UBC Graduate Research

Best Practices for Community Engagement Chin, Shareen 2019-04-30

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
66428-Chin_Shareen_PLAN_528A_Best_practices_community_Final_report.pdf [ 1.27MB ]
66428-Chin_Shareen_PLAN_528A_Best_practices_community__Checklist.pdf [ 140.14kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 66428-1.0386712.json
JSON-LD: 66428-1.0386712-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 66428-1.0386712-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 66428-1.0386712-rdf.json
Turtle: 66428-1.0386712-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 66428-1.0386712-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 66428-1.0386712-source.json
Full Text
66428-1.0386712-fulltext.txt
Citation
66428-1.0386712.ris

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report        Best Practices for Community Engagement Shareen Chin University of British Columbia PLAN 528A Themes: Community, Wellbeing April 30, 2019         Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student research project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore, readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Sustainability Program representative about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.  2 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 1.1     CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 KEY DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 4 1.3 BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 OVERALL SCOPE .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.5 PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTION/HYPOTHESIS .......................................................................................................... 5 1.6 RESEARCH TIMEFRAME ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 RESEARCH APPROACH ............................................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 GUIDING PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 8 3.0 ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 EIO EVENTS ATTENDED FOR CONTEXT AND FOR FRAMEWORK PRINCIPLE APPLICATION ................................................. 10 3.2 DRAFT PRINCIPLES VERSION ONE ..................................................................................................................................... 10 3.2.1 PRINCIPLES FOR ENGAGEMENT (VERSION TWO) .............................................................................................................. 11 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 17 5.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................... 18 6.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 7.0 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................................... 20    3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  The Equity and Inclusion Office (EIO) has partnered with the University of British Columbia (UBC) SEEDS Sustainability Program on a community and wellbeing research project, Best Practices in Community Engagement. The SEEDS project relates to UBC’s Inclusion Action Plan (IAP) which is due for review by June 2019. Through literature reviews from best or similar case scenarios, eight best practice principles for authentic consultation and engagement practices with a focus on historically, persistently, and systemically marginalized groups have been presented. The eight principles have been refined through consultation with the EIO staff and by attending EIO engagement events. The principles are also accompanied by considerations and measurements for application by UBC in future engagement activities.  4 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Context UBC has committed to the theme of inclusion in The Next 100 Years strategic plan1. This commitment obliges UBC to ensure that there is a substantive input and engagement from marginalized groups towards the strategic plan. However, there must be a process to ensure the input and engagement is conducted in a respectful and authentic way.   EIO looks to ensure that the UBC community (Vancouver and Okanagan campuses, students, staff, and faculty)2 are aware of and/or engaged in the development of a new IAP. A focus for inclusion will be on those who are historically, persistently or systemically marginalized.  The first stage of consultation and engagement has been the development of five goal statements and general actions for broader consultation (Appendix 1). These five goal statements were developed by the Inclusion Working Group. As of April 2019, the EIO staff have conducted community engagement through campus wide online surveys and pop-ups at key Vancouver campus locations with students, staff and faculty about the implementation of inclusion action planning across university units. 1.2 Key Definitions This project seeks to provide an engagement checklist for when UBC wishes to connect with communities that are historically, persistently or systemically marginalized. According to the BC Human Rights Code, there are specific personal characteristics that are protected by law. Therefore, those that have been historically, persistently or systemically marginalized may be experiencing discrimination based on age, ancestry, colour, criminal conviction, family status, gender expression, gender identity, mental disability, physical disability, place of origin, political believe, race, ancestry, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation and source of income3.   However, this framework checklist may be applied to any UBC community group that may not feel included within the campus community.  1.3 Background and Significance Best Practices in Community Engagement will support the incorporation and evaluation of best practices for consultation and engagement processes as IAP continues to develop. As a result, the information provided will enable the EIO office to ensure that the processes will adhere to the best practices in engagement and consultation with an inclusive perspective, while also exploring new and promising practices. This SEEDS project and EIO’s IAP work will continue existing engagement activities and supply ideas and strategies for other organisations also wanting to build a more inclusive society in an increasingly globalizing world. 1.4 Overall Scope The scope of this project is to develop, through best practice literature reviews, principles to guide the authentic consultation and engagement of members in the UBC community that have been historically, persistently or systemically marginalized. These  5 principles will take into consideration the unique situation of the UBC community and form a guiding framework for the EIO to hold themselves accountable to.   These principles will recognize the parallel nature of the IAP and the Indigenous Strategic Plan (ISP). The IAP will acknowledge the uniqueness that indigeneity brings to the UBC community and will not supersede or override the ISP.  1.5 Purpose and Research Question/Hypothesis What are tested and refined best practice principles for inclusive and authentic engagement and consultation processes that specifically consider inclusion of historically, persistently and systemically marginalized groups?  This research project aims to support the EIO in developing an IAP that enhances inclusion on the UBC community and prepares community members to create a more inclusive society.  1.6 Research Timeframe The SEEDS project timeframe was from January to April 2019. The compressed timeline was due to planned EIO events for February and March 2019, as well as a June 2019 deadline where the EIO office must prepare a draft IAP. The draft IAP will be presented to the UBC Board of Governors meeting in September 2019.   6 2.0 RESEARCH APPROACH 2.1 Guiding Principles Conducting research for this project was guided by the following two principle  frameworks:  UBC Statement on Respectful Environment for Students, Faculty and Staff  Universities Canada Inclusive Excellence Seven Principles  This SEEDS research project and recommendations was established under these two guiding principle frameworks to ensure alignment to existing overarching policies. These principles were selected specifically due to their application to a Canadian university setting.  Revised in May 2014, the UBC Statement on Respectful Environment for Students, Faculty and Staff envisioned a campus climate that was dedicated to excellence, equality and mutual respect in order to create the best possible condition for learning, researching and working4. UBC strived to achieve this vision by establishing employment and educational practices that respected the dignity of individuals and is an environment free from bullying and harassment5.  Published in October 2017, Universities Canada Inclusive Excellence Seven Principles is the public commitment by member universities to being active champions of equity, diversity and inclusion on university campuses, in communities and across the country6. Moreover, Universities Canada’s principles acknowledged the differences between university communities across Canada and the autonomy of individual institutions to advance change appropriate to local context and needs7. This acknowledgement of local context and needs allows UBC to apply EDI work accordingly.   Both principle policy framework documents are provided in the Appendix 2 and 3.              7 2.2 Literature Review Literature review was conducted in four parts where each part built upon the context of the previous step.                                           High level review of contextual documents authored by UBC  Review of comparable EDI practices at peer universities.  Review of municipalities and planning agencies  Review of health authorities and agencies  Part 2:  A review of 12 peer universities to identify any best practices that could be applied to UBC. A list of peer universities reviewed is in Appendix 5. Part 1:  A review of ten UBC publications, including strategic plans, collaboration principles, wellbeing frameworks and EDI documents to set the contextual framework for EDI work at UBC. A list of reviewed context documents is in Appendix 4. Part 3:  A review of ten community engagement documents from municipalities or planning agencies. A list of municipalities or planning agencies reviewed is in Appendix 7. Part 4:  A review of five publications from Canadian or international health authorities, not for profits or planning firms specializing in public health. A list of health authorities or agencies reviewed is in Appendix 8. Version One of Draft Principles Version Two of Draft Principles Seven draft principles presented to EIO office during a March 14, 2019 workshop. Results of workshop feedback is in Appendix 6.  Eight principles, with considerations and measurements, for engaging historically, persistently or systemically marginalized groups developed.  8 2.3 Literature Review Summary Part One: High level review of contextual documents authored by UBC   It was important to recognize that EDI work has been ongoing at UBC in more than just the EIO office. The contextual documents provided the historical background and future direction in which the SEEDS research would be conducted in.   Part Two: Review of comparable of EDI practices at universities  With an understanding of UBC’s context, 12 peer universities were reviewed for their EDI policies and programs. When possible, communicating with peer university representatives was conducted. For example, email communication with Mikhail V. Burke, Dean’s Advisor on Black Inclusivity Initiatives and Student Inclusion & Transition Mentor at the Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering at the University of Toronto was a part of this research.   The information gathered from other universities served to confirm that UBC is on a par with efforts to become a more equitable, inclusive and diverse campus. However, the peer university documents typically provided high-level vision statements rather than the smaller scale best practice principles requested as an outcome of this SEEDS project. This mismatch in scale required a more focused approach that narrowed in on tangible community engagement activities rather than overarching vision statements.   Part Three: Review of municipalities and planning agencies  To narrow the focus towards best practice principles, community engagement documents from planning firms or municipalities were reviewed. These engagement documents provided a structured framework for facilitators seeking to engage individuals on planning issues. However, these documents were still too broad in scope because municipalities aim to include an entire community. Therefore, while useful in providing a framework approach that facilitators can follow, this planning literature did not specifically target the historically, persistently, or systemically marginalized groups.   Part Four: Review of health authority publications on how to support the underserved  A refined research approach was then undertaken to specifically address the need to focus in on marginalized groups. The results showed that health authorities had an abundance of research and publications available about health care service delivery in underserved populations. Health authorities, like the First Nations Health Authority’s commitment to cultural safety8, found trust from a community with a large organisation to be the foremost principle. The Fraser Health Authority has published handbooks to guide meaningful engagement of patients that have not been traditionally heard in healthcare planning9. Other agencies, such as the Capital Health in Nova Scotia, used the IAP2 core values to ensure their engagement processes were inclusive to the communities they served10.   By adapting and combining the best practices from the health authority literature, the framework of community engagement from municipalities and the context of UBC, eight  9 best practice principles have been proposed. These eight principles are available to use when UBC wishes to engage authentically with the historically, persistently, or systemically marginalized groups at UBC.  10 3.0 ANALYSIS Analysing best practices principles against events was done in conjunction to the Part Three and Part Four of the literature review.  3.1 EIO events attended for context and for framework principle application  Event Name Date Version of Principles Ideas to Action: Building an Inclusive UBC with Dr. Sara-Jane Finlay, Associate Vice-President Feb. 13, 2019 In process; event attended for context Hot Lunch at St. John’s College with Ms. Barbara Meens Thistle, VP of Human Resources.  Feb. 27, 2019 In process; event attended for context EIO Workshop in-camera meeting with 14 staff to discuss Version One of draft principles March 14, 2019 Version One  Irving K. Barber Learning Centre Pop Up Event March 22, 2019 Version Two UBC Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology meeting with EIO staff on IAP goals March 27, 2019 Version Two  While the intent was to attend more events, due to inclement weather, or conflict with UBC academic schedules, some events were cancelled. Other outreach events, such as departmental crew talks, did not have the timeline or audience that would fit the SEEDS research project.   