Trust and Power

Evidence-based strategies that address power imbalances and build people’s trust in others and in 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

SAMPLE INDICATORS

  • Number/percentage of innovative and affordable or no-fee banking services and products
  • Access to innovative and affordable or no-fee banking services and products
  • Number/percentage of underbanked, low-income people who agree with the statement that banking services and products meet their unique needs and short- and long-term goals
  • Number/percentage of low-income people with access to no-fee banking services and products

SAMPLE INDICATORS

  • Levels of dependence on supports from governments and organizations
  • Average program receipt duration
  • Multiple, complex disadvantages experienced within and across generations
  • Number/percentage of adults earning their first degree or certification
  • Number/percentage of adults who previously did not have certification or degree transitioning to higher paying jobs
  • Number/percentage of adults who earned their first degree or certification and who feel they can request a salary increase
  • Unemployment rate (e.g., stratified by education)
  • Employment rate in the informal sector (e.g., stratified by race/ethnicity)

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

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

SAMPLE INDICATORS

  • Number/percentage of caregivers feeling that society acknowledges their work by providing paid leave with no contingencies or conditions
  • Levels of self-reported satisfaction with government assistance and paid caregiving services (e.g., stratified by socioeconomic status)
  • Financial stress among caregivers (e.g., stratified by age, sex, and gender)
  • Number/percentage of initiatives that acknowledge, respect, protect, and incorporate ancestral knowledge and traditions from Indigenous communities
  • Number/percentage of Indigenous communities that feel the initiative symbolically values the cultural and environmental work they perform in the community (e.g., in remote communities)
  • Distribution of benefits per type of caregivers

SAMPLE INDICATORS

  • Individual levels of financial stress due to high debt load
  • Number/percentage of people seeking appropriate, reliable support to debt repayment
  • Number/percentage of people who report feeling that their debts are easily manageable
  • Level of non-mortgage debt before and after program

SAMPLE INDICATORS

  • Perceived control over financial resources
  • Percentage of conditional cash transfers to women (compared to men)
  • Social benefits payment to the accounts of people experiencing disabilities
  • Self-reported shared responsibility for managing household finances
  • Self-reported financial role within household (i.e., dependent, contributor, key financial decision-maker)
  • Person responsible for budgeting in the household

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

SAMPLE INDICATORS

  • Levels of perceived trust in the community services and structures
  • Level of agreement with the statement that community provides opportunities to build social relationships with other residents
  • Individual hopefulness in the future

SAMPLE INDICATORS

  • Number/percentage of people who report gaining or renewing their sense of control over their financial and life circumstances (e.g., stratified by sex, gender)
  • Perception of ability to plan for financial future (e.g., stratified by age, immigration status)

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

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)

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

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)

SAMPLE INDICATORS

  • Confidence levels in financial skills
  • Confidence levels in financial decision-making
  • Perceived ability to pursue financial goals

Centre for Healthy Communities
School of Public Health
University of Alberta

healthy.communities@ualberta.ca

3-035 Dianne and Irving Kipnes Health
Research Academy
11405 – 87 Avenue
Edmonton, AB Canada T6G 1C9

© Copyright – Centre for Healthy Communities, School of Public Health, University of Alberta

Privacy Preference Center