things that I had previously learned and hear other people’s opinions on things.”

While initial exposure to the Fellowship tools varied among participants, the value of the tools and concepts seemed to remain consistent.

Nearly all participants named the Racial Equity Impact Assessment (REIA), specifically, as an essential tool that they learned in the Fellowship and have used in their racial justice work at their institution since. Because of how the tool was taught in the Fellowship, participants felt the REIA was accessible and could be universally applied to an array of contexts:

“The REIA, I think, is a really essential tool to the work and like a good framework that can be applied to anything and everybody. The way that it’s structured, the way that it reads, it’s very introductory to where it’s accessible. And I really enjoyed that, and I liked how they basically took all the components of REIA and broke it down to our learning objective. So, it’s like, you know, it’s not like here’s a plan, follow it A to Z, but it’s like, I’ll give you the tool to kind of adapt and change it how you want to. So, I liked how we were given like high-level information. You probably got an example of how it’s applied, but really a lot of what we learned can be taken and adapted to the needs that it needs [and to] whatever service that it needs.”

Other participants agreed, with one stating that while “a full-on REIA can take a long process,” they felt that they could “take portions and steps of the REIA and use it” in their racial justice work.

Multiple participants also mentioned that power mapping was a helpful tool that they were exposed to in the Fellowship: “the power mapping tool is very valuable and very much something that [I] will do no matter the context [I am] operating in.” The participant went on to say that the tool was made even more valuable by having the opportunity to share about their current project with their cohort and receive “collaborative feedback from the minds in the room” on how to power map their ongoing work. Multiple participants shared that they had used power mapping in their work after the Fellowship:

“I have used [power mapping] in real life. [In my work] we utilize a lot of framing of like, ‘how do we win?’ And a lot of how do we win is rooted in who has power and how do we get those people to move. So, where we want them to be or how do we access them, if they’re with us or if they’re not with us. And if they’re not with us, what other things we’re gonna do to move them to our side or oppose whatever they’re saying about us. I have used a lot of that.”

Another participant shared that prior to their Fellowship year, they had heard of power mapping but had never used it in their racial justice work. However, during their time in the Fellowship, they were in an ideal learning environment to learn to apply the tools:

“Some of the content, the modules, honestly, I, I knew some of them, right? Like participatory budgeting and power mapping and racial equity impact assessments. Like these were things that I’ve also tried to learn to teach. But I think the learning environment that [CUE] provided was what I needed, and the application. I had never power mapped this stuff. I’ve been, you know, like raising my fist at administrators [in an institution] without really thinking about like, well, who is movable and who’s not?”

The participant went on to describe putting power mapping into practice in their racial justice work by using it as a tool to identify which institutional actors can be moved and thus which ones need to be present at coordinated events:

“We’ve had several events since then to ‘member check’ our listening, you know, to share back ‘this is what we think we heard.’ And we used power mapping to identify who in the [institution] needs to be there [at these member checking events].”

3.2. Fostered Useful Relationships and Became a Racial Justice Network

Every participant described the importance of relationships with other CUE Fellows within their cohort and across them. One participant shared that the fact that the CUE Fellowship provided the opportunity for them to be in community with politically “like-minded people that are interested in thinking about systems in a very different way, is what brought [them] to the table” to join the CUE Fellowship in the first place. Participants agreed that fostering relationships with other like-minded people across institutions and social systems was a major strength of the Fellowship. One participant pointedly stated that “most of the power of [CUE Fellowship] spaces is the networking [with] people that you meet there.” While some participants did not prefer to use the word ‘networking’ to describe the community building that occurred within CUE, multiple participants did reflect the sentiment that the most essential channel through which the CUE Racial Equity Fellowship impacts the Fellows and their work is the fostering of useful relationships with other local racial justice workers across institutions and systems:

“The opportunities to be in real community with the cohort … has been really helpful. …I mean, I hate the word networking… but it’s like networking, but without the pressure of necessarily wearing your organizational hat.”

