The National Community Inclusion
Initiative:
Building the Capacity of Organizations to
Evaluate Systems Change
Jason Newberry, PhD
Senior Researcher
Centre for Community
Based Research
Kitchener, ON
Jaime Lee Brown
PhD Candidate
Department of Psychology
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON
Canadian Evaluation Society
Quebec City, May 13th, 2008
www.communitybasedresearch.ca
 We
are a non-profit and independent communitybased research organization located in Kitchener,
Ontario, Canada.
 We engage in diverse streams of work, including
applied research and evaluation, systems change
initiatives, training & education, facilitation &
planning, and international consulting.
 Our values emphasize community participation,
action, and relevance in the work we do.
Our focus areas include:
• Mental Health & Addictions, Disabilities, Family Support & Early
Child Development, Cultural Diversity, Organizational Change.
Our evaluation experience is extensive:
• small, local, program-focused evaluations.
• Large, national, multi-sector evaluations concerned with systems
change and complex interventions.
• Organization evaluation capacity building and education.
• Many different types of interventions and initiatives –
individualized programs, group programs, educational initiatives,
policy and systems change, community development.
The Purpose of Today’s Presentation




Introduce the National Community Inclusion
Initiative and its goals.
Describe the evaluation needs of the Canadian
Association for Community Living and its
national partners.
Review our approach to evaluating systems
change.
Discuss our findings to date, future work, and
general implications for evaluating complex,
systems-level interventions.
What is the Community Inclusion Initiative?



A national initiative composed of P/T Associations for
Community Living and People First of Canada, from
1998 to the present. Funded by HRSDC.
Across the country ACLs have been partnering with
communities and other organizations to address
fundamental barriers to inclusion of people with
intellectual.
The Goal: “To build capacity that communities require
to successfully include people with intellectual
disabilities in ways that promote their roles as full
citizens in society”
A Major Learning and a Major Transition



The initiative has reached many people –
thousands of families in 600 communities –
but the partners recognized that it was a
constant uphill battle.
CI helped people on an individual or limited
organizational level, but systems remained
the same – they perpetuated exclusion.
The initiative engaged in a transformation so
that their work focused on changing systems.
Evaluating Programs vs. Systems
Single,
small, local
program
complexity
Multiple
programs, sites,
focus on systems
• focus on benefits /
changes to individual
people
• focuses on changes to
systems to in turn benefit
people
• direct control over
activities & infl. on
outcomes
• less control over activities;
far less control over the way
people will eventually
influenced.
• theory of change is
specific & targeted
• most often,
outcomes are known in
advance
• implementation errs
on side of consistency
• theory of change is general
• outcomes are often not
known in specific sense
• implementation is strategic
but may deviate from plan:
opportunistic & flexible
 These
differences reflect different levels of
ecological systems theory.
 Systems change intervenes at a higher
ecological level.
 Prevention-focus, community or population-level
target.
An Example in Community Inclusion –
Inclusive Education
Individual Model
 Working with
individual families to
teach them how to
navigate the system,
know their rights,
etc.
 Advocating with
individual teachers
and schools to
address exclusion.
Systems Model
 Partnering with
teachers unions,
boards, principals to
promote inclusion.
 Developing best
practices and policy
positions and
working with
government to
implement them.
The challenge of evaluating systems change
Systems change evolves – its difficult to specify many
activities and outcomes in advance.
 Activities are many steps removed from actual benefits to
people. Little control over specific impact.
 Measurement & design is challenging b/c theory of change
evolves over time.
 Gov’t & other funders priviledge pre-specified interventions
and a priori evaluations.
 At outset, limited to making connections between general
forms of interventions and general outcomes.
“If we do A, B, and C, good things will tend to happen”. It’s
really the same rationale as to why we go to conferences
like CES.

How do we address these difficulties?





