Y1 Social Research & Development Report by Participatory Canada

Y1 Social Research and Development 2020-2021

Participatory Canada Everyday people. Everyday activities. Everyday neighbourhoods. Extraordinary change.

Land Acknowledgement Participatory Canada is about our love of place, homelands, communities, and all our relations. We came together with partners and collaborators from across Turtle Island-- east to west coast of Canada, Lithuania and the United Kingdom, spanning multiple regions and time zones. In honour of the Indigenous peoples of the land we call Kanata, we humbly acknowledge the territories we are on: • Kjipuktuk / Halifax is on Mi’kma’ki, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq. Mi’kma’ki is covered by the Treaties of Peace and Friendship, which the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqey, and Peskotomuhkatiyik Peoples first signed with the British in 1726. These treaties did not surrender any land or resources to the British but recognized Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqey title and set the rules for what was to be a longstanding relationship between nations, initially preventing war and facilitating trade. The people of the Mi’kmaq Nation have lived on this territory for millennia. Their culture and presence have nurtured and continue to nurture Kjipuktuk, an urban Indigenous community that many First Nations, Métis and Inuit call home. • Tiohtià:ke / Montréal is on the traditional and unceded homelands of the Kanien’keha:ka (Mohawk), a place which has long served as a site of meeting and exchange between many nations. Today, it is home to a diverse population of Indigenous and other peoples. We respect the continued connections with the past, present and future in our ongoing relationships with Indigenous and other peoples within the Montreal community. • Tkaronto / Toronto is on the traditional territory of many nations including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishnabeg, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples and is now home to many diverse First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. For the Indigenous peoples, this land is governed by the Dish with One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant between the Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabe. This territory is listed in Treaty 13, and in the Williams Treaties. • Amiskwacîwâskahikan / Edmonton is on Treaty 6 territory, a traditional meeting grounds and travelling route for the Cree, Saulteaux, Blackfoot, Métis, Dene and Nakota Sioux. We acknowledge all the many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit whose footsteps have marked these lands for centuries, for as long as the sun shines, the river flows, and the grass grows. • Vancouver is on the unceded traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Peoples who have lived on these lands since time immemorial. It is also home to First Nations, Métis, and Inuit from all over the continent.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Acknowledging the land we are on is our responsibility. We are committed to the Truth and Reconciliation process, and recognize the legacies of colonialism and past harms inflicted on the Indigenous peoples of Canada. Land acknowledgement grounds us in our purpose of coming together, connects us to the land, and uplifts our spirit of inclusion, equity, friendship, and partnership. However, such acknowledgement is only meaningful through action, and we’ve only just begun.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Acknowledgements

Building neighbourhoods for everyone and by everyone takes an enormous amount of work, and is only possible by collaboration between: everyday people who live and work in cities and communities across the country; families, friends, children and young people, retirees, residents, schools, local businesses, community organizations, café baristas, makers, homecooks, growers, gardeners, fixers, repairers, artists, musicians, builders, bakers, knitters, storytellers, tea drinkers, photographers, helpers, tweeters, teachers, people who like to chat and people who don’t.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

This first social R&D phase of Participatory Canada has been a joint venture of the Participatory City and McConnell Foundations, with additional financial support from the Government of Canada’s Investment Readiness Program. The Participatory Canada core team for the social R&D phase includes Jayne Engle and Keren Tang from the McConnell Foundation, and Tessy Britton, Nat Defriend, and Aggie Paulauskaite from the Participatory City Foundation. We worked closely with local teams and lead organizations in Kjipuktuk-Halifax, Montreal, and Toronto, and without them this work would not have been possible. These organizations were the Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre, Solon collectif, and Centre for Social Innovation Institute. This social R&D phase was also supported by a number of strategy, evaluation, and communications partners, including COLAB, Develop Nova Scotia, the Maison de l’innovation sociale (MIS), MaRS Discovery District, Percolab Coop, and Social Currents.

This social R&D report is a major undertaking with many writers and moving pieces. In addition to the Participatory Canada core team, Kjipuktuk-Halifax, Montreal, and Toronto local teams, and the roadmap development team for the content, the following people helped to bring this report to the finish line: • Maria Turner and Rohan Quinby for copyediting; • Camille Croze and the Moz Translation team and Julie Lanctot for the translation; • Tristan Surman and Tony Wang from MyMediaCreative for the video; and, • Paul Messer from Percolab Coop for the overall design and layout.

Our deepest gratitude to all who contributed.

To see many more who were involved in the journey, please see our ecosystem map on page 32, as well as the list of participants in the Participatory Canada workshops on page 234. Finally, this would not have been meaningful without the engagement of hundreds of residents who engaged with us from the pilot cities— our sincerest gratitude to everyone!

CONSCIOUS COURAGEOUS CREATIVE COLLABORATION COOP

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CONTEXT

The Making of the Social R&D Report

Glossary

Welcome 12

Who’s Who

Forewords 16

Ecosystem

Social R&D Milestones

SOCIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION REPORT

208

Introduction 57

Executive Sumary 211

Key Finding 1 - Feasibility

Introduction 218

Key Finding 2 - Inclusivity

Framing the Roadmap

225

Key Finding 3 - Value Creation

Navigating the Pathways of Growth and Scale

234

Key Finding 4 - Viability

Conclusion 253

What Made Scaling Particularly Complex?

106

Appendices 255

Appendices 113

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax evaluation report

114

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

144

Every One Every Day: Our neighborhood project pilot phase report

188

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Summary of Strategic Sessions Financial Considerations

TAKEAWAYS & LOOKING AHEAD

This report is produced by Participatory Canada. Further information can be found on the Participatory Canada website: https://www.participatorycanada.ca/ This work is shared by Participatory Canada under a Creative Commons Licence, with the exception of the photographs which can only be shared with permissions.

SETTING THE STAGE

NOTES

Vision 43 Prototypes Overview 44 Practical Participatory Ecosystem

Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

This Creative Commons Licence means: • You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made. • You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

258

APPENDICES

• If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same licence.