The relationships built between the Fellows benefited them as individuals by allowing them to feel seen and part of a supportive community of politically like-minded individuals. One participant described the benefit of this support system of politically aligned individuals in their personal life:

“When the struggle is a little too real, I can go and get some hugs from a Fellow and maybe a refreshing cocktail of sorts or a coffee as needed to keep the energy going. And so, it’s more than lessons learned for the work that I do. It’s also the human support to continue to go forward and a network of folks that you can tap into… if you face a specific challenge that you need help with.”

Participants also described the ways that the relationships built through the Fellowship were useful in their professional lives. Multiple participants described feeling burned out in their racial justice work and relying on members of the CUE network to maintain their ability to continue working within their institutions. Some participants also described being informed of and even recommended for new employment opportunities by other CUE Fellows. The relationships built through the CUE Fellowship served as useful employment and workforce retention resources. One participant described how they were recommended by a Fellow for a local government policy job, which led to them building a fulfilling career in government:

“Through [the organizing effort with CUE]… I met [a CUE Fellow] who eventually… recruited me to go work for [them] at [my next job]… [Then, they] shared my name… [with someone in leadership, which]… led to me joining the [government] policy team at the time… and then that… led to all these other opportunities for me and gave me an opportunity to pursue [other] things that I was interested in, or that I felt called to in my career.”

For some participants, the relationships with other CUE Fellows improved their professional lives by linking them with individuals within and across institutions and social systems who served as thought partners to share ideas, strategize ways to shift policies and practices within their institutions and systems, and learn new information:

“To be able to connect with those people who are facing similar issues, or even if it’s not on the surface super similar, you know, it’s kind of the root cause is the same and, and we’re able to share strategies and learn new things that help us move through those obstacles was really positive.”

“Just knowing that [the CUE] network exists is a comfort. Just knowing if and when a question arises, I can reach out and say, ‘Hey, who do you know in this area? Who can I talk to or learn more about X, Y, and Z?’”

3.3. Expanded the Fellows’ Thinking

All participants described how the Fellowship expanded their thinking in ways that influenced both their personal and professional spheres.

Multiple participants described the Fellowship meetings as a space that allowed them to grow their confidence in their values of racial equity. One participant said the Fellowship was “amazing,” “refreshing,” and “a breath of fresh air” where they “could authentically be [themself].” This was unique for them, because “in my current role, at my organization, I haven’t always felt that way.” This validation and increased confidence in one’s own racial justice values manifested into an increased confidence to bring up racial justice issues within the participants’ institutions. One participant said that in their current role, “when we talk about certain policy issues… I’m a little bit more outspoken about [racial justice] now.” Another participant shared that, through the Fellowship, they came to the realization that while “some people will be on board, some people will be really excited about it” and others “will always be skeptical if not antithetical to the movement,” this is normal and should not discourage their progress on racial justice in their institution.

Participants also described that their experience in the Fellowship exposed them to new ideas and approaches. While the CUE Fellowship brings together like-minded people, one interview participant shared that when other Fellows would make a comment, they would think to themself, “I never thought about it from that perspective.” They went on to say that “it was just refreshing to be a student and to learn from other people.” Multiple Fellows agreed with the sentiment that it was great to “be a student” again during their time in the Fellowship. A participant who was a fellow in 2020 discussed the ways that the Fellowship evolved due to the COVID-19 pandemic and noted the role that the Fellowship played in them “building out a sense of patience” and becoming “a better listener.” They shared:

“Building out a sense of patience has been something that’s stuck with me [since my time in the Fellowship]. I mean, I think that’s something I’ve been kind of evolving on throughout my career generally, but [the Fellowship] was really helpful for that. I’ve repeatedly seen teams at CUE take the slow path, the deliberate path [and] refuse to make kind of snap decisions when that’s not the right thing to do.”

This comment demonstrates the connection between shifts in an individual’s thinking about “the right thing to do” and their potential change in practice in their racial justice work.

