Community and Participatory Approaches

Evidence-based strategies about approaches that prioritize community participation, relationship building, and collaboration between groups.

How to Navigate this Page

Select policy targets and evidence-based strategies that are priorities and achievable within your setting and sector. Align with your mandate, capacity, jurisdictional boundaries, and scope of practice.

Strategies marked with ☔ are important for populations-at-risk.

Entry Point for Action:
Reflects the organization’s or government unit’s sector scope and mandate

Policy Target:
Relates to the initiative’s focus

Evidence-based Strategies:
Concrete actions to guide initiatives’ design, delivery, and evaluation

ENTRY POINT FOR ACTION

Simplify Access to Benefits & Services

Policy Target: Eligibility criteria for social welfare programs

Initiatives eliminate complex application processes (e.g., requiring extensive documentation) and enrolment procedures. Through interdepartmental coordination, initiatives implement one-stop-shops to integrate social welfare services fully and also provide support for tax-filing to ensure eligibility for federal programs and services ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of eligible people who report needing support to navigate the application process (e.g., in-person assistance)
Availability of one-stop-shop websites to access social services
Number/percentage of eligible people who agree with the statement that the application process (in-person, online, or via telephone) is straightforward and fast
Take-up of social welfare programs relative to need
Number/percentage of eligible people who report receiving assistance for filing their taxes

Policy Target: Integration of social welfare programs with other social supports

Government units address structural barriers (e.g., unavailability of affordable or free daycare, sustained job shortages) ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Stress levels among beneficiaries
Food security
Electricity security

ENTRY POINT FOR ACTION

Promote Neighbourhood-Level Advantage

Policy Target: Safety, security, diversity, and quality of local services and amenities

Government units develop policies and regulations to support, create, and sustain safe and secure neighbourhoods in which all people can thrive

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of government units with a clear mandate of overseeing and supporting the development of equitable, safe, secure, and desirable neighbourhoods.

Government units fund essential local services and amenities (e.g., health care, parks and recreation spaces, public transportation) equally across neighbourhoods regardless of neighbourhood- level socioeconomic status (SES) and, if needed, provide additional support for high-quality and desirable amenities and services in low-SES neighbourhoods ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Funding equity among services and programs per jurisdiction
Inequalities in terms of diversity of services and amenities among neighbourhoods
Perceived neighbourhood safety
Levels of self-reported satisfaction with the quality of local services
Levels of self-reported satisfaction with the amenities located in the housing area
Perceived level of social connectedness (social capital, social cohesion) within neighbourhoods

Government units and organizations collect neighbourhood-level data (e.g., crime rates, quality of and access to green spaces, access to public transportation)

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Availability of open-access or public-access databases
Periodic reports present updated findings on the inequalities among neighbourhoods and make recommendations for action

Government units regulate anti-discrimination in policing and work together with community organizations and stakeholders to better assess and address local strengths and needs ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Trends in representation of people of colour (e.g., Indigenous, Latino and Black groups) in the criminal justice system
Availability of mechanisms and channels to denounce racial biases in policing
Perceived level of difficult in access and report racially motivated incidents
Levels of trust in the police in disadvantaged neighbourhoods
Crime rates in low socioeconomic status neighbourhoods
Levels of overall wellbeing (e.g., stratified by neighbourhood-level income)
Public trust
Level of public support for the anti-discrimination regulation

ENTRY POINT FOR ACTION

Include Cultural Values of Financial Practices & Ways of Living

Policy Target: Culturally appropriate and sensitive strategies

Framework graphics with the entry point 'Foster Connection & Belonging' highlighted

Community-led initiatives that are designed and implemented using a partnership model can facilitate a good fit with cultural values, community needs, and sustainability

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of initiatives with mechanisms for (meaningfully) engaging community partners in all phases of the initiatives
Number/percentage of initiatives with strategies in place encouraging disadvantaged groups to share their lived experience with financial struggles and successes
Number/percentage of initiatives that prioritize improving community engagement in order to better serve the community

ENTRY POINT FOR ACTION

Foster Connection & Belonging

Policy Target: Community development and strengths-based strategies

Framework graphic with the entry point 'Include Cultural Values of Financial Practices & Ways of Living' highlighted

Initiatives adopting a community-driven, participatory approach have their goals and plans of action defined by and for the community (based on what they deem relevant and appropriate) and enjoy a broader impact