266

1. Learning Playbook - Summary

268

2. Additional Resources

270

3. Evaluation frameworks

272

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Welcome Jayne Engle MCCONNELL FOUNDATION

The times we live in require us to bring our creativity, curiosity and courage—individually and collectively—to address the complex challenges brought about by the devastating effects of climate change and increasing inequality. In the decade ahead, we must make unprecedented changes to all aspects of society, and this has to start in the places where we live—in our cities, communities and neighbourhoods. The good news is that we have what we need to make these changes. But doing so demands new ways of organizing ourselves and our systems, and that we think and act together differently and better in ways that follow the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action. The Commission’s report was launched in 2015, the same year we began the journey that led to the creation of Participatory Canada. At that time, partners of the McConnell Foundation learned about some unusual and promising community change work happening in London, UK—unusual in its design because it invited creative input from everyone, and promising in its potential for systems change and scaling. Eventually called Every One Every Day, the work was led by the Participatory City Foundation and was first implemented in the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham. Here in Canada, we envisioned adapting and building upon this work which included building social cohesion and accelerating ecological transition and the next economy, and manifesting reconciliation in local communities. Based on demand from Halifax, Montreal and Toronto, and with support from the Government of Canada’s Investment Readiness Program, McConnell and Participatory City Foundation partnered to establish Participatory Canada. The idea was to undertake a one-year social research and development (R&D) phase to explore feasibility of the approach. We were in the thick of making detailed plans in early 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, which required that we change course and explore what was possible in this new environment. Teams in all three cities quickly decided to go full steam ahead and adapt plans as needed, as they were conscious that building community resilience in creative ways was now more important than ever. The pandemic has exacerbated existing inequalities and created new crises, many of which will be with us for a long time. If we are to rise collectively to the scale of these challenges, then we will need to imagine and build new ways of being, living, relating and working together in the places and spaces of local communities. Creating conditions for such transition at speed and scale invites us to innovate how we build social and civic infrastructures that are fit for the future.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

So what are the social and civic infrastructure needed for our times? McConnell is exploring this question in its Communities strategy1. Social and civic infrastructure help to nurture and sustain healthy collective life at the community level by providing the means and conditions for people to come together, to learn from and care for each other, and to create society together. One working definition of social and civic infrastructure is the following:

The publicly-accessible amenities, systems, physical places, spaces, platforms, services and organizations that shape how people interact, and which can support collective life. It has the potential to foster civic interactions and enable individuals, families, groups, and communities to meet their social and collective needs, maximize their potential for flourishing, and improve community wellbeing and resilience, now and into the future. Based on evidence so far, we see Participatory City and the Every One Every Day approach as one manifestation of effective social and civic infrastructure. The platform provides people with basic and accessible tools, resources, relationships, knowledge and spaces to create, make, learn and grow together with networks of cooperation that are the building blocks of a healthy, resilient society. And evidence from Halifax, Toronto and Montreal makes it clear that the approach is highly adaptive to context. For example, in Halifax, Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax is Indigenous-led and centres reconciliation. In Montreal, Notre voisinage is building solidarity among long-standing residents and newcomers to Canada, favouring projects that foster urban ecological transition. The Toronto team, Our Neighbourhood, is strengthening social cohesion, especially between residents from different backgrounds who live in different types of housing. When we began this adventure years ago, we could never have imagined how the world would change. Now, more than ever, those of us alive today are called upon to do all that we can to create a better world, for current and future generations. Participatory Canada can be part of this. It provides a fresh narrative and a tangible manifestation of what transition can look like at the scale of the neighbourhood. It represents an approach that can connect with similar movements of change, strengthen existing work in communities, and be adapted and scaled in cities anywhere. Simply put, it provides an inspiration for us to reimagine how we live and work together in communities, in ways that are conducive to a better and brighter future

1 McConnell Foundation. (2021, May 19). McConnell Foundation’s Focus Areas for 2021 and Beyond. Retrieved May 19, 2021, from https://mcconnellfoundation.ca/mcconnell-foundationsfocus-areas-for-2021-and-beyond/

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Tessy Britton PARTICIPATORY CITY FOUNDATION

Over a period of 11 years, Participatory City has developed an innovative systems approach to building practical participation into the fabric of everyday life. This approach is a combination of systems, methods, infrastructures and strategies that have created a unique method of building and co-creating inclusive participation in neighbourhoods, boroughs and cities. At the highest level, these new participation systems are designed to support the transition to a happier, more equal and ecologically sustainable (and regenerative) way of life. Far from being a nice-to-have addition to the core civic infrastructure, this type of system is a must-have in all communities; the residents we work with have told us this time and again. Participation systems exist to make it easy to participate in practical, useful, enjoyable and inclusive activities in neighbourhoods. They cannot rely on heroic and extraordinary people. Instead they are systems that can be incorporated into people’s lives creating many benefits for communities. While there can be many comparisons with community building approaches, the Participatory City approach is unique in that it places people and their capabilities at the centre of co-creating a different way of living together. Our research to date on the impact of repeated and ongoing participation in the Every One Every Day projects has shown that individual and collective agency is born and nurtured through action, people doing everyday, practical and useful activities together.

EARLY CONFIDENTIAL DRA

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Participatory Canada What has been achieved in Halifax, Toronto and Montreal over the last year has been quite remarkable. These teams have exhibited exactly the type of imagination, flexibility and resilience we need to collectively rebuild our societies at every level. The teams leading these Participatory Canada prototypes have navigated every COVID-19 roadblock to build and test initiatives in their local neighbourhoods. Building new practical participation systems is different from copying off-the-shelf projects or programs. The approach involves learning how to facilitate the co-creation of opportunities that allow every individual, every family and every organisation to contribute to building cohesive and regenerative ways of living. It involves knitting together every idea and every space into a vast and diverse network of participation opportunities where everyone can find a place for their creativity. The Participatory City approach is about embedding this learning, unlearning and relearning social infrastructure deeply into our neighbourhoods long term. It’s a co-creation process that is dynamic and constantly adapting to the changes of people and ideas that make neighbourhoods and cities vibrant. This adaptive, creative and evolving process facilitates a living, breathing environment that is constantly responding to the ideas, changes, challenges and opportunities that will continue to present themselves. The teams in the three cities have done exactly this, and at an extraordinary time when being apart has been more beneficial than being together. At the same time, the need for human connection has never been stronger. Developing this initiative over the last year in Canada has made the work doubly inspiring for me personally. It has highlighted the complexity of how much we have to learn from one another, and how wonderful and yet complex these learning processes are. It has also further strengthened my own understanding of the human condition. We are all unique and amazing, and in so many ways we are also all the same. We need each other. As we continue to develop this approach I know that we will create more interesting and effective ways to bring people together through friendship and trust. It’s through this foundation of friendship and trust that we will generate the ideas and excitement we need to make tangible, useful things that will shape our lives, and those of future generations.

AFT, PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Forewords Pam Glode-Desrochers

Louise Adongo

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MI’KMAW NATIVE FRIENDSHIP CENTRE

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INSPIRING COMMUNITIES

If you ask me: What is the promise of Participatory Canada for Kjipuktuk? My answer would be: If in Kjipuktuk we are able to continue to take Participatory Canada and entwine Truth and Reconciliation throughout, it will provide a path forward for all of Canada.

Participatory Canada, which sits at the nexus of community-level systems change, has the opportunity to help communities recover and thrive at the grassroots level, and replenish internal and communal resources (physical, social and psychosocial) that will be essential in repairing social cohesion.

The first thing I noticed with Participatory Canada is that it is a traditional way of teaching our children and our families. The approach provides space to offer hands on experience, an opportunity to bring all community members together to learn, celebrate and have mutual understanding of who we are. It is not a new way of teaching or learning—it is actually really old.