Multiple participants described how their experience in the CUE Fellowship broadened their thinking about the universe of partners in their racial justice work to include unexpected actors. For example, one participant described how their opinion of government shifted throughout the Fellowship because of the opportunity that they had to build close relationships with government workers. Prior to the Fellowship, the participant said that they “dehumanized government workers,” “didn’t really have any faith in” them, and made incorrect assumptions about their quality of work or motivations. The relationships the participant built with government workers through the Fellowship “gave [them] a different perspective.” The participant explained that they grew to see “the beauty of the people” throughout city government and learned that many government workers are “doing this for actually good reasons,” like a desire to promote racial justice from within governmental institutions. The fellow concluded that “it has to be a joint effort to move these things forward because like, I could fight for something, but if there’s someone in on the other side that’s also fighting for it, those things will get implemented.” The Fellowship allowed the participant to understand the government as a supportive part of racial justice efforts and encouraged their belief in inside/outside organizing strategies. Another participant echoed that sentiment, sharing that the ability to consider how to work with government in a collaborative way was an important skill that they built through their participation in the Fellowship:

“One of the things that CUE has done is pushed me to work with folks within the larger systems, like [city government] or other systems of governance that are kind of out of my comfort zone. That is a skill, I think, to really think about how to engage with those in an effective way, in a collaborative way. [I] understand the limitations that still exist there, but the possibilities! I think that [skill-building] wouldn’t have happened aside from some of the [CUE] projects.”

Participants who attended CUE events outside of the Fellowship had the opportunity to build useful relationships with politically like-minded racial justice workers that were not CUE Fellows but were part of the larger CUE network. Another participant described how attending CUE events and seeing people there that they already knew in other parts of their professional life allowed them to begin to view these people as allies in their racial justice work in ways that they had not previously:

“I think you sort of like realize how small your world is because I had attended some actual CUE events where like other people I knew, [and] I was like, ‘oh my gosh, like, I didn’t know you did this,’ or like, ‘I didn’t know you were connected to this.’ So, I think again, that was just interesting and pretty cool generally to know that folks maybe I had interacted [with] work-wise were also in this space. So, it’s like, another ally, right? Like, I knew we were kind of like friends or like-minded, but it’s like, ‘wow there’s a slightly deeper connection here’ because I know we align on other sort of matters.”

4. Discussion

This study aimed to explore the impact of the CUE Fellowship, an intervention to build the capacity of individuals to engage in action to promote racial justice at the local level. Overall, findings suggest that the Fellowship shifted the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of local actors that make up the individual level of the local macrosystem. The Fellowship provided racial justice tools and exposure to concepts that individual Fellows described applying in their racial justice work within local institutions and social systems. The Fellowship also provided the opportunity for individual Fellows to foster useful relationships that improved their lives personally and their work professionally. The Fellows became a network across institutions and social systems, which, if sustained, may increase the effectiveness of their racial justice work. Finally, the Fellowship expanded the Fellows’ thinking—growing their confidence in their racial justice knowledge, increasing their network of racial justice allies, and broadening their racial justice strategic thinking.

These results demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of a program aimed at building the capacity for cross-sectoral collaboration, an approach best situated to address society’s most intractable problems (de Montigny et al. 2019). The Fellowship offers a collaborative engagement process based on shared values, which makes reaching shared understandings and a shared goal possible (de Montigny et al. 2019). A fundamental element of effective cross-sectoral collaboration is capacity building among engaged and motivated participants (de Montigny et al. 2019)—the CUE Fellows are a group of interested actors who applied for the program and (in later years of the Fellowship) went through a rigorous selection process, demonstrating their commitment to cross-sectoral collaboration and action.

We found that the cross-sectoral engagement and learning that occurred during the Fellowship also expanded the strategy of the Fellows. By strategy, we are referring to the tactical decisions that individual Fellows make based on their political knowledge and understanding of how to drive systems change (Michener 2025). Specifically, our results suggest that through the coordinated cross-sectoral engagement and capacity-building of an annual Fellowship program, Fellows built power within and across institutions and social systems by building relationships. For example, Fellows described how their experience in the CUE Fellowship encouraged their growth in trusting relationships with individuals that they had not previously considered partners in their racial justice work.