3.2 Draft Principles Version One The literature review on university EDI practices produced seven potential best practices.  1. Listen and affirm. Reflect and iterate. Unlearn and learn. Take responsibility.  2. Commit to and align engagement process with EDI as a high-level university/institutional priority.  3. Reach out to people/communities on how and whether they would like to be engaged. 4. Within the constraints that exist within the university, the explicit recognition of inequity is followed up with a robust commitment to search for opportunities to change.  5. Consider the extent to which the engagement process elevates the voices of and makes decisions on behalf of, historically, persistently, and systemically marginalized groups. 6. Within the constraints of this process, be transparent in intent, process, reflection and outcome for the engagement.   11 7. Allow marginalized people to ‘see themselves’ throughout the process, reflection and outcome.   These principles were workshopped with the EIO office on March 14, 2019. 14 EIO staff attended and provided feedback on the principles and provided their contextual feedback on how to measure these principles (Appendix 6). However, at this point in the research project, it became apparent that Version One was too broad or high level and additional literature reviewing was required.  3.2.1 Principles for Engagement (Version Two) From the health authority literature, draft principles were provided to the EIO office to remotely review. The results of the EIO feedback produced the following eight principles.   1. Foster trust 2. Respect schedules and cultural norms 3. Plan for accessibility 4. Communicate for understanding 5. Provide a useful contribution for participation 6. Nourish community development 7. Consider power dynamics  8. Report back to the community in a meaningful manner  These eight principles have been provided with a short description,  considerations for implementation and measurements in a framework checklist.   Principles for Engagement Framework Checklist Cycle  Engagement Principles Description Considerations Measurements  *Throughout entire process – Foster Trust Before  Foster Trust* Authentic and meaningful engagement with historically, persistently or systemically marginalized communities at UBC must be done on a foundation of trust.   Fostering trust should also be a principle that is upheld throughout the entire engagement process.  - UBC must work to consider its decisions in the context of creating trust with communities. The communities must trust UBC. - To what extent has UBC acknowledged any history in its attempts to build relationships with this community – and proved its understanding of the harm that it may have caused.   - Does UBC have the time to build reciprocal relationships in time for the engagement activity? - Is the engagement activity short-term, or long-term? - To what extent can UBC commit to improving or repairing the relationship?  - Does UBC know who, among UBC’s community, is considered an ally of the community at this time?  - Can UBC build relationships among community leaders and allies of the community?  - Are the UBC staff engaging with communities empathetic and well trained with proper techniques?  Is UBC partnered with community allies? If yes, how many and what is the quality of the partnership?  Is there public endorsement for engagement from within UBC (i.e. the President or a Dean), and a member of the community that is being engaged with?  Respect schedules and cultural norms Engagement process should strive to respect community schedule and cultural norms.  - To what extent can UBC test if the community wants to participate with the engagement activity?  Is the engagement process respectful of cultural norms and timelines?  Is the engagement topic important to the  13 - If so, does the engagement process consider how the community wants to engage with UBC? - Is the engagement process appropriate and specific to the community being engaged with? - If the community does not want to engage with UBC, does UBC know the reason? community?  Is the time commitment required by the community communicated and agreed upon?  Is the engagement process tailored to this community? Before/During  Plan for Accessibility Engagement activities should be universally accessible.  - To what extent have different kinds of engagements/events been set up to ensure that engagement is inclusive of the widest possible audience with different accessibility needs even if each event is not accessible or applicable to everyone?  Has the engagement calendar events list been planned according to the Checklist for Accessibility and Inclusive Event Planning at UBC?  If certain checklist items were not met, are proper substitutions made?  During  Communicate for Understanding Engagement should be easily understood.   Is the information written in plain language?  Has there been enough translation of language, concepts or phrases done to ensure mutual understanding between UBC and the community?   Is the engagement process understood by the community?  Can images be used to communicate concepts?  Are the images used culturally neutral and authentic?  If cultural images are used for multilingual engagement, are they used in a correct and respectable manner?  Provide a useful contribution for participation Engagement processes should offer something useful to the community or individual(s) participating.  - What should UBC consider as a meaningful contribution for individuals’ or communities’ participation? - Does the contribution take the form of food, gift certificates, stipend, transportation vouchers, or another  Was the community asked what they would appreciate as a meaningful contribution for their participation?  Is meaningful contribution provided to the community or individual in exchange for their participation?     14 creative solution? - Is the engagement budget sufficiently resourced to fund the contribution? *Throughout entire process – Foster Trust Nourish Community Development Engagement should develop and strengthen community connections within the community group, and across communities that may be facing similar barriers.    Does the engagement activity bridge connections and relationships to supply networking opportunities?  Are there community leaders in the community that can become peer leaders?  Can these peer community leaders meaningfully connect their community in the engagement process?  Are partnerships authentically present with other organisations?  Does the engagement activity allow for sharing of resources, knowledge and other forms of expertise between participants? Consider power dynamics  Engagement processes should acknowledge the power dynamics of parties involved in the decision-making process.     - What has been done to ensure the space is safe for people to express themselves? - How does the engagement process recognize the power imbalance between different parties, and is there the opportunity to change this situation to a noticeable degree? - How can UBC’s engagement process inform a sense of respect and legitimacy to the personal stories shared by participants? - What does UBC need to consider to ensure respect, confidentiality and anonymity of participants is supported?   Is the engagement process safe and comfortable?  Has the purpose of the engagement process (i.e., consultation, input, decision-making, etc.), been clarified at the invitation stage and again at the beginning of the activity?  Have the power dynamics between facilitator and participants been addressed? (i.e. Who is the expert in the engagement process?)   Does the engagement activity look to normalize peoples’ lived experience by surrounding them with others with similar experiences or backgrounds?  Is there space for story-telling from the participants?  How can the story-telling be respectfully incorporated into the engagement results?   Does the engagement activity specifically include resources for the community (e.g. tangible material or otherwise)?  15  Has UBC considered a reasonable ratio of staff to engagement participants?  After Report back to the community in a meaningful manner Share the outcomes of the engagement process and identify how participant input was used.  - What does UBC need to consider when publicly sharing about the engagement processes and outcomes?  - What does UBC need to consider if the information shared may not be what the individuals or communities are wishing to hear? - With publicly sharing, what does UBC need to consider when ensuring that the original intent from the participant is kept and authentic in the message? - How does what UBC produces reflect the stories of participants?    Are participant responses, anonymized where necessary, posted and publicly available?  Has the process of incorporating the participant input been clearly recorded and reported?  Was the engagement process evaluated using participant feedback?  Was the feedback integrated into Community-UBC relationships, communication and future planning projects?  References for Framework BC Centre for Disease Control. (n.d.). FACT Sheet: Supporting Health Equity through the Built Environment. Retrieved from BC Centre for Disease Control: http://www.bccdc.ca/resource-gallery/Documents/Educational%20Materials/EH/BCCDC_equity-fact-sheet_web.pdf Capital Health. (2011, March 16). Engagement Framework and Toolkit . Retrieved from North Simcoe Muskoka LHIN: http://www.nsmlhin.on.ca/communityengagement/~/media/4F9309E031C44680A3617A293BC0D4B3.ashx Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. (2018, August 20). Learning Together: How to Better Engage Marginalized Groups in Healthcare Systems. Retrieved from How to better engage marginalized groups in healthcare systems: https://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/news-events/news/article/how-to-better-engage-marginalized-groups-healthcare-systems/ Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. (n.d.). Slide Deck for Deliberative Engagement. Retrieved from https://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/SlideDeck_Deliberative-Engagement_NHEN-Presentation_August2018.pdf Jacklin Stonewall, K. F. (2017). Best Practices for Engaging Underserved Populations. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2017 Annual Meeting 130. M. Elizabeth Snow, K. T. (2018). Heard and valued: the development of a model to meaningfully engage marginalized populations in health services planning. BMC Health Services Research, 18 - 181. Novick, P. C. (2003). Building Inclusive Commnities: Cross-Canada Perspectives and Strategies. Ottawa: Federation of Canadian Municipalities.  16 Nursing Council of New Zealand. (2011). Guidelines for Cultural Safety, the Treaty of Waitangi and Maori Health in Nursing Education and Practice. Retrieved from Nursing Council: http://www.nursingcouncil.org.nz/index.php/content/download/721/2871/file/Guidelines%20for%20cultural%20safety,%20the%20Treaty%20of%20Waitangi,%20and%20Maori%20health%20in%20nursing%20education%20and%20practice.pdf Propel Centre for Population Health Impact. (2019). Best Practices in Reaching Underserved Groups for Deliberative Engagement and Public Dialogues. Waterloo, Ontario: Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, University of Waterloo. Snow, B. (2013, September). Patient Engagement: Heard and Valued. Retrieved from Fraser Health: https://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/sf-docs/default-source/patient-engagement/awesome_handbook-fraserhealth.pdf Social Planning Council of Sudbury. (n.d.). Engaging Marginalized Families. Retrieved from SPC of Sudbury: http://spcsudbury.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Engaging-Marginalized-Families2011SPC.pdf Social Planning Network of Ontario. (2010). Engaging Marginalized Communities for Better Health Outcomes. Peterborough: Ministry of Health Promotion. Stephanie R. Montesanti, J. A. (2017). Enabling the participation of marginalized populations: case studies from a health service organization in Ontario, Canada. Health Promotion International, 636-649.4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The compressed timeline of this project did not allow for Version Two to be fully tested against EIO events. Therefore, it is recommended that these principles be introduced to EIO staff, and then applied to EIO events moving forward. Future revisions of principles may still be required. Furthermore, research has shown that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach for community engagement. Therefore, research is needed into the best practices on how different groups understand consultation and engagement, what the implications are for this engagement process, and more concretely, how approaches to different groups need to be tailored to create appropriate and welcoming spaces for truly authentic engagement.  4.1 Feedback from April 6, 2019 Presentation Workshop Principle of Trust o Must be ongoing o May be difficult to implement o How to differentiate between distrust of UBC and relationship to EIO? o What are the implications? o Example: Filling out the EES o Authentically different in the work that is to do with inclusion o Foster trust in the process of engagement  Principle of Reporting back o May be difficult because some of the feedback is negative and hateful  Future uses o Resource on website o Include in toolkit to units o Conduct a case studies on each principle.  • I.e. Science can take on planning on accessibility and report back on their unit experience  Share with Operations and SDI stakeholders  Scale up efforts for a two way dialog in student and committees to see if the principles hold true   18 5.0 CONCLUSION Eight principles have been presented to the EIO for their use towards authentic engagement with specific consideration towards the inclusion of historically, persistently or systemically marginalized groups. These have been developed through literature reviews, revising principles from EIO staff feedback and attending EIO events. Due to the compressed timeline of this SEEDS project, more testing of EIO events against the eight principles will be needed. Revisions, based on staff and participant feedback, will likely be required. Additionally, continuing to pull on agencies, such as health authorities, that are working to bridge gaps between mainstream services and marginalized communities will need to continue.   19 6.0 REFERENCES 1. BC Human Rights Tribunal. (2019, March 27). BCHRT. Retrieved from Personal Characteristics Protected in the BC Human Rights Code: http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/human-rights-duties/characteristics.htm 2. Meeting, S. E. (2019, January 18). SEEDS EIO Meeting. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. The University of British Columbia. (2018). Shaping UBC’s Next Century. Retrieved from Strategic Plan: https://strategicplan.ubc.ca/ 4. The University of British Columbia. (2018). Shaping UBC’s Next Century. Retrieved from Strategic Plan: https://strategicplan.ubc.ca/ 5. Ibid 6. Universities Canada. (2017, October). Universities Canada Inclusive Excellence Principles. Retrieved from Universities Canada: https://www.univcan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/equity-diversity-inclusion-principles-universities-canada-oct-2017.pdf 7. Ibid 8. First Nations Health Authority. (2016, June 17). FNHA Policy Statement Cultural Safety and Humility. Retrieved from First Nations Health Authority: http://www.fnha.ca/documents/fnha-policy-statement-cultural-safety-and-humility.pdf 9. Snow, B. (2013, September). Patient Engagement: Heard and Valued. Retrieved from Fraser Health:https://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/sf-docs/default-source/patient-engagement/awesome_handbook-fraserhealth.pdf 10. Capital Health. (2011, March 16). Engagement Framework and Toolkit . Retrieved from North Simcoe Muskoka LHIN: http://www.nsmlhin.on.ca/communityengagement/~/media/4F9309E031C44680A3617A293BC0D4B3.ashx   20 7.0 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Inclusive Action Plan Goals Goal 1: Capacity-building: UBC will enhance institutional and individual capacities and skills to succeed in and advance inclusive environments.   Building on previous work at UBC, potential areas of action include:  • Education and training on equity, diversity, and inclusion for leadership, faculty, staff, and students • Networks and support systems for marginalized groups • Funding opportunities for community-led initiatives • Dialogue around difficult topics  Goal 2: Recruitment, Retention, and Success: UBC will actively recruit, support, retain, and advance students, faculty, staff, and leaders from systemically marginalized groups.        Building on previous work at UBC, potential areas of action include: • Better data collection and reporting on students, staff and faculty demographics and progress • Support for the Indigenous strategic plan • Creation of a workplace accommodation policy • Increased representation of diverse students, staff, and faculty • Building and developing skills to support diversity and inclusion at UBC and beyond  Goal 3: Systems Change: UBC will be intentional and proactive in changing systems, structures, policies, practices, and processes to advance equity, diversity, and inclusion.    Building on previous work at UBC, potential areas of action include:  • Review of employment practices and processes to eliminate barriers for historically, persistently, and systemically marginalized groups • Ceremonies and events include commitments to equity, diversity and inclusion • Consistency of equity, diversity, and inclusion work between and across campuses • Use of Universal Design to create welcoming and accessible physical and virtual spaces Goal 4: Learning, Research, and Engagement: UBC will foster environments of learning, research, and engagement that value building and exchanging multiple and  21 intersectional ways of knowing.       Building on previous work at UBC, potential areas of action include:  • Build intentional relationships with communities representing historically, persistently, and systemically marginalized groups • Create more student-led equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives • Develop mentoring programs • Create awards and incentives for equity, diversity, and inclusion • Equity, diversity and inclusion are supported and rewarded in scholarship, teaching, curriculum, course content and through our outreach principles.  Goal 5: Accountability: UBC will hold itself accountable to its commitment to inclusion through clear and timely processes, thorough evaluation, and transparent reporting to the UBC communities on its progress on this action plan.        Building on previous work at UBC, potential areas of action include:  • Evaluation and regular reporting on this Inclusion Action Plan • Inclusion Action Plans created for all Divisions and Faculties • Departmental and curricular external review processes include equity, diversity, and inclusion criteria • Improve data collection and transparency of reporting  22 Appendix 2: UBC Statement on Respectful Environment for Students, Faculty and Staff   UBC Statement on Respectful Environment for Students, Faculty and Staff      Approved by:  UBC Executive   Revision Date: May 2014         The University of British Columbia envisions a climate in which students, faculty and staff are provided with the best possible conditions for learning, researching and working, including an environment that is dedicated to excellence, equity and mutual respect. The University of British Columbia strives to realize this vision by establishing employment and educational practices that respect the dignity of individuals and make it possible for everyone to live, work, and study in a positive and supportive environment, free from harmful behaviours such as bullying and harassment.     A. Statement of Principle   The best possible environment for working, learning and living is one in which respect, civility, diversity, opportunity and inclusion are valued. Everyone at the University of British Columbia is expected to conduct themselves in a manner that upholds these principles in all communications and interactions with fellow UBC community members and the public in all University-related settings.   B. The Respectful University Environment     In the context of an academic community, responsibility for maintaining a respectful environment falls on all community members, including students, faculty, staff, and members of the public who participate in University-related activities.     Excellence in learning, research and work in the university community is fostered by promoting the freest possible exchange of information, ideas, beliefs and opinions in diverse forms, and it necessarily includes dissemination and discussion of controversial topics and unpopular points of view. Respect for the value of freedom of expression and promotion of free inquiry are central to the University’s mission.     However, these freedoms cannot exist without an equally vigorous commitment to recognition of and respect for the freedoms of others, and concern for the well-being of every member of the university community. Excellence in scholarship, teaching and employment activities flows from active concern and respect for others, including their ability to participate meaningfully in the exchange of information, ideas, beliefs and opinions.   Therefore, freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry must be exercised responsibly, in ways that recognize and respect the dignity of others, having careful regard to the dynamics of different  23 relationships within the university environment, such as between professor and student, or supervisor and employee. A respectful environment is a climate in which the human dignity of each individual is valued, and the diverse perspectives, ideas and experiences of all members of the community are able to flourish.     C. Activities Harmful to a Respectful Environment     Activities harmful to a respectful environment include behaviours ranging from expressions of disrespect such as rudeness and gossip, to bullying or harassment. Disrespectful behaviour, including bullying or harassment, is harmful to a respectful environment and therefore has no place at UBC. It is not only a direct attack on the dignity and worth of the individual or group at whom it is directed, it undermines the freedoms of the whole community. For these reasons, disrespectful behaviour, including bullying or harassment, is not acceptable and will not be tolerated at UBC.    Bullying or harassment is objectionable and unwanted behaviour that is verbally or physically abusive, vexatious or hostile, that is without reasonable justification, and that creates a hostile or intimidating environment for working, learning or living. Harassment may be intentional or unintentional. While bullying or harassment usually consists of repeated acts, a single serious incident that has a lasting harmful effect may also constitute bullying or harassment.    Bullying or harassing behaviour includes cumulative demeaning or intimidating comments, gestures or conduct; verbal aggression or yelling; threats to a person’s employment or educational status, person or property; persistent comments or conduct, including ostracism or exclusion of a person, that undermines an individual’s self-esteem so as to compromise their ability to achieve work or study goals; abuse of power, authority or position; sabotage of a person’s work; humiliating initiation practices; hazing; calling someone derogatory names; spreading of malicious rumours or lies; or making malicious or vexatious complaints about a person.      Bullying or harassment does not include the exercise of appropriate managerial or supervisory direction, including performance management and the imposition of discipline; constructive criticism; respectful expression of differences of opinions; reasonable changes to assignments or duties; correction of inappropriate student behaviour; instructional techniques such as irony, conjecture, and refutation, or assigning readings or other instructional materials that advocate controversial positions; and single incidents of thoughtless, petty or foolish words or acts that cause fleeting harm.     A determination that disrespectful behaviour, including bullying or harassment, has occurred is based not only on what the alleged perpetrator and target of the disrespectful behaviour actually experienced, knew, or understood about each other and the situation, but on what a reasonable person in each of their  24 circumstances would have experienced, known or understood, taking into account the full context of the situation.     D. Addressing Respectful Environment Concerns     Primary responsibility for addressing respectful environment concerns, including concerns about bullying or harassment lies with all members of the UBC community who exercise supervisory or leadership roles. These individuals are well-placed to set examples for others by their own conduct, to communicate to those under their direction UBC’s commitment to a respectful university environment, and to take appropriate action to preserve or restore a respectful environment if problems arise. They are expected to take steps to maintain an environment free from disrespectful behaviour, and to prevent such behaviour, where possible.     REPORTING OF CONCERNS / INCIDENTS / COMPLAINTS  Specifically, when faculty, staff or student employees have concerns about disrespectful behaviour they have experienced or witnessed, they should contact their direct supervisor or Administrative Head of Unit.     Students who have concerns outside of any employment relationship with UBC should contact their professor, Department Head or Dean’s Office, if their concern relates to a course or academic matter. If the concern relates to a UBC service unit or a residence, students should contact the Unit Head of the particular service or the Vice-President, Students Office at UBC Vancouver, or the Unit Head or the Associate Vice-President, Students at UBC Okanagan.     Where the issue is not resolved or there is concern about conflict of interest, including where a faculty or staff member feels bullied or harassed by their direct supervisor, faculty and staff should contact their employee association, union, or Human Resources. In such circumstances, students should contact the UBC Ombudsperson or the Associate Vice-President, Students.     INVESTIGATION OF CONCERNS/INCIDENTS/COMPLAINTS  Administrative Heads of Units, whether responding to a concern raised to them or taking action because they have otherwise become aware that a person may be engaging in disrespectful behaviour in their unit, are expected to act promptly to determine if behaviour contrary to the Respectful Environment Statement including incidents of bullying or harassment has occurred or is ongoing, and if so, to address the behaviour and its damaging effects. Support and advice are available from Human Resources.   25     RESPONSIBILITY FOR AWARENESS AND EDUCATION   It is the responsibility of each Vice President, in cooperation with Human Resources, to ensure that those in supervisory or leadership roles in their portfolio have access to the proper training necessary to understand rights and responsibilities in a respectful working, learning and living environment, including their own responsibility to recognize, investigate, respond to, and manage complaints of harassment and to educate those they supervise or lead regarding those rights and responsibilities.     Education, increased awareness and prompt action are vital to create and maintain respectful working, learning and living environments at UBC. The University must provide training, support and resources to raise awareness about the principles of a respectful working, learning and living environment and to address concerns in a positive and effective manner when they do occur.    The following link provides more detailed procedures for faculty, staff or student employees and for those who have the primary responsibility of addressing respectful environment concerns:    http://bullyingandharassment.sites.olt.ubc.ca/    E. Related Policies and Provisions     Where policies and mechanisms for addressing unacceptable conduct already exist, whether in work, education or living contexts, this Respectful Environment Statement is intended to supplement, not to displace them.  In particular, matters relating to discrimination or harassment based on age, ancestry, colour, family status, marital status, physical or mental disability, place of origin, political belief, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and criminal conviction unrelated to employment are addressed in Policy #3, the UBC Policy on Discrimination and Harassment. Those with concerns that may constitute complaints under Policy #3 should refer to Policy #3 itself for information on how to proceed. Where a concern raised under the Respectful Environment Statement is appropriately addressed under another policy or provision, Administrative Heads of Units and others responsible for addressing respectful environment concerns will direct the individual to the appropriate office.  Departmental policies regarding respectful environments can add to but not derogate from the principles in this statement.   26 Appendix 3: Universities Canada Inclusive Excellence Principles   27 Appendix 4: UBC Context Documents 1. Valuing Difference:  A Strategy for Advancing Equity & Diversity at UBC (2009) 2. Conversations in Wellbeing: Vehicles for Campus Engagement (2015) 3. Conversations in Wellbeing: A UBC-wide community engagement effort (2015) 4. Principles for UBC-Musqueam Collaboration 5. UBC Inclusion and Connection Mapping Analysis: Towards Developing a UBC Wellbeing Action Framework for Inclusion and Connection (2017) 6. Engagement Principles and Guiding Practices 7. External example: Consultation Toolkit and Equality Impact Assessment 8. Draft – Inclusion Action Plan 9. Draft – Indigenous Strategic Plan (v5, 19 July 2018) 10. Place and Promise – UBC Strategic Plan (2012)  Appendix 5: List of comparable universities 1. Berkley University  https://history.berkeley.edu/resources/equity-diversity-inclusion 2. Dartmouth University https://inclusive.dartmouth.edu/ 3. First Nations University of Canada https://www.idees-ideas.ca/blog/equity-matters-ideas-can-build-more-equitable-canada 4. Massey University - https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/PolicyGuide/Documents/Academic/Equity%20of%20Access%20to%20Educational%20Opportunities%20Policy.pdf?C44160C43EBB176C24F947A2A19EDE41 5. McGill University https://www.mcgill.ca/equity_diversity/about-us 6. Ryerson University https://www.ryerson.ca/equity/ 7. Quest University https://questu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/student_accommodation_policy-1.pdf 8. University of Alberta  https://www.ualberta.ca/faculty-and-staff/equity-diversity-inclusion 9. University of Arizona   https://diversity.arizona.edu/best-practices-creating-diverse-and-inclusive-university 10. Portland State University   https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1172211.pdf 11. University of Otago          https://www.otago.ac.nz/administration/policies/otago666398.html 12. University of Toronto  www.research.