Coming out of the year that was 2020 and into further uncertainty in 2021, we have all learned anew the context-based realities that impact the abilities of individuals and communities to survive during a pandemic that restricts all areas of civic life. I am particularly excited by the promise and possibilities of Participatory Canada to regenerate society at the community level. My experience as a member of the strategic group of Every One Every Day, the Halifax version of Participatory Canada, was one of growth and transformation. We gave ourselves permission to advocate strongly for a reconciliation focus for our local initiative, which at times required navigating internal tension and the fear of missing deadlines. We were certain, however, that this was worth doing to differentiate ourselves from other work the various partners were already engaged in. The urgency we each felt in the need to reflect, embed and design through a reconciliation lens is one I truly hope brings value to the future of Participatory Canada as it is extended across the country. As the new executive director of Inspiring Communities, I am also eager to explore incorporating the lessons learned from being a part of this work into my current mandate.

With Every One Every Day, Participatory Canada’s program in Kjipuktuk, we have been working hard to build on the calls to action identified by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We have woven these calls to action throughout our platform so that they will be the driving force in reshaping our communities and bringing all communities together. It is a real opportunity to educate and build stronger, more resilient communities in the future. It raises the importance of social infrastructure to help build these stronger communities and is key to everyone’s future, not just for individuals or governments but for the social fabric of our country. These social investments are crucial in providing safe spaces and spaces that are welcoming to everyone. It allows for communities to have self-determination, build capacity and grow resilience. This past year, I have seen how partners and communities act on reconciliation and it is hard work. Participatory Canada has given us a platform to reshape our communities and make them unique to Canada, and I have seen reconciliation in the form of real actions. I have seen partners begin to question the whys and hows. I have seen them change how they do business and how they see the importance of understanding. These things are priceless. These things have changed because of Participatory Canada. Reconciliation is not easy, it is not one sided, and there is a long journey ahead of us. I personally believe that if Participatory Canada continues forward and has the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action as a critical piece of the platform, then this journey will be worth the time and effort. If Participatory Canada believes in the investment of time and in social infrastructure, then the journey to reconciliation will be shortened and it will bring us all together. It is a journey worth taking. I am excited to see where this journey takes me and my community. I see an opportunity for real change and for lasting change. I see a country that has the wisdom, the respect, the honesty, the truth, the humility, the bravery, the faith and the love to take a leap of faith with us and to help us change the social fabric of our communities right across Canada. In respect and friendship.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Tonya Surman

Shaune MacKinlay

CEO, CENTRE FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION

CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE OF HALIFAX MAYOR MIKE SAVAGE

The last fourteen months of living with a pandemic have shone a light on the gaps in—and failures of—so many of our systems. There has been civil unrest, deep-seated uncertainty, and a reigniting of racial justice movements. We now have an opportunity to rebuild and refocus, but how can we do things differently? How do we recover and build a new system that is better than it was? The Centre of Social Innovation is focused on building the Next Economy and providing solutions for a peopleand planet-first economy. Let’s imagine a world where we invest in social and community infrastructure, and shift the system of year-to-year funding to build a regenerative and sustainable system. Think of the number of jobs we can create by investing in neighbourhood projects like Every One Every Day Toronto, with the potential for large-scale impact such as creating community food depots, converting vacant industrial and commercial real estate into affordable housing, or building options for community investment. We plan to transform an unused space in Toronto into a community asset where we will sow the seeds of community infrastructure. The space will blossom into a home of Every One Every Day: Toronto, and a physical location for community wealth infrastructure development including a site for a micro food business incubator, social enterprise programming, the home of Radio Regent, a meeting and event space for the wider community, and more as we build out our people- and planet-first solutions.

The Participatory Canada journey in Halifax met with a few unintended pandemic curves before ultimately arriving at its true destination in the heart of community. At times, the participating organizations questioned whether we ourselves might be the project, learning, as we were, to work together. We had to be honest about our experiences and our limitations and acknowledge the ambiguity that occasionally characterized the work, all while continuing to share a commitment to the purpose. While metrics are vital to quantifying the success of the Halifax/ Kjipuktuk project, the qualitative, anecdotal outcomes bear significant consideration. Working through the Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre, the Every One Every Day project became rooted in reconciliation, inviting forms of sharing wisdom, skills and ideas across the community. Despite the constraints caused by limitations on gathering, it was clear that Every One Every Day tapped into an unmet need for participants to be in contact with each other and learn across cultural differences. It may well be that the pandemic has highlighted the need for connectedness and the desire for a strong social fabric in our city. Halifax is undergoing rapid change with a rising population (including people from more parts of the world), a growing economy (and all the challenges and opportunities that accompany it), and a pressing need to meet the challenge of climate change adaptation and mitigation. Participatory City holds the potential to help more people find connection and meaning while at the same time reconciling a painful past with a future committed to inclusive community participation and self-determination.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Jennifer Angel

Bertrand Fouss

PRESIDENT & CEO, DEVELOP NOVA SCOTIA

DEVELOPMENT AND PARTNERSHIPS, SOLON COLLECTIF

Things seem to have gotten really complicated. The scale and complexity of the challenges before us feels daunting. And urgent.

Our era is marqued by numerous crisis and the questioning of our social values. Our particular model or worldview is slowly changing and alternatives are emerging.

Of course, these problems aren’t new and they didn’t happen to us. We created them—either directly or through inaction. We are responsible for the landscapes we build and the goals we set. These priorities and goals haven’t served most people. They, and we, are destroying our planet. But we believe that the solutions are at our fingertips. To access them requires reconciliation, both with these wicked problems we’ve created, as well as with one another and ourselves. It means rethinking value and relinquishing imbalanced power. It means aligning individual and corporate interests, including in community and social sectors, in service of common goals that prioritize equity and regeneration. It means building new paradigms and new solutions by listening to different voices and points of view. One of the most important voices that can lead us isn’t new at all, but very, very old. Its knowledge and teachings endure and are a model for co-existence with the earth and one another. We believe that while leadership has an urgent responsibility across sectors to reimagine prosperity in a way that benefits people and the planet, the solutions to the problems before us are not top down. They are distributed and systemic and deeply rooted in community. And community is rooted in place. In our case, that place is Kjipuktuk, which in Mi’kmaqi means the Great Harbour, the land of the Mi’kmaq people. And what they know, we need to learn. Participatory City builds social infrastructure—the places and programs that shape the way people interact—and recognizes its possibility to bring communities together to build the change we need. These are the places where we come together and learn, to co-create, to make mistakes, and to try again—together. We disagree and work to find compromises—together. We build tangible solutions, products and services that support the community—together. In creating these things together, we build understanding and we build resilience. By bringing new people together in different ways, we create the conditions for real innovation, and the capacity to solve hard problems, big and small. And here we find joy and progress in the doing and the learning and the solving because we do it together. These are places where everyone is welcome, where everyone can feel safe, where everyone can participate and belong. These places are for everyone, because they are built with everyone. It sounds simple. It’s even elegant in its simplicity. But the meaningful change it signals is a recognition that people emboldened with trust and respect, especially people who have been left out and behind, can do big things. The big problems before us are a collection of small problems, and we believe the solutions are a collection of small actions, by Every One Every Day. This is the promise of Participatory City.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Solon is contributing to that in Montréal by showing that neighbourhoods and collective actions can act as important levers in our socio-ecological transition. We are prototyping the ‘lab Transition’, an approach that is stimulating civic agency and participation. We are also supporting a set of social infrastructures : third places (shared space by and for the residents), open-source digital tools, sharing systems, targeted coaching, networking activites, etc. Solon has always been interested in the approach developped by Participatory City in London and saw it as an opportunity to test our first collaboration through the Notre voisinage project in Ahuntsic. The trust and collaboration between partners have given way to an intense pilot from which we have learned a lot. These different learnings are summarized in our final report. Our team is already working on the next steps. First, we must find the best way to keep our momentum with the people implicated in the project. Second, we must integrate our learnings and establish new partnerships to optimise the lab Transition approach. Finally, we must help to create a wider and more ambitious community around civic participation. Everyone’s participation is one of the key elements of the solutions being designed. We are even happier to explore these next steps with Participatory Canada.”

