Public and Community Services

Evidence-based strategies about publicly available services or programs funded through and delivered by government units or provided by community organizations.

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

Prioritize Redistribution-Based & Universal-Type Policies

Concentrations of privilege and inequity

Government unit programs and services reduce entitlements for people and families that already experience privilege (e.g., tax benefits for dual-parent families). Initiatives ensure that the most disadvantaged groups have access to either the same benefits or more and higher benefits than the least disadvantaged groups

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Intergenerational transmission of socioeconomic disadvantage
Intergenerational earnings mobility (e.g., stratified by family income)
Intergenerational mobility of education (e.g., stratified by family income)
Socioeconomic gap between single-parent and two-parent families

ENTRY POINT FOR ACTION

Provide Sustainable Funding to Programs and Services

Social services

Government units provide steady financial support for initiatives to improve efficiency while ensuring no disruption of operations and service delivery

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number of grant programs relative to population needs
Total amount of government funding per year

ENTRY POINT FOR ACTION

Simplify Access to Benefits & Services

People’s understanding of benefits, programs, and services

Initiatives identify and address information gaps and poor awareness of benefits, programs, and services to ensure eligible groups can access them when needed ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Availability of information about benefits, programs, and services
Perceived levels of difficulty to access information about benefits, programs, and services
Number/percentage of initiatives using different formats and modes (e.g., brochures, TV advertisements, social media) to present information about benefits, programs, and services
Number/percentage of eligible people aware of benefits, programs, and services

Initiatives ensure that information about benefits, programs, and services is readily available in languages tailored to population and context ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Availability of informative material in different languages, appropriate for populations targeted by the benefits, programs, and services
Proportion of staff reporting that their organization uses language services to better assist clients
Inequalities in achieving the outcome of interest by people from linguistically diverse backgrounds
Enrolment levels in benefits, programs, and services

Stigma and discrimination in the access of benefits and services

Initiatives review their programs and communication strategies that have unintentionally classified recipients into two groups: deserving or undeserving of taxpayer funded cash support ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Assistance-seeking behaviour among all eligible groups (e.g., stratified by age, sex, gender, migration status)
Number/percentage of eligible groups reporting fear of being stigmatized for assistance (e.g., stratified by age, sex, gender, migration status)
Take-up rates of benefits and services according to degree of need
Trends of unmet needs over time
Rate of participation among those eligible to participate

Eligibility criteria for social welfare programs

Initiatives eliminate restrictive or complex eligibility criteria (e.g., the need to meet all criteria to qualify) ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Take-up rates among eligible groups

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

Government units ensure all departments involved in social welfare provision share a common understanding of application and assessment processes, using the same explicit, clear guidelines and procedures to define eligibility ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Applicants’ perceptions of (in)consistent eligibility criteria across government sectors
Rates of appeals and reconsideration requests for benefit approval

ENTRY POINT FOR ACTION

Budget for Wellbeing

Limited budgets

Initiatives adopt innovative ways to deal with budget deficits to avoid cuts in the breadth and quality of services delivered

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Trends in socioeconomic gaps
Trends in health inequities
Trends in beneficiaries’ financial wellbeing relative to initiative’s budgetary issues

ENTRY POINT FOR ACTION

Promote Neighbourhood-Level Advantage

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 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

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

ENTRY POINT FOR ACTION

Include Cultural Values of Financial Practices & Ways of Living

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

Develop around People’s Everyday Realities

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)

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

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

Entry requirements for community services and programs

Initiatives remove rigid program access requirements that can exclude disadvantaged people ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of people feeling not afraid of applying for the programs and services because of potential life changes
Number/percentage of applications relative to need (i.e., level of unmet needs decrease)

Initiatives remove contingencies and conditions that limit enrolment (e.g., providing matched savings, which is by design contingent on initial savings and housing loans for high-engagement participants) ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Ratio of recipients to people who meet program eligibility criteria
Annual recipiency rates
Number/percentage of people who report feeling encouraged to register in the programs and services
Number/percentage of people with multiple, complex needs who have their benefits granted

Initiatives provide support for all people who are interested to sustain or achieve the minimum targets for participation ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of recipients feeling motivated to continue participating in the programs and services
Number/percentage of recipients fulfilling the minimal requirements
Perceived benefits of program

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

Initiatives undertake a simplified assessment process to avoid imposing a burden for engagement upon recipients in terms of time, energy, and costs ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Perceptions of staff about the extensiveness and onerousness of the assessment process
Trends of administrative costs for assessing if recipients are still meeting the administrative requirements and demands
Trends in time associated with periodic assessments of recipients
Number/percentage of applicants and recipients who report that the assessment process is cumbersome or onerous

Initiatives move away from a punitive, retaliatory approach by eliminating or minimizing obligations (e.g., high – and sometimes unrealistic – job search expectations and compulsory work) and coercions and sanctions for noncompliance ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Levels of stress related to the assessment process among recipients
Compliance levels

Information about services and programs

Initiatives provide accurate, safe, unbiased, and trusted information that can address people’s fears of repercussions related to applying for and receiving benefits and supports ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of pregnant women reporting not being afraid of unsupportive workplace when considering applying for parental leave
Number/percentage of applications for parental leave (e.g., stratified by occupational categories)
Approval rate of applications for parental leave (e.g., stratified by occupational categories)
Number/percentage of parents/guardians who report feeling less afraid of applying for child support due to the risk of incarceration associated with noncompliance with payment obligation
Participants report on their fears of negative consequences associated with their enrolment in the program (e.g., among people experiencing disabilities or unemployed people)