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/EDRI-WG-Report-Recommendations-2018.pdf    28  Appendix 6: March 14, 2019 EIO Workshop sheet and feedback Best Practices in Community Engagement Worksheet Purpose: This worksheet hopes to guide a generative engagement process regarding the draft principles and measurements.   Outcome: Obtain EIO feedback that will inform the final report.  Draft Principle 1: Listen and affirm. Reflect and iterate. Unlearn and learn. Take responsibility. Researcher’s comment: This is the overarching umbrella principle for all the following principles. Part 1: EIO Staff Feedback/Thoughts - This takes time and will be hard to do with fixed deadlines we have in place. There is not rally room to reimagine or relearn  Part 2: Measurement brainstorm: - To what extent did feedback along the way alter the engagement process? - Annual engagement processes - Thematic forums - Annual mapping - Satisfaction and quality surveys  Draft Principle 2: Commit to and align engagement process with EDI as a high-level university/institutional priority.  Researcher’s comment: Reinforces continued existing EDI work that is existing.   Part 1: EIO Staff Feedback/Thoughts Part 2: Measurement brainstorm: - Adapting of IAP Actions into unit plan - To what extent do EDI priorities show up to support the engagement process and provide some assistance that the engagement will be valid and valuable? - High level of acceptance of making it a priority. Top to bottom commitment to reinforcing EDI work on campus - EDI is explicitly included in institutional plans. - # participants - Website data - Annual reports - Satisfaction surveys - Stakeholder information - Benchmarking/progress indicators Draft Principle 3: Reach out to people/communities on how and whether they would like to be Researcher’s comment: Note the importance of ‘whether they would like.’ The ability to decline is also a sign of respect. Any  29 engaged.  thoughts?  Question: How would the EDI office know a group was approached, and then declined, rather than not approached at all?  Part 1: EIO Staff Feedback/Thoughts - I do not trust you to engage me Part 2: Measurement brainstorm: - Demonstrated active participation and collaboration/planning with communities in consultation and engagement activities - How many invitations to difficult consultants group within communities? What “gatekeepers” are accessed?  - Are marginalized communities involved in leading and designing the consultation process?  - High level of trust, reason given for saying no (feeling satisfied vs. low trust) the informed no  Draft Principle 4: Within the constraints that exist within the university, the explicit recognition of inequity is followed up with a robust commitment to search for opportunities to change   Researcher’s comment: Principle attempts to recognize that large institutions do not change overnight, and we are not trying to over-promise. This principle acknowledges that there are constraints. Within these constraints, there is recognition of inequalities and ALSO action to follow up on these inequalities. The goal is to change the status quo. Part 1: EIO Staff Feedback/Thoughts Part 2: Measurement brainstorm: - Demonstrated connection in action formation/generation to commitments to change. I.e. Action and examples of inequity trying to be connected and addressed - How often is the approval process referenced and public, so people are aware (even if not sure they understand)? - Review actions taken by previous engagement with the same communities Draft Principle 5: Consider the extent to which the engagement process elevates the voices of, and makes decisions on behalf of, historically, persistently, and systematically marginalized populations. Researcher’s comment: Rather than caution in making decisions for communities – which likely will have to happen at the senior level – consideration of the extent to which engagement can elevate priorities of, or make decisions for, communities must be done. Recognition that there are multiple voices in a  30  community, and which voices are heard needs to be considered. The process, ultimately, should be about how to balance the different voices and different priorities within a community.  Part 1: EIO Staff Feedback/Thoughts Part 2: Measurement brainstorm: - Marginalized communities feel high level of satisfaction/engagement? Draft Principle 6: Within the constraints of this process, be transparent in intent, process, reflection and outcome for the engagement.  Researcher’s comment: Like Point 4, a university will have constraints regarding transparency, but should still strive for a transparent and iterative process.  Part 1: EIO Staff Feedback/Thoughts - We also need to be transparent about the tensions with our engagement process and that the very nature of how UBC engages institutionally. - Make all feedback visible - Clear lines between feedback and action Part 2: Measurement brainstorm: - Explicit information => Sharing of tensions - Increased understanding of how information will be used and synthesis for final outcome and product Draft Principle 7: Allow marginalized people to ‘see themselves’ throughout the process, reflection and outcome.   Researcher’s comment: Historically, persistently and systematically marginalised people should be able to feed information into the process and see this throughout the process. Part 1: EIO Staff Feedback/Thoughts - Technology - While ensuring that onus of responsibility and burden not placed on there Part 2: Measurement brainstorm: - Feedback/input/activities/strategies that are very specific to them   Overall comments: - Struggle is what are they trying to achieve with the principles is MEANINGFUL consultation. Hard to measure because it should be something the communities determine. Therefore, there should be a focus on seeing more trust and better relationships with these communities rather than metrics for individual principles.   31 - Can we measure principles? Or do we define goals that we want to achieve for each principle?  - Easier to measure practices than concepts or ideas? - Assumptions that there are baselines to measure against - Suggestion: To think about the framing of principle in a grid Principle Goals Measures Listen and affirm. Reflect and iterate. Unlearn and learn. Take responsibility.   Commit to and align engagement process with EDI as a high-level university/institutional priority.   Reach out to people/communities on how and whether they would like to be engaged.    Within the constraints that exist within the university, the explicit recognition of inequity is followed up with a robust commitment to search for opportunities to change     Consider the extent to which the engagement process elevates the voices of, and makes decisions on behalf of, historically, persistently, and systematically marginalized populations.    Within the constraints of this process, be transparent in intent, process, reflection and outcome for the engagement.   Allow marginalized people to ‘see themselves’ throughout the process, reflection and outcome.        32 Appendix 7: List of municipalities and planning firms reviewed 1. Alberta Urban Municipalities Association Measuring Inclusion Tool https://auma.ca/sites/default/files/Advocacy/Programs_Initiatives/WIC/measuring_inclusion_tool_-_paper_user_0.pdf 2. City for All Women Initiative Advancing Equity and Inclusion: A guide for municipalities http://www.cawi-ivtf.org/sites/default/files/publications/advancing-equity-inclusion-web_0.pdf 3. Federation of  Canadian Municipalities https://cdhalton.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Clutterbuck_Novick_Paper_Inclusive_Communities.pdf 4. Human Impact Partners Guide – www.healthequityguide.org 5. PlanH Active Communities Action Guide https://planh.ca/sites/default/files/tools-resources/2018_09_17_activecommunities_ag_v01_2018_web.pdf 6. Northampton, UK – Consultation Tool Kit https://www.northampton.gov.uk/downloads/file/7327/consultation-toolkit 7. Peterborough’s Social Planning Council Engaging Marginalized Communities for Better Health Outcomes  http://www.pspc.on.ca/sites/default/files/attach/consultation_report_october.pdf 8. Social Planning of Sudbury, Ontario http://spcsudbury.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Engaging-Marginalized-Families2011SPC.pdf 9. SPARC BC’s Community Engagement Tool -  https://www.sparc.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/community-engagement-toolkit.pdf 10. UBC Campus Community Planning https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/planning.ubc.ca/files/images/UBC_CCP_EngagementCharter%20April%202016.pdf  33 Appendix 8: List of health authorities 1. BC Centre for Disease Control Fact Sheet: Supporting Health Equity through the Built Environment http://www.bccdc.ca/resource-gallery/Documents/Educational%20Materials/EH/BCCDC_equity-fact-sheet_web.pdf 2. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer https://s22457.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Environmental-Scan-Best-Practices-in-Reaching-Underserved-EN.pdf https://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/SlideDeck_Deliberative-Engagement_NHEN-Presentation_August2018.pdf 3. Fraser Health Patient Engagement Heard and Valued https://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/sf-docs/default-source/patient-engagement/awesome_handbook-fraserhealth.pdf 4. First Nations Health Authority  http://www.fnha.ca/documents/fnha-policy-statement-cultural-safety-and-humility.pdf 5. Maori Health - http://www.nursingcouncil.org.nz/index.php/content/download/721/2871/file/Guidelines%20for%20cultural%20safety,%20the%20Treaty%20of%20Waitangi,%20and%20Maori%20health%20in%20nursing%20education%20and%20practice.pdf http://www.pspc.on.ca/sites/default/files/attach/consultation_report_october.pdf       34 Appendix 9: Photos from IKB Pop Up Event, March 22, 2019       35                                                1 100 year plan 2 The UBC community will not include the University Neighbourhood Association.  3   http: //www.bchrt.bc.ca/human-rights-duti es/charac teristics.htm 4 https ://www.hr.ubc.ca/r espec tful-envir onment/ files /UBC-Statement-on-Respectful-Environment-2014.pdf 5 ibid 6 https ://www.uni vcan.ca/wp-content/upl oads/2017/10/equity- di versity-i nclusion-principles-uni versiti es-canada- oct- 2017.pdf 7 ibid 8 FNHA C ultural Safety 9 Fraser Health H eal th Car e planni ngfra 10 Capital  Health – IAP2  UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report        Best Practices for Community Engagement Shareen Chin University of British Columbia PLAN 528A Themes: Community, Wellbeing April 30, 2019         Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student research project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore, readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Sustainability Program representative about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.  2 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 1.1     CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 KEY DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 4 1.3 BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 OVERALL SCOPE .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.5 PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTION/HYPOTHESIS .......................................................................................................... 5 1.6 RESEARCH TIMEFRAME ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 RESEARCH APPROACH ............................................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 GUIDING PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 8 3.0 ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 EIO EVENTS ATTENDED FOR CONTEXT AND FOR FRAMEWORK PRINCIPLE APPLICATION ................................................. 10 3.2 DRAFT PRINCIPLES VERSION ONE ..................................................................................................................................... 10 3.2.1 PRINCIPLES FOR ENGAGEMENT (VERSION TWO) .............................................................................................................. 11 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 17 5.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................... 18 6.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 7.0 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................................... 20    3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  The Equity and Inclusion Office (EIO) has partnered with the University of British Columbia (UBC) SEEDS Sustainability Program on a community and wellbeing research project, Best Practices in Community Engagement. The SEEDS project relates to UBC’s Inclusion Action Plan (IAP) which is due for review by June 2019. Through literature reviews from best or similar case scenarios, eight best practice principles for authentic consultation and engagement practices with a focus on historically, persistently, and systemically marginalized groups have been presented. The eight principles have been refined through consultation with the EIO staff and by attending EIO engagement events. The principles are also accompanied by considerations and measurements for application by UBC in future engagement activities.  4 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Context UBC has committed to the theme of inclusion in The Next 100 Years strategic plan1. This commitment obliges UBC to ensure that there is a substantive input and engagement from marginalized groups towards the strategic plan. However, there must be a process to ensure the input and engagement is conducted in a respectful and authentic way.   EIO looks to ensure that the UBC community (Vancouver and Okanagan campuses, students, staff, and faculty)2 are aware of and/or engaged in the development of a new IAP. A focus for inclusion will be on those who are historically, persistently or systemically marginalized.  The first stage of consultation and engagement has been the development of five goal statements and general actions for broader consultation (Appendix 1). These five goal statements were developed by the Inclusion Working Group. As of April 2019, the EIO staff have conducted community engagement through campus wide online surveys and pop-ups at key Vancouver campus locations with students, staff and faculty about the implementation of inclusion action planning across university units. 