Alex Ryan

Marie-Josée Parent

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, MARS DISCOVERY DISTRICT

CITY COUNCILLOR, VERDUN, CITY OF MONTRÉAL

In 2016, I started a conversation with Tessy Britton that resulted in a visit to the first shopfront location for Every One Every Day in London, UK. I was struck by the sheer force of Tessy’s determination, as well as the power of participation in everyday activities to bridge all sorts of divides between neighbours, and build the social fabric that is the foundation of a resilient and flourishing society. Since then, a number of organizations in Canada expressed demand to explore adapting the approach here, and together with Jayne Engle at the McConnell Foundation, they joined up with Tessy, and I leapt at the opportunity to be a part of this experiment.

As a city councillor, and someone who’s been working in the cultural field for many years, the Participatory Canada initiative is important to me.

Canada has a rich tradition of civic participation, so why do we need a new approach? Existing approaches are fragmented, ad hoc and lack long term sustainable funding. Participatory Canada provides the infrastructure for communities to create a critical mass of practical participation opportunities to learn new skills, live healthier lives, build and create, and care for our environment. Participatory Canada identifies and removes every barrier to bringing people together to collaborate on projects that enrich our neighbourhoods. Over the past year, we have seen the extraordinary potential of the Participatory Canada platform to catalyze participation culture across communities in KjipuktukHalifax, Montreal and Toronto. The global pandemic has exposed systemic inequities at home and abroad, and underscored the importance of local connection and belonging for a resilient society. As we build forward better, we need to invest in the social infrastructure that will allow us to collaborate, innovate and participate with the community. What if every city in Canada had a culture and system of participation that allowed all of our ingenuity to be unlocked? This is possible if we double down on implementation in the pioneering cities of Kjipuktuk-Halifax, Montreal and Toronto, while sharing experiences and lessons with the next cohort of cities, to create a scalable and replicable approach to funding and organizing Participatory Canada in any city.

Working under the culture file in the City of Montreal, we’ve been supporting neighborhoods where people gain power through their own cultural experiences and experimentation and where citizens come together to experience community through creativity, empowerment and a sense of ownership of cultural practices. When I learned about Participatory City about a year and half ago now, I saw the similarities with our project, but multiplied by 10,000. It was going so much further. It was thought through, it was tested and I wanted to know more. I felt that this was a way to bring the community together and to work on our social fabric in a way that we haven’t been able to do in Montreal, despite all the amazing work that community centres, Tables de quartiers, and all our grassroot organizations and institutions have been doing. It goes further, because it brings citizens the opportunities for coproduction and co-creation, and the possibility of making their own community the way they see it, together, through a democratic process that I haven’t seen anywhere else. Participatory Canada was aligned with our vision, and I wanted to help test this approach, especially since we’re facing so many different challenges: the pandemic, climate change and the increase in inequalities that we’re facing through a capitalist structure that doesn’t seem to know where to stop. This was a way for me to see how we could bring communities that are more vulnerable together, but also make sure that we open up communities to other people, to other practices, to different cultures, through making things together and not just talking. For me, this approach goes further because this is where the community starts really building itself and existing. I want to express how important this project was for us as a city, for me as a city councillor and also as an activist. The relationship with the different partners has been key: la Maison de l’innovation sociale, the McConnell Foundation, the organizations I met around Canada, including people in Halifax and the Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre. Through this amazing project, Canada and our cities are showing how we can go so much further in terms of breaking inequalities and giving equal opportunities to everyone while empowering citizens and our communities to create the society we need for tomorrow. There’s an aspect of resilience to Participatory City that makes it more necessary—and achievable— than with any other project I’ve seen. I am keen on this initiative and I hope it goes forward. We need Participatory City in Canada. We need to test it, we need to implement it, we need to make it our way. This project is one of the tools we need for a better future.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Executive Summary The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed outdated and inadequate systems beyond their limits, exposing and exacerbating the deep structural inequities at their core. Across the globe, and across the country, protest movements have emerged as a result of collective frustration at the lack of bold action to address the climate crisis, increasing inequality and disenfranchisement. All of these things point to a frustrated public with a passionate desire to cultivate individual agency and collective action. To rise to these challenges, we need new paradigms. We need practical, scalable, and relatable models of social infrastructure—in libraries, public squares, neighbourhood maker-spaces and other civic commons—to strengthen the everyday resilience of communities, as well as people’s collective capability to work together in times of crisis and beyond. Where can we look for these new paradigms? What will they look like? One clue may lie in a borough of East London, where changes are percolating. Residents of diverse racial, socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds are finding a different way of living, interacting, and working with each other. These residents are learning from one another in their neighbourhood. In Canada, city builders, local businesses, civic activists, real estate developers, and municipal governments are learning from and adapting this so-called Participatory City approach precisely because of its potential to change outdated systems. After many conversations, gatherings, field visits, and reflections, Participatory Canada kicked off a year of social research and development (R&D). With co-investments from the McConnell Foundation and Employment and Social Development Canada’s Investment Readiness Program, working in partnership with Participatory City Foundation and partners across Canada, we are co-creating a network of fully inclusive, practical participatory ecosystems (see box). Our purpose is to build the kind of social infrastructure, spaces and conditions to help residents work together, shoulder to shoulder, to create a better life for each other and for the planet. See what the excitement is about in this video: Video: Participatory Canada / Canada participatif 1

Key Learnings from This Year on the Ground In its first phase of social R&D, Participatory Canada worked with partners in the cities of Kjipuktuk-Halifax, Toronto, and Montreal to prototype the Participatory City approach at the neighbourhood level and to explore feasibility with partners. The R&D phase was designed to maximise partnership, share knowledge and practices between cities. It was also a chance to test local responses to participation culture, and assess emerging opportunities for building participatory social infrastructure in these communities in the long-term. The findings from this phase suggest that the Participatory City approach to building large scale participation is feasible, highly adaptive, creates value for residents, and generates radical inclusion in a variety of Canadian contexts. Some of the key learnings from this past year include the following:

Each City Adapted the Approach to Its Unique Context • In Nova Scotia, Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax is Indigenous-led and centres reconciliation; • In Montreal, Notre voisinage is building solidarity among long-standing residents and newcomers to Canada, favouring projects that foster urban ecological transition; and • In Toronto, Our Neighbourhood is strengthening social cohesion, especially between residents from different backgrounds who live in different types of housing.