This finding reveals the potential impact of the Fellowship on the local racial justice landscape at the extraorganizational (i.e., interaction of institutions and social systems) level as well. Participants described that the Fellowship shifted Fellows’ strategies from focusing solely within their own institutions, encouraging many Fellows to align efforts across institutions and engage in “inside-outside” organizing strategies (Aly et al. 2025). “Inside-outside” organizing is an approach to systems change aimed at building alignment between individual actors working “inside” governmental institutions and those working “outside” government, for example, in non-profit, community-based, or advocacy organizations (Aly et al. 2025). The success of “inside-outside” organizing strategies relies on trusting relationships between partners (Aly et al. 2025). Anti-racism work in general is highly relational and requires active individual-level relationship and trust building (Came and Griffith 2018). The trusting relationships between individual actors employed at different institutions and social systems are an essential aspect of strategic and intentional partnerships between those institutions and social systems (Zaheer et al. 1998). As our study findings show, trust is where the CUE Fellowship shines.

4.1. Implications for Practice and Research

Our findings suggest that the alignment of individuals across institutions and social systems in multiple domains of human life can influence local action on racial justice by shifting the individual level of the macrosystem. Practitioners interested in strengthening their racial justice work will find that this evaluation study offers insight into the benefit of an intervention aimed at capacity building for cross-sectoral network configuration and systems change. Our findings demonstrate that activation and sustainability of this local cross-sectoral network move in tandem. For example, we heard that Fellows continued to grow new, actionable connections even beyond their Fellowship year, demonstrating that continued programming beyond the single year of the cohort (i.e., sustainability) opened the door to new opportunities to coordinate with actors across institutions and social systems in the broader CUE network (i.e., activation). However, sustaining cross-sectoral networks can be especially difficult due to strict funding mechanisms that often require narrowly defined deliverables on tight time frames (Michener and Ford 2023). Thus, we recommend that funders of racial justice work consider multiyear proposals with more flexible, applicant-identified foci and interventions (Michener and Ford 2023). The social support that aligned individuals receive in the network may also serve as a resource to help retain movement workers and mitigate burnout, which can also enhance the sustainability of local systems change efforts. Since this evaluation was conducted with a convenience sample of 24 participants from one program in a single U.S. county, we encourage practitioners in other locales to discern the transferability of these findings for themselves.

The results of this study can inform the future work of researchers as well. Social change and population health researchers should continue to consider the role of relationships between individual actors across institutions and social systems in shaping local power dynamics, the social determinants of health, and shifting policies and practices of distinct parts within a macrosystem. We recommend future research engage with longitudinal and mixed methods approaches to provide evidence of the effect of local systems change efforts on the intraorganizational and extraorganizational levels of the macrosystem. Additionally, comparative studies of local systems change efforts could help to identify the most essential contributors to success.

4.2. Limitations

This study filled gaps in the social change literature by evaluating the impact of the CUE Fellowship, a program that brings like-minded people together across institutions and social systems to learn tools and build skills to advance their professional racial justice work. Despite its contributions to the literature, this work is not without its limitations. One limitation is that our findings were not reviewed by all of our research participants for member checking prior to submitting this report, a practice which is understood to enhance the trustworthiness of research findings. Another limitation is that our present study focused on the short-term outcomes (i.e., within 5 years) of the CUE Fellowship which was too short of a time horizon to detail the effect of mid-term (i.e., 5–10 years) and long-term (i.e., 10+ years) systems change efforts. Thus, this study did not offer “proof” that the CUE Fellowship changed the local racial justice landscape (Curry-Stevens 2018); rather, we described encouraging indicators (e.g., racial justice knowledge and skills, network alignment of local actors). Future longitudinal qualitative interview data as well as other sources of evidence (e.g., quantitative, documents), will be better situated to assess the extent to which a coordinated network of Fellows across local institutions and systems are engaged in policy and practice change for racial justice (i.e., mid-term and long-term outcomes from Table 3) and are thus impacting the local Cook County racial justice landscape. However, as others have noted, direct attribution of responsibility for systems change efforts is a difficult endeavor (Curry-Stevens 2018).

5. Conclusions

This study provided novel insight into the channels through which a hyper-local cross-sectoral collaborative impacts the local racial justice landscape. We demonstrated that an intervention aimed at the coordination and capacity building of politically aligned and motivated individuals in a single locale can result in a network of racial justice actors who collaborate across institutions and social systems to shift the power dynamics at the local level. The practical challenges of implementing such a program are substantial. Yet, the challenges must be met as multilevel cross-sectoral collaborative networks are an essential tool in systems change efforts.