Appendix
Methods & Limitations
Here we review the overall approach to the case study and the ways in which we collected the data that informed this report. We go on to discuss the methods by which the data was analyzed and its limitations.
As the first step, A Good Question facilitated a project kickoff workshop at MRPA’s Reading offices, with four participants from MRPA and two from PA Voice. During this day-long participatory workshop, we learned about the history of MRPA’s work in Berks County, defined the win that we would examine, drafted an initial theory of change, and identified MRPA’s key partners in Berks County and beyond.
Approach
Our framework for the case study was a modified contribution analysis, a theory-based approach to qualitative causal analysis that is widely used in complex contexts such as advocacy and organizing work.⁵ Our approach was also informed by recent writing on the centrality of long-term base building to set and pursue a liberation agenda⁶ and the indicators of relational, collective power building.⁷
5
6
7
Subsequently, we held monthly virtual meetings with the MRPA team leading the project. We collaboratively reviewed the draft theory of change to co-develop the plan to collect data to answer the questions that emerged.
We also reviewed available background materials and civic engagement data provided by PA Voice, as well as literature on community power building. MRPA led the recruitment of interviewees and focus group participants. We held the confidential interviews and focus group discussions in July-September 2025.
Following the initial data analysis, we developed an updated and more detailed version of the theory of change, which we discussed as a group. Lastly, we drafted this report of the contribution story and reviewed it as a group prior to finalizing.
Participants & Other Data Sources
We held a total of 13 individual interviews with:
5 current and former MRPA staff
4 coalition partners
4 local elected officials
We held 3 focus groups with:
11 committee participants
9 member leaders
5 seasonal canvassers
Twelve interviews were conducted in English and one in Spanish. All three focus groups were conducted in Spanish. Guillermo Esparza facilitated the Spanish language data collection. In appreciation of their time, we provided $50 Visa gift cards to the MRPA members and the coalition partners who participated in focus groups and interviews.
All data collection was conducted via Zoom and audio-recorded with participants’ permission; the recordings were transcribed using Scribie or GoTranscript.
In addition to the literature cited, we consulted the following reports and data sources provided by PA Voice and MRPA:
Census campaign progress and outreach tracking, and final report
Maps for the People redistricting campaign assessment report
MRPA annual reports for 2023 and 2024
Unemployed, Unhoused, and Unhelped: COVID-19’s Devastating Toll on Pennsylvania’s Latinx Communities, a report from the Center for Popular Democracy and MRPA
Compilation of MRPA’s earned media hits
MRPA communications memos for 2020, 2021, and 2022 compiled by Rose Hill Consulting
PA Voice impact analysis for 2023
PA Voice voter registration, voter turnout, racial growth, and Census response analyses compiled for this project
Analysis
We analyzed the interviews and focus groups using Dedoose qualitative analysis software, following the general inductive approach⁸ to identify and code themes. Coding involved reading the transcripts closely and categorizing excerpts based on their content.
8
We presented findings that emerged frequently across the interviews and focus group discussions. We sometimes included ideas that were less common because they provided qualitative depth and offered directions for next steps.
We observed thematic saturation across the discussions. That is, we arrived at a point when participants were talking about similar ideas and new ideas were not emerging. Additionally, prior to embarking on data collection, we agreed as a group to use two evidence standards by which to assess the quality of the data: plausibility and triangulation. The rubrics for each, reproduced from Aston and Apgar (2023), appear below. Across the findings discussed in this report, we achieved approximately a 4-rating on both evidence standards, with some slightly lower and some higher. Overall, we are confident that the evidence of the central contribution claim–that MRPA clearly contributed to increasing Latinx community power in Berks County over the past decade–is strong and consistent across data sources.
9
Plausibility: Does the evidence suggest that MRPA’s actions contributed to the policy change?
1.
Unclear, illogical, or contradictory explanation connecting intervention to outcome.
2.
Explanation indicates a possible connection between intervention and outcome.
3.
Explanation is clear, logical, and temporally consistent, and suggests a likely association between intervention and outcome.
4.
Convincing explanation of how evidence connects intervention and outcome. Conclusions drawn tend to follow the data.
5.
Highly convincing account, clearly and logically signposting key steps and specific data connecting intervention to outcome. Conclusions drawn unambiguously follow the data.
Triangulation: How many types and sources of evidence did we consult?
1.
No evidence corroborates the connection between intervention and outcome. Other evidence contradicts the proposed connection.
2.
A single source of evidence supports the connection between intervention and outcome
3.
Multiple lines of evidence (source types) corroborate the connection between intervention and outcome.
4.
Multiple lines of high-quality evidence corroborate the connection between intervention and outcome.
5.
Multiple lines of evidence across different studies corroborate the connection between intervention and outcome.
Limitations
While we examined MRPA’s contributions in Berks County since its founding in 2014 through 2024, documenting the full history of the organization was both beyond the scope of the case study and not possible without additional data sources. Many of the participants in the case study have come into contact with MRPA in recent years. Even those who have been around for longer recalled recent wins and developments more clearly than older ones, as expected. As such, the case study provides a snapshot of MRPA’s current practices and contributions to recent wins, while acknowledging the history on which they are built.
Similarly out of scope was a full evaluation of each of the issue campaigns named in the Collective Action section. While we elicited stories about the campaigns in interviews and focus groups, the purpose of these conversations was to contextualize the wins and the contribution of MRPA and the respective coalitions. We did not go into detail about the strategy, functioning, tactics, or coalition dynamics of each campaign.
Despite our best efforts to recruit widely, we cannot assume that the views of MRPA staff, members, and partners who did not participate in the case study are represented here. For example, it is possible that people with negative views of MRPA chose not to join the discussions.
Lastly, focus group facilitation and interviewing runs the risk of elevating participants’ tendencies to say what they believe the facilitator wants to hear. We tried to minimize this effect by emphasizing the confidential and voluntary nature of the discussions. None of the interviewees or focus group participants declined permission for audio-recording, and all provided permission to be quoted in the case study report. As such, we hope that they were able to express their full and honest opinions.
En la unión está la fuerza.