Create an overarching systems-level logic model
that describes what the systems change theory
looks like in a general sense.
Apply this general model to local settings &
initiatives.
Get specific and concrete by developing very
detailed “implementation chains”.
Detail the theory of change – what worked, what
did not – “on the fly”.
Collect supporting data. Focus on tracking
implementation and short-term changes.
For example…
 “Effective
Partnerships” are viewed as key
mechanisms for systems change. But the term is
vague and so is practice.
 We must track what actually happens in
partnerships to see if best practices emerge that
go beyond basic understandings.
 We have to know how partnerships link to other
aspects of the systems change initiative – to the
community, to policy, to research, etc.
 Building a theory of systems change requires
ongoing, flexible, developmental evaluation.
The Role CCBR – Part I
1.
2.
3.
Revisit and review past learnings of
Community Inclusion initiatives & community
priorities.
Develop a framework that captures systemslevel change and helps drive project planning,
monitoring and evaluation.
Support national partners to develop systemsfocused community inclusion projects
consistent with the framewok.
The Challenge: Building a Theory of Social
Innovation & Systems Change
We needed to develop a framework that:




created clarity about how projects are intervening in order
to change systems.
described long “implementation chains” – simply put, lots
has to happen, and in order, to get to systems change.
What needed to track the sequence of systems change
activities
showed commonalities and differences between P/Ts.
demonstrate how CI can be viewed as a unified national
initiative (how P/Ts and local projects share common goals and
work toward them in similar ways).