1.2 Key Definitions This project seeks to provide an engagement checklist for when UBC wishes to connect with communities that are historically, persistently or systemically marginalized. According to the BC Human Rights Code, there are specific personal characteristics that are protected by law. Therefore, those that have been historically, persistently or systemically marginalized may be experiencing discrimination based on age, ancestry, colour, criminal conviction, family status, gender expression, gender identity, mental disability, physical disability, place of origin, political believe, race, ancestry, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation and source of income3.   However, this framework checklist may be applied to any UBC community group that may not feel included within the campus community.  1.3 Background and Significance Best Practices in Community Engagement will support the incorporation and evaluation of best practices for consultation and engagement processes as IAP continues to develop. As a result, the information provided will enable the EIO office to ensure that the processes will adhere to the best practices in engagement and consultation with an inclusive perspective, while also exploring new and promising practices. This SEEDS project and EIO’s IAP work will continue existing engagement activities and supply ideas and strategies for other organisations also wanting to build a more inclusive society in an increasingly globalizing world. 1.4 Overall Scope The scope of this project is to develop, through best practice literature reviews, principles to guide the authentic consultation and engagement of members in the UBC community that have been historically, persistently or systemically marginalized. These  5 principles will take into consideration the unique situation of the UBC community and form a guiding framework for the EIO to hold themselves accountable to.   These principles will recognize the parallel nature of the IAP and the Indigenous Strategic Plan (ISP). The IAP will acknowledge the uniqueness that indigeneity brings to the UBC community and will not supersede or override the ISP.  1.5 Purpose and Research Question/Hypothesis What are tested and refined best practice principles for inclusive and authentic engagement and consultation processes that specifically consider inclusion of historically, persistently and systemically marginalized groups?  This research project aims to support the EIO in developing an IAP that enhances inclusion on the UBC community and prepares community members to create a more inclusive society.  1.6 Research Timeframe The SEEDS project timeframe was from January to April 2019. The compressed timeline was due to planned EIO events for February and March 2019, as well as a June 2019 deadline where the EIO office must prepare a draft IAP. The draft IAP will be presented to the UBC Board of Governors meeting in September 2019.   6 2.0 RESEARCH APPROACH 2.1 Guiding Principles Conducting research for this project was guided by the following two principle  frameworks:  UBC Statement on Respectful Environment for Students, Faculty and Staff  Universities Canada Inclusive Excellence Seven Principles  This SEEDS research project and recommendations was established under these two guiding principle frameworks to ensure alignment to existing overarching policies. These principles were selected specifically due to their application to a Canadian university setting.  Revised in May 2014, the UBC Statement on Respectful Environment for Students, Faculty and Staff envisioned a campus climate that was dedicated to excellence, equality and mutual respect in order to create the best possible condition for learning, researching and working4. UBC strived to achieve this vision by establishing employment and educational practices that respected the dignity of individuals and is an environment free from bullying and harassment5.  Published in October 2017, Universities Canada Inclusive Excellence Seven Principles is the public commitment by member universities to being active champions of equity, diversity and inclusion on university campuses, in communities and across the country6. Moreover, Universities Canada’s principles acknowledged the differences between university communities across Canada and the autonomy of individual institutions to advance change appropriate to local context and needs7. This acknowledgement of local context and needs allows UBC to apply EDI work accordingly.   Both principle policy framework documents are provided in the Appendix 2 and 3.              7 2.2 Literature Review Literature review was conducted in four parts where each part built upon the context of the previous step.                                           High level review of contextual documents authored by UBC  Review of comparable EDI practices at peer universities.  Review of municipalities and planning agencies  Review of health authorities and agencies  Part 2:  A review of 12 peer universities to identify any best practices that could be applied to UBC. A list of peer universities reviewed is in Appendix 5. Part 1:  A review of ten UBC publications, including strategic plans, collaboration principles, wellbeing frameworks and EDI documents to set the contextual framework for EDI work at UBC. A list of reviewed context documents is in Appendix 4. Part 3:  A review of ten community engagement documents from municipalities or planning agencies. A list of municipalities or planning agencies reviewed is in Appendix 7. Part 4:  A review of five publications from Canadian or international health authorities, not for profits or planning firms specializing in public health. A list of health authorities or agencies reviewed is in Appendix 8. Version One of Draft Principles Version Two of Draft Principles Seven draft principles presented to EIO office during a March 14, 2019 workshop. Results of workshop feedback is in Appendix 6.  Eight principles, with considerations and measurements, for engaging historically, persistently or systemically marginalized groups developed.  8 2.3 Literature Review Summary Part One: High level review of contextual documents authored by UBC   It was important to recognize that EDI work has been ongoing at UBC in more than just the EIO office. The contextual documents provided the historical background and future direction in which the SEEDS research would be conducted in.   Part Two: Review of comparable of EDI practices at universities  With an understanding of UBC’s context, 12 peer universities were reviewed for their EDI policies and programs. When possible, communicating with peer university representatives was conducted. For example, email communication with Mikhail V. Burke, Dean’s Advisor on Black Inclusivity Initiatives and Student Inclusion & Transition Mentor at the Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering at the University of Toronto was a part of this research.   The information gathered from other universities served to confirm that UBC is on a par with efforts to become a more equitable, inclusive and diverse campus. However, the peer university documents typically provided high-level vision statements rather than the smaller scale best practice principles requested as an outcome of this SEEDS project. This mismatch in scale required a more focused approach that narrowed in on tangible community engagement activities rather than overarching vision statements.   Part Three: Review of municipalities and planning agencies  To narrow the focus towards best practice principles, community engagement documents from planning firms or municipalities were reviewed. These engagement documents provided a structured framework for facilitators seeking to engage individuals on planning issues. However, these documents were still too broad in scope because municipalities aim to include an entire community. Therefore, while useful in providing a framework approach that facilitators can follow, this planning literature did not specifically target the historically, persistently, or systemically marginalized groups.   Part Four: Review of health authority publications on how to support the underserved  A refined research approach was then undertaken to specifically address the need to focus in on marginalized groups. The results showed that health authorities had an abundance of research and publications available about health care service delivery in underserved populations. Health authorities, like the First Nations Health Authority’s commitment to cultural safety8, found trust from a community with a large organisation to be the foremost principle. The Fraser Health Authority has published handbooks to guide meaningful engagement of patients that have not been traditionally heard in healthcare planning9. Other agencies, such as the Capital Health in Nova Scotia, used the IAP2 core values to ensure their engagement processes were inclusive to the communities they served10.   By adapting and combining the best practices from the health authority literature, the framework of community engagement from municipalities and the context of UBC, eight  9 best practice principles have been proposed. These eight principles are available to use when UBC wishes to engage authentically with the historically, persistently, or systemically marginalized groups at UBC.  10 3.0 ANALYSIS Analysing best practices principles against events was done in conjunction to the Part Three and Part Four of the literature review.  3.1 EIO events attended for context and for framework principle application  Event Name Date Version of Principles Ideas to Action: Building an Inclusive UBC with Dr. Sara-Jane Finlay, Associate Vice-President Feb. 13, 2019 In process; event attended for context Hot Lunch at St. John’s College with Ms. Barbara Meens Thistle, VP of Human Resources.  Feb. 27, 2019 In process; event attended for context EIO Workshop in-camera meeting with 14 staff to discuss Version One of draft principles March 14, 2019 Version One  Irving K. Barber Learning Centre Pop Up Event March 22, 2019 Version Two UBC Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology meeting with EIO staff on IAP goals March 27, 2019 Version Two  While the intent was to attend more events, due to inclement weather, or conflict with UBC academic schedules, some events were cancelled. Other outreach events, such as departmental crew talks, did not have the timeline or audience that would fit the SEEDS research project.   3.2 Draft Principles Version One The literature review on university EDI practices produced seven potential best practices.  1. Listen and affirm. Reflect and iterate. Unlearn and learn. Take responsibility.  2. Commit to and align engagement process with EDI as a high-level university/institutional priority.  3. Reach out to people/communities on how and whether they would like to be engaged. 4. Within the constraints that exist within the university, the explicit recognition of inequity is followed up with a robust commitment to search for opportunities to change.  5. Consider the extent to which the engagement process elevates the voices of and makes decisions on behalf of, historically, persistently, and systemically marginalized groups. 6. Within the constraints of this process, be transparent in intent, process, reflection and outcome for the engagement.   11 7. Allow marginalized people to ‘see themselves’ throughout the process, reflection and outcome.   These principles were workshopped with the EIO office on March 14, 2019. 14 EIO staff attended and provided feedback on the principles and provided their contextual feedback on how to measure these principles (Appendix 6). However, at this point in the research project, it became apparent that Version One was too broad or high level and additional literature reviewing was required.  3.2.1 Principles for Engagement (Version Two) From the health authority literature, draft principles were provided to the EIO office to remotely review. The results of the EIO feedback produced the following eight principles.   1. Foster trust 2. Respect schedules and cultural norms 3. Plan for accessibility 4. Communicate for understanding 5. Provide a useful contribution for participation 6. Nourish community development 7. Consider power dynamics  8. Report back to the community in a meaningful manner  These eight principles have been provided with a short description,  considerations for implementation and measurements in a framework checklist.   Principles for Engagement Framework Checklist Cycle  Engagement Principles Description Considerations Measurements  *Throughout entire process – Foster Trust Before  Foster Trust* Authentic and meaningful engagement with historically, persistently or systemically marginalized communities at UBC must be done on a foundation of trust.   Fostering trust should also be a principle that is upheld throughout the entire engagement process.  - UBC must work to consider its decisions in the context of creating trust with communities. The communities must trust UBC. - To what extent has UBC acknowledged any history in its attempts to build relationships with this community – and proved its understanding of the harm that it may have caused.   - Does UBC have the time to build reciprocal relationships in time for the engagement activity? - Is the engagement activity short-term, or long-term? - To what extent can UBC commit to improving or repairing the relationship?  - Does UBC know who, among UBC’s community, is considered an ally of the community at this time?  - Can UBC build relationships among community leaders and allies of the community?  - Are the UBC staff engaging with communities empathetic and well trained with proper techniques?  Is UBC partnered with community allies? If yes, how many and what is the quality of the partnership?  Is there public endorsement for engagement from within UBC (i.e. the President or a Dean), and a member of the community that is being engaged with?  Respect schedules and cultural norms Engagement process should strive to respect community schedule and cultural norms.  - To what extent can UBC test if the community wants to participate with the engagement activity?  Is the engagement process respectful of cultural norms and timelines?  Is the engagement topic important to the  13 - If so, does the engagement process consider how the community wants to engage with UBC? - Is the engagement process appropriate and specific to the community being engaged with? - If the community does not want to engage with UBC, does UBC know the reason? community?  Is the time commitment required by the community communicated and agreed upon?  Is the engagement process tailored to this community? Before/During  Plan for Accessibility Engagement activities should be universally accessible.  - To what extent have different kinds of engagements/events been set up to ensure that engagement is inclusive of the widest possible audience with different accessibility needs even if each event is not accessible or applicable to everyone?  Has the engagement calendar events list been planned according to the Checklist for Accessibility and Inclusive Event Planning at UBC?  