Community and Institutional Demand is Growing • This is a demand-driven initiative. In this year of the social R&D phase, the demand has only grown from civil society, municipal leaders, governments, and private sector/ developers. People see the initiative as an important social infrastructure for the times we live in creating conditions for social cohesion and shifting power. A number of additional communities are considering adapting the Participatory City approach in the coming year.

Inclusion is Cultural and Ongoing • A key finding is that inclusion is inherently cultural. Mechanisms for inclusion cannot be simply stamped into place, because each context is unique . The conditions for inclusion must be tailor-made and must be continually adapted and improved. While there are ideas and approaches to learn from, inclusion will always come from building and creating these conditions with communities.

Viable, But Not Without Challenges • In 2020-2021, COVID-19 restrictions uprooted an approach fundamentally centred on bringing people together. Participatory Canada teams were forced to pivot and adapt. Participatory Canada/Canada Participatif. (2021, May 12). [Video] Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/548126695 1

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

• Building a participatory platform is learning- and resourceintensive. The time commitment required to adequately meet the needs of each project extended beyond the capacity of all three teams and the expectations of the core team.

Is now — in the wake of a devastating massacre, amidst violence against Mi’kmaw fishers — ‘the right time’ to advance Participatory Canada in Kjipuktuk/Halifax? “This is absolutely the right time for this project. We need to move forward with beauty, respect, and love.” Debbie Eisan, Resident Elder, Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre, Halifax

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Key Steps for Growing and Scaling Over Time To culminate a year of experiential learning, research, and development, we set out to understand the demand and conditions for growing the Participatory City approach in Canada. As the three prototypes were underway in Halifax, Montreal, and Toronto, we also engaged thought leaders, funders, and partners to explore scaling demand and possibilities, learning architecture, and creative financing opportunities. Knowledge generated from the R&D phase as well as from the convenings and conversations with partners highlighted essential components for growing the practical participatory ecosystem within each city and across the country.

Figure 1: Essential components of Participatory City

School Full scale implementation of the approach in one city will act as a deep demonstration learning campus in Canada. This school will connect the growing set of hubs, share learnings and adaptations of the approach, build skills for local teams and communities, and support data collection and impact measurement.

Learning architecture Participatory Canada should focus on curriculum and learning programs ranging from experiential and immersion to digital experiences to build capabilities with partners for the Participatory City approach.

Resources The Participatory Canada vision requires well-trained teams and resources coordinated across the scaling phases and at both national and local levels.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

As Participatory Canada builds these essential components for growing and scaling practical participation ecosystems, we envision a phased approach over the next one, five, and 10-year horizons. Each phase would focus on supporting and growing people capabilities, as well as on identifying and mobilizing sustainable financing sources, and strategically scaling across geographies using a strong network and relationship approach.

Coordination, relationships, and communication Strong coordination of resources and networks across local and global programming, continuous development of relationships with partners and advocates, and a range of creative and unique communication assets are additional elements that will support the growth and evolution of the Participatory City approach.

Vision The vision for Participatory Canada must be co-developed with the partners to align with the ambitions unique to each city and community.

Context Local conditions determine the development of practical participation systems. Financial implications affect costs for social infrastructure and core assets while social factors impact the types of activities.

Evidence Robust research and measurement and collection of data and stories will be crucial in understanding outcomes, improving continually, and developing financial sustainability through strong business cases for practical participation ecosystems within cities.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Why This Matters and What’s Next Participatory Canada has demonstrated the potential for community-level change that has broader societal implications. There are three associated trends which are gaining momentum in resilience building and systems change and innovation and which the Participatory City approach is well-placed to address. They are: 1.

Redefining infrastructure to include place-based social and civic infrastructure so that we build robust systems to meet the increasing challenges of this age;

Strengthening collective capabilities so that we can think, learn and act together with wisdom in our transition to netzero equitable communities; and

Innovating financing in order to value what matters while building community wealth and a wellbeing economy.

Each of these trends needs to be addressed and embedded at the local level so that communities and residents have the agency and tools to strengthen resilience. Addressing them together through place-based systems will be crucial to developing investmentready ideas from a social R&D base, which community members themselves will have shaped. This past year has demonstrated that the Participatory City approach creates an open, fertile ecosystem from which great and investable ideas can be seeded by residents to grow and flourish. And the evidence from London is clear — Participatory City has expanded its R&D into community business incubators, and supported the growth of local collaboratives and cooperative business models. In the near term, and in response to growing demand, partners aspire for Participatory Canada to provide a national platform of support for up to ten communities over the next two years, as well as to create a deep demonstration learning campus in one city that would provide a training ground for other communities. An essential learning architecture, called the Here&Now School, will connect the various Participatory Canada nodes with research partnerships and communities of practice, including globally. A critical contribution to the wider network is the early experience of centering the initiative in reconciliation in Halifax, which involved a two-eyed seeing evaluation approach and aimed to embed Truth & Reconciliation at all levels of the initiative. This is foundational for how we build forward, together.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

“A resilient community is one that is connected and supportive, leaving no one behind. In times of distress and uncertainty, resilient communities support and encourage their residents, local businesses, and organizations by coming together and offering their skills, knowledge, and resources to best navigate these challenges and fluctuating circumstances.” Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Final Report

BOX 1

Inclusive design principles for practical participation • Inviting creativity, not targeting • Fostering inclusive culture (welcoming and inclusive) • 100% open; no stigma • Build projects with everyone • From beginner to expert • Everyone equal and mutual • Promote directly and effectively • Introduce or accompany • Tangible benefits to people; immediate and cumulative benefits • Low time and commitment • No or low cost • Simple and straightforward, easy and practical • Nearby and accessible; close to home • Many opportunities; wide variety • Welcome children Impact & Agency • Core to human motivation is the belief that we have agency: the power to create change through our own actions.People’s shared belief in their joint agency is the foundation of collective change. • Results from Participatory City show that fostering individual agency—via inclusive, accessible platforms that enable repeated micro-activities—is a gateway for fostering collective agency, which in turn aggregates and compounds into large-scale transformation. Simply put: when people participate in meaningful, beneficial activities in their communities, they not only feel better, but also build trust, community and powerful networks. When people participate meaningfully in their communities, they set the stage for transformation.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

The Approach “Conceptually the Participatory Ecosystem is a living, breathing ecology, in which project ideas and activities are continuously being designed, tested, grown, paused, discarded, or replicated.” Y2 Tools to Act

Figure 2: Participatory City Approach

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

“If reviving the politics of the ordinary sounds Utopian, […] in a small way, it is already happening [in the UK]. Local politicians and charities are doing it up and down the country. Every One, Every Day, an initiative in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham dedicated to the proposition that ‘what people do together every day matters’, has involved more than 2,000 volunteers in projects such as turning an abandoned warehouse into a workshop equipped with sewing machines and do-it-yourself equipment.” The Economist, January 23, 2021

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

3. CONTEXT

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

The Making of the Social R&D Report

Glossary

This social R&D report brings together insights from many streams of work and conversations during 2020-2021. It includes the following:

Agency

•

The learning journey within each city, which culminated in the developmental evaluation report that synthesizes the overall local experience in Kjipuktuk-Halifax, Montreal and Toronto.