generate and share innovative strategies in systems
change to improve practice and evaluation.
COMMUNITY INCLUSION
Guiding
Principle
s
CI Mission
To foster citizenship engagement in development and implementation of public policies, practices, and
community systems to strengthen and sustain the capacities of local communities…
Self-determination
Equality & Equity
Priority
Areas
Autonomy & decision-making
Community-based interventions
Deinstitutionalization
Education
Support for personal relationships
Participation & Full Citizenship
Income &
Employment
•Public Awareness & Dialogue (e.g. community forums, plain
Common
Mechanisms
Housing
Social & Economic Integration
Accessible communities
Family &
Disability
Supports
Community
Associational
Life & Capacity
•Research & Information (e.g., research studies)
•Knowledge Networking (e.g., conferences)
•Policy Development (e.g. policy position papers)
language)
•Community Capacity Building (e.g. developing partnerships,
leadership, training, strengthening PF chapters)
Changes to resources, practices, relationships, etc.
Outputs &
Short-term
Outcomes
Long-term
Outcomes
Goal
Resources
• Creation, access to,
and use of new learning
& action resources
• Sustainable finances
• Community space
Policy/practice
Creation of or
changes to
policies
supportive of
inclusion;
changes in
practice
Collaboration/N
etworks
Positive change &
maintenance in
participation,
group capacity,
operations,
climate, etc.
Knowledge creation
& sharing
Strategies for research &
evaluation, knowledge
dissemination,
mobilization, networks,
awareness
Changes to Individuals
Increases/improvements in…
• knowledge & skills, learning & sharing
• motivation, participation, engagement
• advocacy & leadership
• inclusive practices
•
giving and receiving support
More INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENTS and corresponding improvements to…
• Safety • Education • Family & Social support • Personal Relationships • Economic security
Community & Civic Participation • Health & Quality of Life •
•
Local communities are fully inclusive of people with intellectual
disabilities and their families.
COMMUNITY INCLUSION
Guiding
Principle
s
CI Mission
To foster citizenship engagement in development and implementation of public policies, practices, and
community systems to strengthen and sustain the capacities of local communities…
Self-determination
Equality & Equity
Priority
Areas
Autonomy & decision-making
Community-based interventions
Deinstitutionalization
Education
Support for personal relationships
Participation & Full Citizenship
Income &
Employment
•Public Awareness & Dialogue (e.g. community forums, plain
Common
Mechanisms
language)
•Community Capacity Building (e.g. developing partnerships,
Housing
Social & Economic Integration
Accessible communities
Family &
Disability
Supports
Community
Associational
Life & Capacity
•Research & Information (e.g., research studies)
•Knowledge Networking (e.g., conferences)
•Policy Development (e.g. policy position papers)
leadership, training, strengthening PF chapters)
Individuals changes…
Changes to structures and processes…
Outputs &
Short-term
Outcomes
Community
Outcomes
(changes
experienced by
individuals &
families)
Goal
Resources
• Creation, access to,
and use of new learning
& action resources
• Sustainable finances
• Community space
Policy/practice
Creation of or
changes to
policies
supportive of
inclusion;
changes in
practice
Collaboration/N
etworks
Positive change &
maintenance in
participation,
group capacity,
operations,
climate, etc.
Knowledge creation
& sharing
Strategies for research &
evaluation, knowledge
dissemination,
mobilization, networks,
awareness
Increases/improvements in…
• knowledge & skills, learning & sharing
• motivation, participation, engagement
• advocacy & leadership
• inclusive practices
•
giving and receiving support
More INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENTS and corresponding improvements to…
• Safety • Education • Family & Social support • Personal Relationships • Economic security
Community & Civic Participation • Health & Quality of Life •
•
Local communities are fully inclusive of people with intellectual
disabilities and their families.
There are six Priority Areas (or Sectors) that make up the National
Community Inclusion Project.
Priority Areas
Deinstitutionalization
Education
Income &
Employment
Housing
Family &
Disability
Supports
Community
Associational
Life &
Capacity
• Multiple P/Ts are developing projects within each of the six
priority areas. Each P/T is engaging in at least one priority, but
often more than one.
• The six areas share the same overall mission/goal of CI, but also
have their own goals as well.
• Each priority area has its own visual model (which we will get to)
that is consistent with (and very similar to) the overall framework.
COMMUNITY INCLUSION
Guiding
Principle
s
CI Mission
To foster citizenship engagement in development and implementation of public policies, practices, and
community systems to strengthen and sustain the capacities of local communities…
Self-determination
Equality & Equity
Priority
Areas
Autonomy & decision-making
Community-based interventions
Deinstitutionalization
Education
Support for personal relationships
Participation & Full Citizenship
Income &
Employment
•Public Awareness & Dialogue (e.g. community forums, plain
Common
Mechanisms
language)
•Community Capacity Building (e.g. developing partnerships,
Housing
Social & Economic Integration
Accessible communities
Family &
Disability
Supports
Community
Associational
Life & Capacity
•Research & Information (e.g., research studies)
•Knowledge Networking (e.g., conferences)
•Policy Development (e.g. policy position papers)
leadership, training, strengthening PF chapters)
Individuals changes…
Changes to structures and processes…
System
outcomes
Community
Outcomes
(changes
experienced by
individuals &
families)
Goal
Resources
• Creation, access to,
and use of new learning
& action resources
• Sustainable finances
• Community space
Policy/practice
Creation of or
changes to
policies
supportive of
inclusion;
changes in
practice
Collaboration/N
etworks
Positive change &
maintenance in
participation,
group capacity,
operations,
climate, etc.
Knowledge creation
& sharing
Strategies for research &
evaluation, knowledge
dissemination,
mobilization, networks,
awareness
Increases/improvements in…