If certain checklist items were not met, are proper substitutions made?  During  Communicate for Understanding Engagement should be easily understood.   Is the information written in plain language?  Has there been enough translation of language, concepts or phrases done to ensure mutual understanding between UBC and the community?   Is the engagement process understood by the community?  Can images be used to communicate concepts?  Are the images used culturally neutral and authentic?  If cultural images are used for multilingual engagement, are they used in a correct and respectable manner?  Provide a useful contribution for participation Engagement processes should offer something useful to the community or individual(s) participating.  - What should UBC consider as a meaningful contribution for individuals’ or communities’ participation? - Does the contribution take the form of food, gift certificates, stipend, transportation vouchers, or another  Was the community asked what they would appreciate as a meaningful contribution for their participation?  Is meaningful contribution provided to the community or individual in exchange for their participation?     14 creative solution? - Is the engagement budget sufficiently resourced to fund the contribution? *Throughout entire process – Foster Trust Nourish Community Development Engagement should develop and strengthen community connections within the community group, and across communities that may be facing similar barriers.    Does the engagement activity bridge connections and relationships to supply networking opportunities?  Are there community leaders in the community that can become peer leaders?  Can these peer community leaders meaningfully connect their community in the engagement process?  Are partnerships authentically present with other organisations?  Does the engagement activity allow for sharing of resources, knowledge and other forms of expertise between participants? Consider power dynamics  Engagement processes should acknowledge the power dynamics of parties involved in the decision-making process.     - What has been done to ensure the space is safe for people to express themselves? - How does the engagement process recognize the power imbalance between different parties, and is there the opportunity to change this situation to a noticeable degree? - How can UBC’s engagement process inform a sense of respect and legitimacy to the personal stories shared by participants? - What does UBC need to consider to ensure respect, confidentiality and anonymity of participants is supported?   Is the engagement process safe and comfortable?  Has the purpose of the engagement process (i.e., consultation, input, decision-making, etc.), been clarified at the invitation stage and again at the beginning of the activity?  Have the power dynamics between facilitator and participants been addressed? (i.e. Who is the expert in the engagement process?)   Does the engagement activity look to normalize peoples’ lived experience by surrounding them with others with similar experiences or backgrounds?  Is there space for story-telling from the participants?  How can the story-telling be respectfully incorporated into the engagement results?   Does the engagement activity specifically include resources for the community (e.g. tangible material or otherwise)?  15  Has UBC considered a reasonable ratio of staff to engagement participants?  After Report back to the community in a meaningful manner Share the outcomes of the engagement process and identify how participant input was used.  - What does UBC need to consider when publicly sharing about the engagement processes and outcomes?  - What does UBC need to consider if the information shared may not be what the individuals or communities are wishing to hear? - With publicly sharing, what does UBC need to consider when ensuring that the original intent from the participant is kept and authentic in the message? - How does what UBC produces reflect the stories of participants?    Are participant responses, anonymized where necessary, posted and publicly available?  Has the process of incorporating the participant input been clearly recorded and reported?  Was the engagement process evaluated using participant feedback?  Was the feedback integrated into Community-UBC relationships, communication and future planning projects?  References for Framework BC Centre for Disease Control. (n.d.). FACT Sheet: Supporting Health Equity through the Built Environment. Retrieved from BC Centre for Disease Control: http://www.bccdc.ca/resource-gallery/Documents/Educational%20Materials/EH/BCCDC_equity-fact-sheet_web.pdf Capital Health. (2011, March 16). Engagement Framework and Toolkit . Retrieved from North Simcoe Muskoka LHIN: http://www.nsmlhin.on.ca/communityengagement/~/media/4F9309E031C44680A3617A293BC0D4B3.ashx Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. (2018, August 20). Learning Together: How to Better Engage Marginalized Groups in Healthcare Systems. Retrieved from How to better engage marginalized groups in healthcare systems: https://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/news-events/news/article/how-to-better-engage-marginalized-groups-healthcare-systems/ Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. (n.d.). Slide Deck for Deliberative Engagement. Retrieved from https://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/SlideDeck_Deliberative-Engagement_NHEN-Presentation_August2018.pdf Jacklin Stonewall, K. F. (2017). Best Practices for Engaging Underserved Populations. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2017 Annual Meeting 130. M. Elizabeth Snow, K. T. (2018). Heard and valued: the development of a model to meaningfully engage marginalized populations in health services planning. BMC Health Services Research, 18 - 181. Novick, P. C. (2003). Building Inclusive Commnities: Cross-Canada Perspectives and Strategies. Ottawa: Federation of Canadian Municipalities.  16 Nursing Council of New Zealand. (2011). Guidelines for Cultural Safety, the Treaty of Waitangi and Maori Health in Nursing Education and Practice. Retrieved from Nursing Council: http://www.nursingcouncil.org.nz/index.php/content/download/721/2871/file/Guidelines%20for%20cultural%20safety,%20the%20Treaty%20of%20Waitangi,%20and%20Maori%20health%20in%20nursing%20education%20and%20practice.pdf Propel Centre for Population Health Impact. (2019). Best Practices in Reaching Underserved Groups for Deliberative Engagement and Public Dialogues. Waterloo, Ontario: Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, University of Waterloo. Snow, B. (2013, September). Patient Engagement: Heard and Valued. Retrieved from Fraser Health: https://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/sf-docs/default-source/patient-engagement/awesome_handbook-fraserhealth.pdf Social Planning Council of Sudbury. (n.d.). Engaging Marginalized Families. Retrieved from SPC of Sudbury: http://spcsudbury.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Engaging-Marginalized-Families2011SPC.pdf Social Planning Network of Ontario. (2010). Engaging Marginalized Communities for Better Health Outcomes. Peterborough: Ministry of Health Promotion. Stephanie R. Montesanti, J. A. (2017). Enabling the participation of marginalized populations: case studies from a health service organization in Ontario, Canada. Health Promotion International, 636-649.4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The compressed timeline of this project did not allow for Version Two to be fully tested against EIO events. Therefore, it is recommended that these principles be introduced to EIO staff, and then applied to EIO events moving forward. Future revisions of principles may still be required. Furthermore, research has shown that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach for community engagement. Therefore, research is needed into the best practices on how different groups understand consultation and engagement, what the implications are for this engagement process, and more concretely, how approaches to different groups need to be tailored to create appropriate and welcoming spaces for truly authentic engagement.  4.1 Feedback from April 6, 2019 Presentation Workshop Principle of Trust o Must be ongoing o May be difficult to implement o How to differentiate between distrust of UBC and relationship to EIO? o What are the implications? o Example: Filling out the EES o Authentically different in the work that is to do with inclusion o Foster trust in the process of engagement  Principle of Reporting back o May be difficult because some of the feedback is negative and hateful  Future uses o Resource on website o Include in toolkit to units o Conduct a case studies on each principle.  • I.e. Science can take on planning on accessibility and report back on their unit experience  Share with Operations and SDI stakeholders  Scale up efforts for a two way dialog in student and committees to see if the principles hold true   18 5.0 CONCLUSION Eight principles have been presented to the EIO for their use towards authentic engagement with specific consideration towards the inclusion of historically, persistently or systemically marginalized groups. These have been developed through literature reviews, revising principles from EIO staff feedback and attending EIO events. Due to the compressed timeline of this SEEDS project, more testing of EIO events against the eight principles will be needed. Revisions, based on staff and participant feedback, will likely be required. Additionally, continuing to pull on agencies, such as health authorities, that are working to bridge gaps between mainstream services and marginalized communities will need to continue.   19 6.0 REFERENCES 1. BC Human Rights Tribunal. (2019, March 27). BCHRT. Retrieved from Personal Characteristics Protected in the BC Human Rights Code: http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/human-rights-duties/characteristics.htm 2. Meeting, S. E. (2019, January 18). SEEDS EIO Meeting. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. The University of British Columbia. (2018). Shaping UBC’s Next Century. Retrieved from Strategic Plan: https://strategicplan.ubc.ca/ 4. The University of British Columbia. (2018). Shaping UBC’s Next Century. Retrieved from Strategic Plan: https://strategicplan.ubc.ca/ 5. Ibid 6. Universities Canada. (2017, October). Universities Canada Inclusive Excellence Principles. Retrieved from Universities Canada: https://www.univcan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/equity-diversity-inclusion-principles-universities-canada-oct-2017.pdf 7. Ibid 8. First Nations Health Authority. (2016, June 17). FNHA Policy Statement Cultural Safety and Humility. Retrieved from First Nations Health Authority: http://www.fnha.ca/documents/fnha-policy-statement-cultural-safety-and-humility.pdf 9. Snow, B. (2013, September). Patient Engagement: Heard and Valued. Retrieved from Fraser Health:https://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/sf-docs/default-source/patient-engagement/awesome_handbook-fraserhealth.pdf 10. Capital Health. (2011, March 16). Engagement Framework and Toolkit . Retrieved from North Simcoe Muskoka LHIN: http://www.nsmlhin.on.ca/communityengagement/~/media/4F9309E031C44680A3617A293BC0D4B3.ashx   20 7.0 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Inclusive Action Plan Goals Goal 1: Capacity-building: UBC will enhance institutional and individual capacities and skills to succeed in and advance inclusive environments.   Building on previous work at UBC, potential areas of action include:  • Education and training on equity, diversity, and inclusion for leadership, faculty, staff, and students • Networks and support systems for marginalized groups • Funding opportunities for community-led initiatives • Dialogue around difficult topics  Goal 2: Recruitment, Retention, and Success: UBC will actively recruit, support, retain, and advance students, faculty, staff, and leaders from systemically marginalized groups.        Building on previous work at UBC, potential areas of action include: • Better data collection and reporting on students, staff and faculty demographics and progress • Support for the Indigenous strategic plan • Creation of a workplace accommodation policy • Increased representation of diverse students, staff, and faculty • Building and developing skills to support diversity and inclusion at UBC and beyond  Goal 3: Systems Change: UBC will be intentional and proactive in changing systems, structures, policies, practices, and processes to advance equity, diversity, and inclusion.    Building on previous work at UBC, potential areas of action include:  • Review of employment practices and processes to eliminate barriers for historically, persistently, and systemically marginalized groups • Ceremonies and events include commitments to equity, diversity and inclusion • Consistency of equity, diversity, and inclusion work between and across campuses • Use of Universal Design to create welcoming and accessible physical and virtual spaces Goal 4: Learning, Research, and Engagement: UBC will foster environments of learning, research, and engagement that value building and exchanging multiple and  21 intersectional ways of knowing.       Building on previous work at UBC, potential areas of action include:  • Build intentional relationships with communities representing historically, persistently, and systemically marginalized groups • Create more student-led equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives • Develop mentoring programs • Create awards and incentives for equity, diversity, and inclusion • Equity, diversity and inclusion are supported and rewarded in scholarship, teaching, curriculum, course content and through our outreach principles.  Goal 5: Accountability: UBC will hold itself accountable to its commitment to inclusion through clear and timely processes, thorough evaluation, and transparent reporting to the UBC communities on its progress on this action plan.        Building on previous work at UBC, potential areas of action include:  • Evaluation and regular reporting on this Inclusion Action Plan • Inclusion Action Plans created for all Divisions and Faculties • Departmental and curricular external review processes include equity, diversity, and inclusion criteria • Improve data collection and transparency of reporting  22 Appendix 2: UBC Statement on Respectful Environment for Students, Faculty and Staff   UBC Statement on Respectful Environment for Students, Faculty and Staff      Approved by:  UBC Executive   Revision Date: May 2014         The University of British Columbia envisions a climate in which students, faculty and staff are provided with the best possible conditions for learning, researching and working, including an environment that is dedicated to excellence, equity and mutual respect. The University of British Columbia strives to realize this vision by establishing employment and educational practices that respect the dignity of individuals and make it possible for everyone to live, work, and study in a positive and supportive environment, free from harmful behaviours such as bullying and harassment.     