•

Suggestions on strategy and ideas of how to build a future roadmap of the initiative that grew out of conversations with current and potential partners about scaling, learning, and financing Participatory Canada.

•

Reflections from the Participatory Canada core team about the co-creation and co-learning journey with the local teams, that developed out of many, many conversations.

A sense of individual agency where people believe in their capability to attain given ends. Rooted in the core belief that one has the power to effect change by one’s actions. In the exercise of collective agency people pool their knowledge, skills and resources, provide mutual support, form alliances, and work together to secure what they cannot accomplish on their own.

Big Teaming As part of the team building structure, Big Teaming is an opportunity for all team members to meet regularly to reflect, evaluate and share ideas together. It’s a space for strategic planning and a co-design process with the whole team.

Co-design A method of collectively surfacing initial ideas and applying shared knowledge in design thinking, whether it is a project, a session, a task, or a solution to a problem.

Social R&D Report

Every One Every Day Began as a five-year initiative2, formed out of a partnership between Participatory City and the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Council, and it is the largest participatory project of its kind in the UK. The initiative has enabled the community to work together in tackling disadvantage, inequality, loneliness and isolation. Every One Every Day has inspired many community initiatives around the world, and it is being adapted by teams in Halifax, Montreal and Toronto with support of the Participatory Canada team.

City Reports

Here&Now School

Roadmap development

The new school of participatory systems and design3 established by Participatory City Foundation bringing together all the research, knowledge building, and learning.

Participatory Canada City Experiences

Workshops

Figure 3: How the SocialR&D Report came to be

Core team

A collaborative project of the McConnell and Participatory City Foundations, with the support of Employment and Social Development Canada’s Investment Readiness Program, has involved conducting social research and development and testing feasibility of the Participatory City approach in Canada. Participatory Canada has worked with partners across Canada to explore this social and civic infrastructure approach that involved prototyping on the ground in Halifax, Montreal and Toronto.

2 To learn more, visit: http://www.participatorycity.org/every-one-every-day 3 To learn more, visit: http://www.participatorycity.org/herenow-school

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Participatory City approach

Systems change

see Practical participatory ecosystem.

Involves collaborative planning and design, learning from successes and failures and creating space to co-design lots of little projects as well as work on larger ones. It provides an opportunity to create a circular economy, and necessitates coexisting and connecting with other ecosystems. It puts residents at the centre of the system to allow for self-directed involvement through a diverse range of project ideas and participation opportunities.

Participatory City Foundation A non-profit organization with over ten years of research in participation that is leading the Every One Every Day initiative in Barking and Dagenham, UK and the Here & Now School, and is also supporting cities across the world.

Tomorrow Today Streets Participatory platform Supports all other organizations and creates a new way of providing people with the agency to take control and have a positive impact.

Practical participatory ecosystem A practical participatory ecosystem develops organically, is unpredictable in form, and is rooted in the shifting of interrelationships of many diverse and distinct parts (multiple residents joining and leaving, and projects emerging, thriving, replicating and stopping on a constant basis). Residents work on practical, everyday projects that are useful for them. This is often referred to as the “Participatory City approach.”

Prototype / Prototyping / Pilot Prototyping is an approach to developing, testing and improving an idea at an early stage before a lot of resources are committed to it.4 A prototype is a physical or experiential representation of an idea and how it might play out in the real world. A pilot is often the first stage of a new program. Rather than a test or experiment (i.e., a prototype), a pilot is a live activity, usually with a small group of real users or residents experiencing a new program.5 While prototypes and pilots are distinct, in this report, these terms are used interchangeably to refer to the local testing of the Participatory City approach in Kjipuktuk-Halifax, Montreal and Toronto.

Social and civic infrastructure The publicly-accessible amenities, systems, physical places, spaces, platforms, services and organizations that shape how people interact, and which can support collective life. This infrastructure has the potential to foster civic interactions and enable individuals, families, groups and communities to meet their social and collective needs, maximize their potential for flourishing, and improve community wellbeing and resilience, now and into the future.

4 Nesta Foundation. (2021, May 19). Prototyping framework. Retrieved May 19, 2021, from https://www.nesta.org.uk/toolkit/prototyping-framework/ 5 Leurs, B. & Duggan, K. (2018, December 20). Proof of concept, prototype, pilot, MVP – what’s in a name? Four methods for testing and developing solutions. Nesta Foundation Blogs. https://www. nesta.org.uk/blog/proof-of-concept-prototype-pilot-mvp-whats-in-a-name/

A project that grew from Every One Every Day in the wake of COVID-19. Tomorrow Today Streets6 gives neighbours, families and friends the opportunity to start exciting projects right on their own streets. It offers 24 kits to help residents start projects that are practical and that help stay connected.

Third spaces / places In community building, the third place refers to the social surroundings that are separate from the two usual social environments of home (first place) and the workplace (second place). Examples of third places include churches, cafes, clubs, public libraries, bookstores, community centers and parks. Third places are critical for community vitality and local democracy. The term “fourth place” has recently emerged, in part due to the pandemic, to describe the “intangible digital environments that have proven to be spaces of connection, or spaces of reprieve from social isolation.”7

Tutors Project Designers with extensive experience and knowledge of Participatory City approaches including the Every One Every Day project who are helping with the implementation stages of other cities’ neighbourhood projects, supporting the process and mentoring local teams.

Truth and Reconciliation Truth and Reconciliation is an individual and collective process to reckon with the impact of colonialism and colonial policies on Indigenous peoples, most notably Indian Residential Schools, established by the Canadian Government. In 2008, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission8 set out to inform all people in Canada about our shared history, documenting the truth of survivors, families, communities and anyone personally affected by residential schools. Reconciliation is the process of rebuilding and renewing relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples of Canada.