• knowledge & skills, learning & sharing
• motivation, participation, engagement
• advocacy & leadership
• inclusive practices
•
giving and receiving support
More INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENTS and corresponding improvements to…
• Safety • Education • Family & Social support • Personal Relationships • Economic security
Community & Civic Participation • Health & Quality of Life •
•
Local communities are fully inclusive of people with intellectual
disabilities and their families.
What are mechanisms for…?
Common Mechanisms
•Public Awareness & Dialogue (e.g.
•Research & Information (e.g., research
community forums, plain language)
•Community Capacity Building (e.g.
developing partnerships, leadership, training,
strengthening PF chapters)
studies)
•Knowledge Networking (e.g.,
conferences)
•Policy Development (e.g., policy position
papers, policy advocacy)
Mechanisms provide some guidance to for P/Ts on how and where to focus
their efforts – they lead to more specific and concrete activities.
They help unify the projects together under general areas of systems
intervention
They allow us to see where our efforts are being focused in each sector and
help us organize information in away that will facilitate sharing, collaboration,
proposal writing, and reporting.
A main objective of our sector forums is to discuss specific CI activities in the
COMMUNITY INCLUSION
Guiding
Principle
s
CI Mission
To foster citizenship engagement in development and implementation of public policies, practices, and
community systems to strengthen and sustain the capacities of local communities…
Self-determination
Equality & Equity
Priority
Areas
Autonomy & decision-making
Community-based interventions
Deinstitutionalization
Education
Support for personal relationships
Participation & Full Citizenship
Income &
Employment
•Public Awareness & Dialogue (e.g. community forums, plain
Common
Mechanisms
language)
•Community Capacity Building (e.g. developing partnerships,
Housing
Social & Economic Integration
Accessible communities
Family &
Disability
Supports
Community
Associational
Life & Capacity
•Research & Information (e.g., research studies)
•Knowledge Networking (e.g., conferences)
•Policy Development (e.g. policy position papers)
leadership, training, strengthening PF chapters)
Individuals changes…
Changes to structures and processes…
Outputs &
Short-term
Outcomes
Community
Outcomes
(changes
experienced by
individuals &
families)
Goal
Resources
• Creation, access to,
and use of new learning
& action resources
• Sustainable finances
• Community space
Policy/practice
Creation of or
changes to
policies
supportive of
inclusion;
changes in
practice
Collaboration/N
etworks
Positive change &
maintenance in
participation,
group capacity,
operations,
climate, etc.
Knowledge creation
& sharing
Strategies for research &
evaluation, knowledge
dissemination,
mobilization, networks,
awareness
Increases/improvements in…
• knowledge & skills, learning & sharing
• motivation, participation, engagement
• advocacy & leadership
• inclusive practices
•
giving and receiving support
More INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENTS and corresponding improvements to…
• Safety • Education • Family & Social support • Personal Relationships • Economic security
Community & Civic Participation • Health & Quality of Life •
•
Local communities are fully inclusive of people with intellectual
disabilities and their families.
Outputs & Short Term Outcomes
contributing to Systems Change…
•Systems change can be thought of as “changing the way things are done, but
systemically”.
•In the short-term this means changing the day-to-day functioning of people
and the organizations that they are in, creating/providing new resources,
strategically bringing people together around an issue, or developing new
policies and practices (organizationally, legislatively, etc.).
• Another way to describe it is to describe changes to structures (e.g., the
creation of a coalition), processes (e.g., who is talking to who and about what).
We are also interested in the things new things that are created and used in
relation to this change (new resources, policy statements, media, etc.)
Changes to structures and processes…
Resources
• Creation, access
to, and use of new
learning & action
resources
• Sustainable
finances
• Community
space
Policy/
practice
Creation of or
changes to
policies
supportive of
inclusion;
changes in
practices
Collaboration/ Knowledge creation
Networks
& sharing
Positive change &
maintenance in
participation,
group capacity,
operations, climate,
etc.
Strategies for research &
evaluation, knowledge
dissemination,
mobilization, networks,
awareness
These are general categories. Specific initiatives describe specific
changes, resources, relationships, etc.
Short-term outcomes – benefits or changes to
people – follow from changes to structures &
processes. For example…
a new
resource is
created…
…which leads to
increased awareness of
barriers to inclusion…
…and used
by a new
coalition
Individuals changes…
Changes to structures and processes…
Resources
• Creation, access to,
and use of new learning
& action resources
• Sustainable finances
• Community space
Policy/practice
Creation of or
changes to
policies
supportive of
inclusion;
changes in
practice
Collaboration/N
etworks
Positive change &
maintenance in
participation,
group capacity,
operations,
climate, etc.
Knowledge creation
& sharing
Strategies for research &
evaluation, knowledge
dissemination,
mobilization, networks,
awareness
Increases/improvements in…
• knowledge & skills, learning & sharing
• motivation, participation, engagement
• advocacy & leadership
• inclusive practices
•
giving and receiving support
•All this work to modify existing systems is in the service of ultimately
improving our communities.
•These improvements are represented by the experiences of community
members – across all people that stand to benefit, are there
improvements to safety, education, income security, etc? In our model,
these are called “community outcomes”.
Community Outcomes (changes
experienced by individuals & families)
More INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENTS and corresponding
improvements to…
• Safety • Education • Family & Social support • Personal
Relationships • Economic security • Community & Civic
Participation • Health & Quality of Life •
The Role CCBR – Part II