A. Statement of Principle   The best possible environment for working, learning and living is one in which respect, civility, diversity, opportunity and inclusion are valued. Everyone at the University of British Columbia is expected to conduct themselves in a manner that upholds these principles in all communications and interactions with fellow UBC community members and the public in all University-related settings.   B. The Respectful University Environment     In the context of an academic community, responsibility for maintaining a respectful environment falls on all community members, including students, faculty, staff, and members of the public who participate in University-related activities.     Excellence in learning, research and work in the university community is fostered by promoting the freest possible exchange of information, ideas, beliefs and opinions in diverse forms, and it necessarily includes dissemination and discussion of controversial topics and unpopular points of view. Respect for the value of freedom of expression and promotion of free inquiry are central to the University’s mission.     However, these freedoms cannot exist without an equally vigorous commitment to recognition of and respect for the freedoms of others, and concern for the well-being of every member of the university community. Excellence in scholarship, teaching and employment activities flows from active concern and respect for others, including their ability to participate meaningfully in the exchange of information, ideas, beliefs and opinions.   Therefore, freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry must be exercised responsibly, in ways that recognize and respect the dignity of others, having careful regard to the dynamics of different  23 relationships within the university environment, such as between professor and student, or supervisor and employee. A respectful environment is a climate in which the human dignity of each individual is valued, and the diverse perspectives, ideas and experiences of all members of the community are able to flourish.     C. Activities Harmful to a Respectful Environment     Activities harmful to a respectful environment include behaviours ranging from expressions of disrespect such as rudeness and gossip, to bullying or harassment. Disrespectful behaviour, including bullying or harassment, is harmful to a respectful environment and therefore has no place at UBC. It is not only a direct attack on the dignity and worth of the individual or group at whom it is directed, it undermines the freedoms of the whole community. For these reasons, disrespectful behaviour, including bullying or harassment, is not acceptable and will not be tolerated at UBC.    Bullying or harassment is objectionable and unwanted behaviour that is verbally or physically abusive, vexatious or hostile, that is without reasonable justification, and that creates a hostile or intimidating environment for working, learning or living. Harassment may be intentional or unintentional. While bullying or harassment usually consists of repeated acts, a single serious incident that has a lasting harmful effect may also constitute bullying or harassment.    Bullying or harassing behaviour includes cumulative demeaning or intimidating comments, gestures or conduct; verbal aggression or yelling; threats to a person’s employment or educational status, person or property; persistent comments or conduct, including ostracism or exclusion of a person, that undermines an individual’s self-esteem so as to compromise their ability to achieve work or study goals; abuse of power, authority or position; sabotage of a person’s work; humiliating initiation practices; hazing; calling someone derogatory names; spreading of malicious rumours or lies; or making malicious or vexatious complaints about a person.      Bullying or harassment does not include the exercise of appropriate managerial or supervisory direction, including performance management and the imposition of discipline; constructive criticism; respectful expression of differences of opinions; reasonable changes to assignments or duties; correction of inappropriate student behaviour; instructional techniques such as irony, conjecture, and refutation, or assigning readings or other instructional materials that advocate controversial positions; and single incidents of thoughtless, petty or foolish words or acts that cause fleeting harm.     A determination that disrespectful behaviour, including bullying or harassment, has occurred is based not only on what the alleged perpetrator and target of the disrespectful behaviour actually experienced, knew, or understood about each other and the situation, but on what a reasonable person in each of their  24 circumstances would have experienced, known or understood, taking into account the full context of the situation.     D. Addressing Respectful Environment Concerns     Primary responsibility for addressing respectful environment concerns, including concerns about bullying or harassment lies with all members of the UBC community who exercise supervisory or leadership roles. These individuals are well-placed to set examples for others by their own conduct, to communicate to those under their direction UBC’s commitment to a respectful university environment, and to take appropriate action to preserve or restore a respectful environment if problems arise. They are expected to take steps to maintain an environment free from disrespectful behaviour, and to prevent such behaviour, where possible.     REPORTING OF CONCERNS / INCIDENTS / COMPLAINTS  Specifically, when faculty, staff or student employees have concerns about disrespectful behaviour they have experienced or witnessed, they should contact their direct supervisor or Administrative Head of Unit.     Students who have concerns outside of any employment relationship with UBC should contact their professor, Department Head or Dean’s Office, if their concern relates to a course or academic matter. If the concern relates to a UBC service unit or a residence, students should contact the Unit Head of the particular service or the Vice-President, Students Office at UBC Vancouver, or the Unit Head or the Associate Vice-President, Students at UBC Okanagan.     Where the issue is not resolved or there is concern about conflict of interest, including where a faculty or staff member feels bullied or harassed by their direct supervisor, faculty and staff should contact their employee association, union, or Human Resources. In such circumstances, students should contact the UBC Ombudsperson or the Associate Vice-President, Students.     INVESTIGATION OF CONCERNS/INCIDENTS/COMPLAINTS  Administrative Heads of Units, whether responding to a concern raised to them or taking action because they have otherwise become aware that a person may be engaging in disrespectful behaviour in their unit, are expected to act promptly to determine if behaviour contrary to the Respectful Environment Statement including incidents of bullying or harassment has occurred or is ongoing, and if so, to address the behaviour and its damaging effects. Support and advice are available from Human Resources.   25     RESPONSIBILITY FOR AWARENESS AND EDUCATION   It is the responsibility of each Vice President, in cooperation with Human Resources, to ensure that those in supervisory or leadership roles in their portfolio have access to the proper training necessary to understand rights and responsibilities in a respectful working, learning and living environment, including their own responsibility to recognize, investigate, respond to, and manage complaints of harassment and to educate those they supervise or lead regarding those rights and responsibilities.     Education, increased awareness and prompt action are vital to create and maintain respectful working, learning and living environments at UBC. The University must provide training, support and resources to raise awareness about the principles of a respectful working, learning and living environment and to address concerns in a positive and effective manner when they do occur.    The following link provides more detailed procedures for faculty, staff or student employees and for those who have the primary responsibility of addressing respectful environment concerns:    http://bullyingandharassment.sites.olt.ubc.ca/    E. Related Policies and Provisions     Where policies and mechanisms for addressing unacceptable conduct already exist, whether in work, education or living contexts, this Respectful Environment Statement is intended to supplement, not to displace them.  In particular, matters relating to discrimination or harassment based on age, ancestry, colour, family status, marital status, physical or mental disability, place of origin, political belief, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and criminal conviction unrelated to employment are addressed in Policy #3, the UBC Policy on Discrimination and Harassment. Those with concerns that may constitute complaints under Policy #3 should refer to Policy #3 itself for information on how to proceed. Where a concern raised under the Respectful Environment Statement is appropriately addressed under another policy or provision, Administrative Heads of Units and others responsible for addressing respectful environment concerns will direct the individual to the appropriate office.  Departmental policies regarding respectful environments can add to but not derogate from the principles in this statement.   26 Appendix 3: Universities Canada Inclusive Excellence Principles   27 Appendix 4: UBC Context Documents 1. Valuing Difference:  A Strategy for Advancing Equity & Diversity at UBC (2009) 2. Conversations in Wellbeing: Vehicles for Campus Engagement (2015) 3. Conversations in Wellbeing: A UBC-wide community engagement effort (2015) 4. Principles for UBC-Musqueam Collaboration 5. UBC Inclusion and Connection Mapping Analysis: Towards Developing a UBC Wellbeing Action Framework for Inclusion and Connection (2017) 6. Engagement Principles and Guiding Practices 7. External example: Consultation Toolkit and Equality Impact Assessment 8. Draft – Inclusion Action Plan 9. Draft – Indigenous Strategic Plan (v5, 19 July 2018) 10. Place and Promise – UBC Strategic Plan (2012)  Appendix 5: List of comparable universities 1. Berkley University  https://history.berkeley.edu/resources/equity-diversity-inclusion 2. Dartmouth University https://inclusive.dartmouth.edu/ 3. First Nations University of Canada https://www.idees-ideas.ca/blog/equity-matters-ideas-can-build-more-equitable-canada 4. Massey University - https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/PolicyGuide/Documents/Academic/Equity%20of%20Access%20to%20Educational%20Opportunities%20Policy.pdf?C44160C43EBB176C24F947A2A19EDE41 5. McGill University https://www.mcgill.ca/equity_diversity/about-us 6. Ryerson University https://www.ryerson.ca/equity/ 7. Quest University https://questu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/student_accommodation_policy-1.pdf 8. University of Alberta  https://www.ualberta.ca/faculty-and-staff/equity-diversity-inclusion 9. University of Arizona   https://diversity.arizona.edu/best-practices-creating-diverse-and-inclusive-university 10. Portland State University   https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1172211.pdf 11. University of Otago          https://www.otago.ac.nz/administration/policies/otago666398.html 12. University of Toronto  www.research.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/EDRI-WG-Report-Recommendations-2018.pdf    28  Appendix 6: March 14, 2019 EIO Workshop sheet and feedback Best Practices in Community Engagement Worksheet Purpose: This worksheet hopes to guide a generative engagement process regarding the draft principles and measurements.   Outcome: Obtain EIO feedback that will inform the final report.  Draft Principle 1: Listen and affirm. Reflect and iterate. Unlearn and learn. Take responsibility. Researcher’s comment: This is the overarching umbrella principle for all the following principles. Part 1: EIO Staff Feedback/Thoughts - This takes time and will be hard to do with fixed deadlines we have in place. There is not rally room to reimagine or relearn  Part 2: Measurement brainstorm: - To what extent did feedback along the way alter the engagement process? - Annual engagement processes - Thematic forums - Annual mapping - Satisfaction and quality surveys  Draft Principle 2: Commit to and align engagement process with EDI as a high-level university/institutional priority.  Researcher’s comment: Reinforces continued existing EDI work that is existing.   Part 1: EIO Staff Feedback/Thoughts Part 2: Measurement brainstorm: - Adapting of IAP Actions into unit plan - To what extent do EDI priorities show up to support the engagement process and provide some assistance that the engagement will be valid and valuable? - High level of acceptance of making it a priority. Top to bottom commitment to reinforcing EDI work on campus - EDI is explicitly included in institutional plans. - # participants - Website data - Annual reports - Satisfaction surveys - Stakeholder information - Benchmarking/progress indicators Draft Principle 3: Reach out to people/communities on how and whether they would like to be Researcher’s comment: Note the importance of ‘whether they would like.’ The ability to decline is also a sign of respect. Any  29 engaged.  thoughts?  Question: How would the EDI office know a group was approached, and then declined, rather than not approached at all?  Part 1: EIO Staff Feedback/Thoughts - I do not trust you to engage me Part 2: Measurement brainstorm: - Demonstrated active participation and collaboration/planning with communities in consultation and engagement activities - How many invitations to difficult consultants group within communities? What “gatekeepers” are accessed?  - Are marginalized communities involved in leading and designing the consultation process?  - High level of trust, reason given for saying no (feeling satisfied vs. low trust) the informed no  Draft Principle 4: Within the constraints that exist within the university, the explicit recognition of inequity is followed up with a robust commitment to search for opportunities to change   Researcher’s comment: Principle attempts to recognize that large institutions do not change overnight, and we are not trying to over-promise. This principle acknowledges that there are constraints. Within these constraints, there is recognition of inequalities and ALSO action to follow up on these inequalities. The goal is to change the status quo. Part 1: EIO Staff Feedback/Thoughts Part 2: Measurement brainstorm: - Demonstrated connection in action formation/generation to commitments to change. I.e. Action and examples of inequity trying to be connected and addressed - How often is the approval process referenced and public, so people are aware (even if not sure they understand)? - Review actions taken by previous engagement with the same communities Draft Principle 5: Consider the extent to which the engagement process elevates the voices of, and makes decisions on behalf of, historically, persistently, and systematically marginalized populations. Researcher’s comment: Rather than caution in making decisions for communities – which likely will have to happen at the senior level – consideration of the extent to which engagement can elevate priorities of, or make decisions for, communities must be done. Recognition that there are multiple voices in a  30  community, and which voices are heard needs to be considered. The process, ultimately, should be about how to balance the different voices and different priorities within a community.  