6 To learn more, visit: https://www.weareeveryone.org/tomorrowtoday 7 OGUNDELE, A. (2020, July 16) The Fourth Place and Re-imagining the City. Urbanarium Journal. https://urbanarium.org/journal/fourth-place-and-re-imagining-city 8 The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Available from: http://www.trc.ca/aboutus/faqs.html

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Who’s Who * = Lead local partner

Figure 4: Map of cities exploring Participatory Canada approach

CANADA COLAB Maison de l’innovation sociale (MIS) MaRS Solutions Lab McConnell Foundation Participatory City Foundation Percolab Coop

EDMONTON City of Edmonton Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

LAVAL Laval en Transition Ville de Laval

MONTREAL L'Arrondissement d’Ahuntsic-Cartierville *Solon Collectif Ville de Montréal

HALIFAX Community Sector Council of Nova Scotia Develop Nova Scotia Engage Nova Scotia Halifax Regional Municipality Halifax Partnership Inspiring Communities *Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre United Way Halifax

TORONTO *Centre for Social Innovation City of Toronto Daniels Corporation Mitacs Canada Regent Parks Community Organization Toronto Community Housing Corporation

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Ecosystem Ecosystem map of relationships, connections, and the breadth and scope of the Participatory Canada regional, national, and international networks.

Figure 5: Participatory Canada Ecosystem of Relationships

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Social R&D Milestones

Halifax

Montreal

Toronto

Canada

2017 2018

2019

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

2020

2021

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

4. SETTING THE STAGE

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Setting the Stage We are at a crossroads facing unprecedented, interconnected global challenges that include structural inequality, environmental degradation and declining public trust. Many of the existing social institutions are no longer fit for purpose, and the COVID-19 pandemic has further exposed and exacerbated the flaws in these systems.

infrastructure designed for the times we live in, and for future generations.

Growing protest movements highlight a collective anger with political and economic elites, and a fervent desire of people for individual and collective agency to create a better future.

So how did everything come about? Why Participatory City Foundation? Why McConnell Foundation? Why Montreal, Toronto and Halifax?

If we are to rise to these challenges, we need new models of a great transition that will allow us to shift culture for the long term and explore alternate ways to collectively build more caring societies. In the United Kingdom, Participatory City is working with thousands of neighbourhood residents to build networks of friendship and co-create a first of its kind large-scale, fully inclusive, practical participatory ecosystem in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. In other words, they are collectively building the spaces and creating the conditions for residents to work together, side by side, for a better life for everyone, and for the planet. It provides a fresh narrative and a tangible example of what transition can look like at the scale of the neighbourhood. This approach can be adapted to neighbourhoods and communities anywhere.

Participatory Canada and the learnings from its first year of social R&D offer a path forward.

The McConnell Foundation is one of the oldest philanthropic foundations in Canada, and one of the few in the country with a pan-Canadian scope that includes a focus on cities and communities. The Foundation has helped build a culture of social innovation, and has a vision for a more inclusive, innovative, sustainable, and resilient society. Its cities work has been led by Jayne Engle, and has engaged hundreds of collaborators and partners, including Participatory City Foundation, founded by Tessy Britton. Based on the inspiration that Participatory City provided to many of our partners in Canada and the demand by organizations and communities here to adapt the approach in Canada, the McConnell Foundation slowly built a partnership and community of practice around this work, which culminated in this past year’s social R&D phase.

Partners in Montreal, Toronto and Halifax wanted to test adapting this potentially transformative, sustainable approach of participatory social infrastructure locally. There is now clear interest and demand to build on the learning and experience of these cities to build a robust, participatory social infrastructure in other communities in Canada that have been inspired along the way.

Participatory City Foundation is a charitable organization focused on a practical participatory ecosystem approach, one that also seeks to disseminate the research, evaluation and learning approach globally through the Here&Now School of Participatory Systems and Design. Its flagship project, Every One Every Day, consists of a network of shopfronts and makerspaces throughout the London borough. This work builds upon 11 years of research and development, and the publication of books and reports including Designed to Scale9, Made to Measure10, and Tools to Act11. The years of learning and demonstrated outcomes has positioned the team as a leader in building new systems for everyday life, by inviting the creativity of everyone, redefining how we coexist, and forever changing the way neighbours live, work, and play with one another in Barking and Dagenham.

Participatory Canada invites residents and neighbourhoods to bring their creativity and ideas together to build projects that grow people’s skills, enable them to build stronger relationships, solve local problems, meet local needs, and find common solutions to some of the most pressing, universal challenges of our time.

The knowledge about practical participatory ecosystems from Participatory City Foundation, combined with the wide network of changemakers and sector leaders from McConnell Foundation seeded a partnership that is grounded in and lifts up local knowledge and mobilization.

Based on the success, evidence and early outcomes from the UK, the McConnell and Participatory City Foundations, with the support of Employment and Social Development Canada’s Investment Readiness Program, have adapted the approach in Canada.

The aim is to avoid the pitfalls that can hinder effectiveness of many community programs by building a system that will have greater and longer-term impact for more people in a sustained way. The idea is to create a large-scale neighbourhood platform to cultivate agency, curiosity, and will among residents of diverse backgrounds to exchange, learn and share with one another. It’s about participation, not service delivery. This is a social

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

9 Available from: http://www.participatorycity.org/designed-to-scale 10 Available from: http://www.participatorycity.org/made-to-measure 11 Available from: http://www.participatorycity.org/tools-to-act

Vision “What if we dared to indigenize the way we construct modern cities, integrate Indigenous knowledge systems and make them core to transform places and how people relate?” Melanie Sack, Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Society, participant at Participatory City Camp, Wasan Island, 2019

The McConnell Foundation, Participatory City Foundation, the Maison de l’innovation sociale (MIS) and MaRS Solutions Lab cohosted a Participatory City Camp at Wasan Island in Ontario in July 2019. The camp brought together a group of city builders and civic innovators from Canada and abroad. This gathering became a pivotal moment in the Participatory Canada journey, kicking off a pan-Canada partnership and strategy that ultimately led to the social R&D phase in 202012. Participants explored ways to build, scale and finance the Participatory City London model in Canadian communities. They also generated a list of key principles to catalyze the R&D phase: • Embed reconciliation within the pan-Canadian approach. Indigenous communities must be meaningfully engaged in the design process of Participatory Canada. • Enable the participation of everyone, every day in order to address the multiple interconnected challenges that our communities face. • Design and integrate the platform as a living ecosystem. • Consider providing support for projects outside target locations. Connect and support residents who do not live in the sites where interventions are taking place to better integrate their needs in the design of the model. • Build innovative partnerships with governments to advance institutional and regulatory innovations. • Connect academic institutions and civic spaces into the participatory ecosystem. • Provide a platform for everyday residents to experiment and scale new ideas to address social issues. • Map the usual and unusual suspects to invite them to take part in this transformative movement for change.

12 To learn more about this gathering, please visit: https://medium.com/cities-for-people/participatory-city-camp-d674fab868de

While some of these initial principles have evolved in the past year, the essence and scope of the vision remains largely unchanged. At the heart of the approach is a very simple idea: that residents of any place should have free and inclusive access to the tools and opportunities they need to act, with their neighbours, on the things which matter to them, using their creativity and talents, and developing their skills in the process. Recognizing that the context in which these tools are provided will always be complex, with multiple overlapping systems of governance, ownership and power, and that the histories and ways of working are unique to each place, we nevertheless set out to learn and take on the challenges together. The potential upside of building a new system for community resilience made it worthwhile to the partners.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Prototype Overviews This section provides some context and history of the initiative in each city, how each team came together, and a description of each city-specific prototype.