Once an overall framework was in place, we
needed to apply it to the P/T partners’ work.
In 5 main sectors, we developed “systemlevel” logic models for each P/T.
Thus began the cross-country journey….
Sectors by Provinces & Territories
Inc/Emp – 2
Fam/Dis Supp – 4
Inclusive Ed. – 3
Deinstit. – 2
Comm/Assoc - 1
Community Life
& Capacity
Family &
Disability
Supports
Income &
Employment
Family &
Disability
Supports
Income &
Employment
Inclusive
Education
Family &
Disability
Supports
Inclusive
Education
Family &
Disability
Supports*
Inclusive
Education
Deinstitutionalization
Running back to
Sasktoon!
Miles Canyon, Whitehorse
Yellowknife, NT
St. John’s, NL
The Uses of Systems Level Logic Models
Promote learning and critical reflection about
systems change work.
 Provide ideas about what to measure, how,
and when.
 Helps communicate complex initiatives within
organizations and externally.
 Helps generate ideas of next steps in pursuing
systems change.

Mechanisms
Project
activities
Outputs &
Actions:
(changes to
resources,
practices,
relation-ships)
Short Term
Outcomes
Community Capacity Building
Create Inclusive
Education Working
Group
Who: Reps. from Dept.
of Ed., CONA, NLACL.
When: Monthly
meetings (sep-mar. 0607)
Actions: Create
strategic workplan,
guidance for focus
group methods &
content, forum content.
Data: # of meetings,
attendance, meeting
actions, strategic plan.
Create 4 regional
partnership
committees
Who: Itinerants, emp
agencies, family
networks, local ACLs.
When: prior to focus
groups.
Actions: With
NLACL, set purpose &
goals of focus groups,
organized &
promoted, addressed
barriers to
participation
Data: committee
membership &
actions.
Research & Information
Public Awareness &
Dialogue
Conduct regional
focus groups with
stakeholders
Who: Parents & educators
When: Fall-Winter 06-07
Actions:
• Presentation of past & current special ed.
policy, context, challenges.
• Discussion of experiences, current practices,
ideal policy, gaps, strategies.
• Summary report to IE working group NLACL
& participants.
• Participants added to “electronic learning
community”.
• Findings used to form policy position paper.
Data: # of people, description, participant
feedback re: meetings, distribution of report,
use of report by IE committee.
Increased knowledge of FG
group participants re: IE
principles, policies, and practice
Mechanisms
Project
activities
Outputs &
Actions:
(changes to
resources,
practices,
relation-ships)
Short Term
Outcomes
Policy Development
Draft and circulate
policy paper on
Inclusive Education
Who: NLACL & partners
When: completed (date)
Actions:
• Prepare policy paper w/
vision of IE, experiences
in NL & recommendations
• Distribute to networks;
make available online
Data: # of copies sent,
requested, downloaded,
etc.
Create and
circulate a
National Review
of IE policy
Who: NLACL
When: completed
(date)
Action:
• prepare cross-canada
review
• distribute @ Nat. IE
forum, prov. forum, CACL,
all CI projects, NB dept. of
ed., IE website.
Data: # of copies sent,
requested, downloaded,
etc.
Project
activities
Outputs &
Actions:
(changes to
resources,
practices,
relationships)
Short Term
Outcomes
Provincial forum
on Inclusive
Education
Who: NLACL, parents, educators, boards,
DofE, HRLE ( & Min), Health Comm
serivces, NLTA, Fac of Ed., Educ. students,
student support specialists, Itinerants, CLO
(tot. 38),
When: Mar. 28-29, 2007.
Actions: Present history of & current
policy, strategies for IE, presentations.
Data: # & description of attendees,
indicators of future engagement & capacity
(e.g., request), resources distributed, forum