Part 1: EIO Staff Feedback/Thoughts Part 2: Measurement brainstorm: - Marginalized communities feel high level of satisfaction/engagement? Draft Principle 6: Within the constraints of this process, be transparent in intent, process, reflection and outcome for the engagement.  Researcher’s comment: Like Point 4, a university will have constraints regarding transparency, but should still strive for a transparent and iterative process.  Part 1: EIO Staff Feedback/Thoughts - We also need to be transparent about the tensions with our engagement process and that the very nature of how UBC engages institutionally. - Make all feedback visible - Clear lines between feedback and action Part 2: Measurement brainstorm: - Explicit information => Sharing of tensions - Increased understanding of how information will be used and synthesis for final outcome and product Draft Principle 7: Allow marginalized people to ‘see themselves’ throughout the process, reflection and outcome.   Researcher’s comment: Historically, persistently and systematically marginalised people should be able to feed information into the process and see this throughout the process. Part 1: EIO Staff Feedback/Thoughts - Technology - While ensuring that onus of responsibility and burden not placed on there Part 2: Measurement brainstorm: - Feedback/input/activities/strategies that are very specific to them   Overall comments: - Struggle is what are they trying to achieve with the principles is MEANINGFUL consultation. Hard to measure because it should be something the communities determine. Therefore, there should be a focus on seeing more trust and better relationships with these communities rather than metrics for individual principles.   31 - Can we measure principles? Or do we define goals that we want to achieve for each principle?  - Easier to measure practices than concepts or ideas? - Assumptions that there are baselines to measure against - Suggestion: To think about the framing of principle in a grid Principle Goals Measures Listen and affirm. Reflect and iterate. Unlearn and learn. Take responsibility.   Commit to and align engagement process with EDI as a high-level university/institutional priority.   Reach out to people/communities on how and whether they would like to be engaged.    Within the constraints that exist within the university, the explicit recognition of inequity is followed up with a robust commitment to search for opportunities to change     Consider the extent to which the engagement process elevates the voices of, and makes decisions on behalf of, historically, persistently, and systematically marginalized populations.    Within the constraints of this process, be transparent in intent, process, reflection and outcome for the engagement.   Allow marginalized people to ‘see themselves’ throughout the process, reflection and outcome.        32 Appendix 7: List of municipalities and planning firms reviewed 1. Alberta Urban Municipalities Association Measuring Inclusion Tool https://auma.ca/sites/default/files/Advocacy/Programs_Initiatives/WIC/measuring_inclusion_tool_-_paper_user_0.pdf 2. City for All Women Initiative Advancing Equity and Inclusion: A guide for municipalities http://www.cawi-ivtf.org/sites/default/files/publications/advancing-equity-inclusion-web_0.pdf 3. Federation of  Canadian Municipalities https://cdhalton.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Clutterbuck_Novick_Paper_Inclusive_Communities.pdf 4. Human Impact Partners Guide – www.healthequityguide.org 5. PlanH Active Communities Action Guide https://planh.ca/sites/default/files/tools-resources/2018_09_17_activecommunities_ag_v01_2018_web.pdf 6. Northampton, UK – Consultation Tool Kit https://www.northampton.gov.uk/downloads/file/7327/consultation-toolkit 7. Peterborough’s Social Planning Council Engaging Marginalized Communities for Better Health Outcomes  http://www.pspc.on.ca/sites/default/files/attach/consultation_report_october.pdf 8. Social Planning of Sudbury, Ontario http://spcsudbury.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Engaging-Marginalized-Families2011SPC.pdf 9. SPARC BC’s Community Engagement Tool -  https://www.sparc.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/community-engagement-toolkit.pdf 10. UBC Campus Community Planning https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/planning.ubc.ca/files/images/UBC_CCP_EngagementCharter%20April%202016.pdf  33 Appendix 8: List of health authorities 1. BC Centre for Disease Control Fact Sheet: Supporting Health Equity through the Built Environment http://www.bccdc.ca/resource-gallery/Documents/Educational%20Materials/EH/BCCDC_equity-fact-sheet_web.pdf 2. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer https://s22457.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Environmental-Scan-Best-Practices-in-Reaching-Underserved-EN.pdf https://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/SlideDeck_Deliberative-Engagement_NHEN-Presentation_August2018.pdf 3. Fraser Health Patient Engagement Heard and Valued https://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/sf-docs/default-source/patient-engagement/awesome_handbook-fraserhealth.pdf 4. First Nations Health Authority  http://www.fnha.ca/documents/fnha-policy-statement-cultural-safety-and-humility.pdf 5. Maori Health - http://www.nursingcouncil.org.nz/index.php/content/download/721/2871/file/Guidelines%20for%20cultural%20safety,%20the%20Treaty%20of%20Waitangi,%20and%20Maori%20health%20in%20nursing%20education%20and%20practice.pdf http://www.pspc.on.ca/sites/default/files/attach/consultation_report_october.pdf       34 Appendix 9: Photos from IKB Pop Up Event, March 22, 2019       35                                                1 100 year plan 2 The UBC community will not include the University Neighbourhood Association.  3   http: //www.bchrt.bc.ca/human-rights-duti es/charac teristics.htm 4 https ://www.hr.ubc.ca/r espec tful-envir onment/ files /UBC-Statement-on-Respectful-Environment-2014.pdf 5 ibid 6 https ://www.uni vcan.ca/wp-content/upl oads/2017/10/equity- di versity-i nclusion-principles-uni versiti es-canada- oct- 2017.pdf 7 ibid 8 FNHA C ultural Safety 9 Fraser Health H eal th Car e planni ngfra 10 Capital  Health – IAP2    Principles for Engagement Framework Checklist Cycle  Engagement Principles Description Considerations Measurements  *Throughout entire process – Foster Trust Before  Foster Trust* Authentic and meaningful engagement with historically, persistently or systemically marginalized communities at UBC must be done on a foundation of trust.   Fostering trust should also be a principle that is upheld throughout the entire engagement process.  - UBC must work to consider its decisions in the context of creating trust with communities. The communities must trust UBC. - To what extent has UBC acknowledged any history in its attempts to build relationships with this community – and proved its understanding of the harm that it may have caused.   - Does UBC have the time to build reciprocal relationships in time for the engagement activity? - Is the engagement activity short-term, or long-term? - To what extent can UBC commit to improving or repairing the relationship?  - Does UBC know who, among UBC’s community, is considered an ally of the community at this time?  - Can UBC build relationships among community leaders and allies of the community?  - Are the UBC staff engaging with communities empathetic and well trained with proper techniques?  Is UBC partnered with community allies? If yes, how many and what is the quality of the partnership?  Is there public endorsement for engagement from within UBC (i.e. the President or a Dean), and a member of the community that is being engaged with?  Respect schedules and cultural norms Engagement process should strive to respect community schedule and cultural norms.  - To what extent can UBC test if the community wants to participate with the engagement activity? - If so, does the engagement process consider how the community wants to engage with UBC? - Is the engagement process appropriate and specific to the community being engaged with? - If the community does not want to engage with UBC, does UBC know the reason?  Is the engagement process respectful of cultural norms and timelines?  Is the engagement topic important to the community?  Is the time commitment required by the community communicated and agreed upon?  Is the engagement process tailored to this community? Before/During  Plan for Accessibility Engagement activities should be universally accessible.  - To what extent have different kinds of engagements/events been set up to ensure that engagement is inclusive of the widest possible audience with different accessibility needs even if each event is not accessible or applicable to everyone?  Has the engagement calendar events list been planned according to the Checklist for Accessibility and Inclusive Event Planning at UBC?  If certain checklist items were not met, are proper substitutions made?  During  Communicate for Understanding Engagement should be easily understood.   Is the information written in plain language?  Has there been enough translation of language, concepts or phrases done to ensure mutual understanding between UBC and the community?   Is the engagement process understood by the community?  Can images be used to communicate concepts?  Are the images used culturally neutral and authentic?  If cultural images are used for multilingual engagement, are they used in a correct and respectable manner?  Provide a useful contribution for participation Engagement processes should offer something useful to the community or individual(s) participating.  - What should UBC consider as a meaningful contribution for individuals’ or communities’ participation?  Was the community asked what they would appreciate as a meaningful contribution for their participation?  - Does the contribution take the form of food, gift certificates, stipend, transportation vouchers, or another creative solution? - Is the engagement budget sufficiently resourced to fund the contribution?  Is meaningful contribution provided to the community or individual in exchange for their participation?   *Throughout entire process – Foster Trust Nourish Community Development Engagement should develop and strengthen community connections within the community group, and across communities that may be facing similar barriers.    Does the engagement activity bridge connections and relationships to supply networking opportunities?  Are there community leaders in the community that can become peer leaders?  Can these peer community leaders meaningfully connect their community in the engagement process?  Are partnerships authentically present with other organisations?  Does the engagement activity allow for sharing of resources, knowledge and other forms of expertise between participants? Consider power dynamics  Engagement processes should acknowledge the power dynamics of parties involved in the decision-making process.     - What has been done to ensure the space is safe for people to express themselves? - How does the engagement process recognize the power imbalance between different parties, and is there the opportunity to change this situation to a noticeable degree? - How can UBC’s engagement process inform a sense of respect and legitimacy to the personal stories shared by participants? - What does UBC need to consider to ensure respect, confidentiality and anonymity of participants is supported?   Is the engagement process safe and comfortable?  Has the purpose of the engagement process (i.e., consultation, input, decision-making, etc.), been clarified at the invitation stage and again at the beginning of the activity?  Have the power dynamics between facilitator and participants been addressed? (i.e. Who is the expert in the engagement process?)   Does the engagement activity look to normalize peoples’ lived experience by surrounding them with others with similar experiences or backgrounds?  Is there space for story-telling from the participants?  How can the story-telling be respectfully incorporated into the engagement results?   Does the engagement activity specifically include resources for the community (e.g. tangible material or otherwise)?  Has UBC considered a reasonable ratio of staff to engagement participants?  After Report back to the community in a meaningful manner Share the outcomes of the engagement process and identify how participant input was used.  - What does UBC need to consider when publicly sharing about the engagement processes and outcomes?  - What does UBC need to consider if the information shared may not be what the individuals or communities are wishing to hear? - With publicly sharing, what does UBC need to consider when ensuring that the original intent from the participant is kept and authentic in the message? - How does what UBC produces reflect the stories of participants?    Are participant responses, anonymized where necessary, posted and publicly available?  Has the process of incorporating the participant input been clearly recorded and reported?  Was the engagement process evaluated using participant feedback?  Was the feedback integrated into Community-UBC relationships, communication and future planning projects?  References for Framework BC Centre for Disease Control. (n.d.). FACT Sheet: Supporting Health Equity through the Built Environment. Retrieved from BC Centre for Disease Control: http://www.bccdc.ca/resource-gallery/Documents/Educational%20Materials/EH/BCCDC_equity-fact-sheet_web.pdf Capital Health. (2011, March 16). Engagement Framework and Toolkit . Retrieved from North Simcoe Muskoka LHIN: http://www.nsmlhin.on.ca/communityengagement/~/media/4F9309E031C44680A3617A293BC0D4B3.ashx Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. (2018, August 20). Learning Together: How to Better Engage Marginalized Groups in Healthcare Systems. Retrieved from How to better engage marginalized groups in healthcare systems: https://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/news-events/news/article/how-to-better-engage-marginalized-groups-healthcare-systems/ Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. (n.d.). Slide Deck for Deliberative Engagement. Retrieved from https://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/SlideDeck_Deliberative-Engagement_NHEN-Presentation_August2018.pdf Jacklin Stonewall, K. F. (2017). Best Practices for Engaging Underserved Populations. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2017 Annual Meeting 130. M. Elizabeth Snow, K. T. (2018). Heard and valued: the development of a model to meaningfully engage marginalized populations in health services planning. BMC Health Services Research, 18 - 181. Novick, P. C. (2003). Building Inclusive Commnities: Cross-Canada Perspectives and Strategies. Ottawa: Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.66428.1-0386712/manifest

Comment

Related Items