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of participants reporting increased knowledge of topics relevant to their community and life situations
Participants report on how their gained skills and tools can positively impact their own community
Prevalence of the outcome of interest among non-participants
Number/percentage of participants who report their family and friends (i.e., non-participants) also benefited from the positive effects of the initiative

Policy Target: Trust, hope, and rapport-building

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of participants reporting increased knowledge of topics relevant to their community and life situations
Participants report on how their gained skills and tools can positively impact their own community
Prevalence of the outcome of interest among non-participants
Number/percentage of participants who report their family and friends (i.e., non-participants) also benefited from the positive effects of the initiative

Policy Target: Family and community engagement

Initiatives are equitable, tailored, and take a long-term approach to facilitate family and community engagement and supportive involvement ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Satisfaction levels of participants with the amount and quality of support received among participants
Number/percentage of community members who are motivated to continue participating in targeted programs and in their community more broadly.
Success rates of initiatives over time

Policy Target: Community building

Initiatives use group-based community development activities and long-term engagement with community members to build strong, supportive relationships and foster community capacity. Hosting initiatives in the target community, having facilitators from the target community, and tailoring initiatives to target population(s) can facilitate community-building activities

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of initiatives that ensure social participation by people of different socioeconomic groups and identities in decision-making
Number/percentage of participants from diverse social backgrounds and identities who report seeing themselves represented in the initiatives
Number/percentage of initiatives that adopted shared language for enhanced communication and collaboration
Average attendance (e.g., stratified by race/ethnicity)
Resource usage (e.g., stratified by socioeconomic status)

ENTRY POINT FOR ACTION

Develop around People’s Everyday Realities

Policy Target: Wrap-around and integrated support

Initiatives develop an individualized plan of care for people who experience complex needs and/or disadvantage, which helps people to navigate the supports, services, and benefits available (e.g.,completing applications and forms and providing referrals) to facilitate access ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of people who report feeling overwhelmed by the application process
Level of self-reported satisfaction with assistance received to apply for programs
Number/percentage of disadvantaged people who report meeting their basic needs
Number/percentage of people who receive benefits from more than one program
Trends in living and health conditions (e.g., among the most disadvantaged groups)

Initiatives partner and foster collaboration with other organizations when offering wrap-around supports to meet people’s complex needs ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of intersectoral and intergovernmental collaborations with a clear mandate and framework for accountability
Number/percentage of intersectoral and intergovernmental collaborations with specific structures and processes that prioritize actions for achieving shared goals
Number/percentage of intersectoral and intergovernmental collaborations reporting outcomes according to the accountability framework and/or shared goals

Wrap-around initiatives employ a team-based, collaborative approach through which organizations provide comprehensive, holistic support to individuals, while avoiding fragmentation of policies, programs, and services ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of initiatives integrating policies, programs, and services to best respond to a particular need (e.g., unemployment) through co-location, or using a shared, single application process, etc.
Number/percentage of initiatives with memorandums or declarations that set out the main responsibilities of the staff members involved in the collaborative work
Number/percentage of recipients who feel the program has provided support in the areas they most needed

Policy Target: Evaluation and eligibility assessment

Community-led initiatives understand recipients are managing competing priorities associated with their experiences of complex disadvantage ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of programs and services offering flexible, unconventional hours for on-site support
Number/percentage of programs and services with no penalties for rescheduling of in-person assessments
Drop-out rates related to inability to attend in-person assessment

Policy Target: Back-to-work support services

Initiatives analyze not only the effectiveness of work contingencies, but also their impact on each population group, particularly seeking to reveal what kinds of employment disadvantaged groups are finding when re-entering in the workforce ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of people experiencing disabilities who report notfeeling obligated to accept low quality and insecure jobs with reduced benefits for fear of losing social support
Number/percentage of participants who secure sufficient and sustained employment (e.g., stratified by deprivation level)
Number/percentage of staff who believe evaluation of individual labour market prospects are fair and match with people’s work-experience and education
Number/percentage of initiatives with instruments and tools in place to capture people’s feedback on the impact of work contingencies on their trajectories to find well-paid, secure jobs
Ratio of effectiveness of programs and services with more work contingencies to that of programs and services with less work contingencies in terms of helping people reaching their goals