feedback
Increased knowledge /
awareness of IE principles
& practice among
participants
Greater
engagement
in IE issues &
practices
Sharing of
information
from forum to
others
Engage w/ Dept of
Education and
Boards re: policy
development &
implementation
Who: NLACL, Min. of Ed.,
ADM
When: Upon policy paper
completion & after IE forum.
Actions: presentation &
dialogue w/ minister, ADM.
Link issue to FPT group.
Data: Record of meeting
discussion, policy
opportunities, barriers, next
steps.
Greater engagement &
action by decisionmakers on special
education related policy
Creation & revision of
policies that support IE
Disseminate
special
education
policy & news
Who: website users,
CI & IE networks.
When: Ongoing.
Actions:
Data: # of newsletters,
distribution, activity on
listserv (#, to whom,
topics posted,
discussed) - e.g,
MHAs
Increased general
awareness of IE
issues
Increased
participation &
sharing in electronic
learning community
Mechanisms
Project
activities
Outputs &
Actions:
(changes to
resources,
practices,
relationships)
Short Term
Outcomes
Knowledge Networking
Provincial forum
on Inclusive
Education
Who: NLACL, parents, educators, boards,
DofE, HRLE ( & Min), Health Comm
serivces, NLTA, Fac of Ed., Educ. students,
student support specialists, Itinerants, CLO
(tot. 38),
When: Mar. 28-29, 2007.
Actions: Present history of & current
policy, strategies for IE, presentations.
Data: # & description of attendees,
indicators of future engagement & capacity
(e.g., request), resources distributed, forum
feedback
Increased knowledge /
awareness of IE principles
& practice among
participants
Greater
engagement
in IE issues &
practices
Sharing of
information
from forum to
others
Policy Development
Public Awareness &
Dialogue
Engage w/ Dept of
Education and
Boards re: policy
development &
implementation
Disseminate
special
education
policy & news
Who: NLACL, Min. of Ed.,
ADM
When: Upon policy paper
completion & after IE forum.
When: Ongoing.
Actions: presentation
dialogue w/ minister, ADM.
Link issue to FPT group.
Data: record of meeting
discussion, policy
opportunities, barriers, next
steps.
Who: website users,
CI & IE networks.
When: Ongoing.
Actions:
Data: # of newsletters,
distribution, activity on
listserv (#, to whom,
topics posted,
discussed) - e.g,
MHAs
Greater engagement &
action by decisionmakers on special
education related policy
Increased general
awareness of IE
issues
Creation & revision of
policies that support IE
Increased
participation &
sharing in electronic
learning community
Limit of 2007-2008 project activities
Long-term
outcomes
Potential
new
partnerships,
training, &
action
IE workshops for
Student
Educators
Partnerships with
NL Teachers
Associaion (e.g, to
deliver in-service
training)
Partnership with
Facutly of Eduction for
revision of Special
Education Curriculum
(e.g. course
development)
Subsequent
knowledge & skillbased outcomes
Broad public support for
inclusive education – early
childhood through to postsecondary
Partnerships with
CONA, promoting
supportive
services for postsecondary
students.
Partnerships
with all disability
organizations to
achieve
consensus on
policy position
Subsequent
changes to IE
policy and
practice
Elimination of segregation and
special education classes as the
primary place of instruction for
students with disabilities
Inclusion is the norm in
classrooms, schools, and
post-secondary education
across the province
Theories of System
Change:
A Selection of Lessons
Learned & Promising
Practices
Policy Development & Engagement
Policy development & engagement are
strengthened when:

Policy research and/or reviews are conducted in a way
that is informed by local context.

Policy development proceeds with the meaningful input
or endorsement of diverse stakeholders.

Policy recommendations are applicable to multiple
stakeholder groups and/or organizations.

Forums for discussion of implications of policy (i.e., it
informs practice) follow initial recommendations.

Policy documents or positions reach policy makers or
other key stakeholders that hold positions of power.
Conduct local research
with those affected by
policy.
Having a multi-sector
partnership group
makes the
recommendations more
balanced & credible
(not “special interest”)
Diverse stakeholders can
“work with the policy” –
improves it, makes it
actionable, raises
awareness, builds broader
consensus
Multisector partnerships
composed of leaders
increase chances of
“getting the ear” of policy
makers.
Partnerships
Partnerships are improved when:

There is relative consensus on values and principles
guiding the partnership

Members come from multiple levels of their home
organizations (staff and management).

They are composed of strong leaders who “have the
ear” of their home organizational leadership.

Partners are institutionally linked to the goals of the
partnership. Diverse partners who have power over
different parts of the system is best.

Member organizations are linked to other key
organizations that exist outside the partnership.
Consensus building
stage must come first
High profile management are
often too busy to commit; other
effective leaders may exist in the
organization.
Multi-sector partners can
impact different parts of the
system.
Multiple linkages create new
opportunities.
Partnerships
Partnerships are improved when:



They have mutually beneficial goals.
Forming partnerships based on
“values alone” is not sufficient. The
work of the partnership should have
practical benefit to all.
The activities of the partnership are
arranged around an action-oriented,
capacity building agenda.
For there to be system change,
the partnership must be
functional – its activities should
lead to changes in the capacities
and practices of others.
The actions of the partnership are
(primarily) evidence-based.
The credibility and
effectiveness of the
partnership activities relies
on evidence
Workshops, Information Sessions, Family Networking: When do they
support systems change?
 Family networking & leadership create a local
A source of needs,
and provincial base to draw information from.
experiences, stories, data
In communities that have undeveloped
networks, information sharing is a good place to
make initial connections with community.
for policy work; creates a
“political constituency”

When workshops or info sessions are linked to
provincial policies and practices, it forces the
policy/practice “into action”.

When workshops, sessions, skill development,
and other forms of support are part of larger
partnerships, expanded projects.
Part of system change
involves working from the
bottom up – system change
has to start somewhere.
Policy and leglistation are
useless if people don’t use
them in practice.

Sometimes it doesn’t, but its nonetheless
helpful to families.

If enough organizations
start doing it, practice can
precede policy
The mandate of community
inclusion is not exclusively
systems change.
Organizational Training – Inclusive Education as an example
Teacher training and development appears to
work best when:
Training of teachers works best when closely
linked to the context of the school.
If teacher training is
disconnected to the school,
change organizational
culture is difficult.

Dialogue and consensus-building precedes and
sets the stage for organizational training.


Diversity is used as the lens, not disability
There is institutional, high level buy-in to the
project

There is translation of values to practice –
practical resources & strategies.

New knowledge and skills
are not used if they are
inconsistent with individual
& organizational values.
Projects that are seen as
“special interest” are seen as
narrow. Diversity projects are
broadly applicable.
High level support
increases reach,
accountability and is policy
directed.
Moving from “you should
do this” to “this is how you
do it”.
Supporting Research – What are some best practices?
Research is effective – it gets attention, sparks
dialogue, moves an agenda – when it is:
Participatory and guided by the questions and
needs of the communities.

If research is grounded in the
stated needs & experiences of
community members it is
more relevant to policy.

Endorsed and guided by multiple sectors and
organizations.
Multiple stakeholders in
research (co-ownership)
means more opportunities
for action.
Based on data and information from multiple
sources and perspectives.
Multiple sources (or
indicators) gives a clearer
picture of the issue.

Able to combine personal experiences with
other data (e.g. broader survey data, community
or population statistics).


Linked to pilot or “demonstration projects”.
Experiences add a human
face to general data;
Supporting data helps
generalize the experiences.
Policy makers &
organizations want best
practices and a “solution
focus” in research
Other Lessons in Pursuing Systems Change
Building from the past - many accomplishments of the past
year are based on previous partnerships, networking,
research, etc.

Systems change work relies on flexibility of planning and
taking advantage of opportunities. Some of the most
important work cannot be planned in advance.

Systems change gains and sustains momentum when
leadership is passed on and/or shared with other
organizations.

Train the trainer approaches with other organizations is a
common way to build capacity and expand reach.