Halifax Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk Kjipuktuk (Halifax), Nova Scotia With Wije’winen (“Come with us”), the Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre honours the contributions of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities to the region’s culture and history, and invites all neighbours to collaborate meaningfully in projects that create an increasingly vibrant, inclusive and healthy community.

Montreal Notre voisinage Ahuntsic-Cartierville, Montréal, Québec With the “Notre voisinage” project, Solon is building new networks of engagement with residents of the AhuntsicCartierville borough. A range of Covid-capable, coldweather engagements brings together residents as they co-create community projects.

Toronto Our Neighbourhood Regent Park, Toronto, Ontario In Regent Park, the Our Neighbourhood incubator, led by the Centre for Social Innovation, is building connections between residents from diverse socioeconomic situations.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Figure 6: Participatory Canada Prototype Cities

HALIFAX

MONTREAL TORONTO

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Halifax North End, Kjipuktuk (Halifax) A few local partners, including COLAB, Develop Nova Scotia, Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre and the Halifax Regional Municipality, came together and participated in the Participatory City Camp at Wasan Island. Some of these folks had been following Participatory City Foundation’s work in London for years. During the 2019 retreat, they agreed that in order to advance a broader partnership with local groups for Participatory Halifax, it would be critical to establish a project team at a specific site. They highlighted that: • In the first 18 months, the Halifax team would focus on engaging organizations and residents in common purpose planning and design for a pilot project that would eventually form the participatory platform. • An initial 6-month R&D stage was needed before the development of the pilot itself, with the support of an R&D team that would include Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre and other partner organizations. • The data collected throughout this stage would help build the case for supporting the launch of the coming phases of the initiative. Iteration of ideas would take place in physical storefront locations. • Building a financial model for Participatory City Halifax would require clear statements to help other funders understand the uniqueness of their engagement, and perceive Participatory Halifax as a living ecosystem instead of a project.

Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax is led by the Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre and supported by a strategic group of local partners including the Crown corporation Develop Nova Scotia (co-funder), Inspiring Communities, United Way Halifax (cofunder), Engage Nova Scotia, Community Sector Council of Nova Scotia, and Halifax Regional Municipality.

Team Members Every One Every Day project team members: • Aimee Gasparetto, Program Director • Frances Palliser-Nicholas, Project Designer • Tammy Mudge, Evaluation Lead • Cynthia Maclean, Neighbourhood Hub Coordinator • With support from Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre Elder, Debbie Eisan.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Vision The initiative aims to inspire new connections and friendships through everyday participation in useful and enjoyable activities, many of which could make life easier, and all of which help to foster a sense of togetherness. In Kjipuktuk (Halifax), this vision embodies a platform for reconciliation in neighbourhoods, where people can learn about Indigenous culture and history but also share across cultures, building new understanding of one another and the places we call home. The initiative, centred in reconciliation and inclusive of all, is envisioned as a primary community platform in the future as part of the proposed new Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre building, which is currently in the capital fundraising phase with government and philanthropic partners. To coincide with plans to relocate to a new home, and to better reflect the journey the Friendship Centre wishes to take with the whole community, it introduced a campaign: Wije’winen, meaning Come With Us. Advanced by Elders, this term is a welcoming invitation that expresses a sense of moving forward together.

Neighbourhood Context Every One Every Day rolled out in the North End neighbourhood of Halifax, where Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre is located. This part of the city is culturally diverse and holds historic and contemporary significance for Halifax’s Indigenous and African Nova Scotian communities. The vast majority (92%) of the housing in this neighbourhood is rental units and public housing. While the North End remains a vibrant community with a plethora of local organizations providing support, the neighbourhood has faced significant challenges of gentrification and displacement in the last few years.

Prototype Approach After months of conversations and partnership development, the planning of Every One Every Day and the building of an implementation team with full-time dedicated staff officially took off in September 2020. The team delivered a spring program, from March through April 2021, which was co-created with residents, and Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre staff and community. Unlike Montreal and Toronto, Kjipuktuk (Halifax) built their prototype based on the Every One Every Day initiative in London, UK rather than adapting the Tomorrow Today Streets program because of a very different COVID-19 situation.

“Even though we are so close together, there’s a lot we don’t know about each other.” Tony Thomas, Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre, Board Chair

In all, Every One Every Day connected with 167 residents (with many more registrants on waitlists) in 33 sessions facilitated by 26 hosts from the community, and distributed 28 At Home With Us Kits. These projects included: • Talk with Us • Create with Us • Cook with Us • Move with Us • Make with Us

Local COVID Context As a whole, Halifax benefited from the “Atlantic bubble” that surrounded the region with the most stringent COVID measures such as discouraging interprovincial travel. This allowed life to continue more or less as normal with added safety protocols. Except for two weeks in March 2021 where a “circuit breaker” (a small outbreak) led to tighter lockdown where programming transitioned online, most of the activities were in-person and residents accessed physical spaces at the MNFC and surrounding community centres. These elements are essential to the Participatory City approach.

• Build with Us • Learn with Us • At Home with Us

To learn more about this prototype, see page 110, Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax evaluation report

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Montreal Ahuntsic-Cartierville, Montréal There have been multiple conversations about Ville participative (Participatory City, Montreal) over the past several of years, driven by demand and requests from local Montreal partners including Centre d’écologie urbaine de Montréal, Lande, Centre-Sud Table de quartier, la Ville de Montréal, the Maison de l’innovation sociale (MIS), la Pépinière, Solon, Art Hives, Exeko, Percolab Coop, Sacred Fire Productions, Entremise and others. These discussions included the 2018 Montreal workshop and presentation on Ville participative with Tessy Britton, which shed light on the role of inclusion, equality and leadership in building a vision for participatory communities13. The following key takeaways from these conversations have guided development of the initiative in Montreal:

Notre voisinage (Our neighbourhood) led by Solon collectif is the Participatory Canada prototype in Montreal. In 2015, a group of neighbours founded Solon with the desire to work together to improve their living environment, and contribute to the fight against climate change. Solon is a grassroots community organization focused on ecological transition through neighbourhood mobilization, rooted in the idea of neighbourhoods in transition. Solon’s headquarters are in a shopfront in the borough of Rosemont in Montreal. Since their humble beginnings, Solon has launched several flagship projects including Locomotion (cargo bike and car sharing between neighbours), Celsius (a geothermal energy alleyway project), and Lab transition, connected through the City of Montreal’s Smart City Challenge. Notre voisinage complements its existing work and mandate.

Team Members: • Wissam Yassine - Project Accompaniment / Transition Lab

• If a society can be built on the basis of exclusion and inequality, it is also possible to build one on the basis of inclusion and equality. • A great deal of leadership is needed to create this change— not just through individual courage, but through collective leadership that withstands the test of time. • We must build upon each other’s work and draw upon the knowledge that we have collectively acquired over a lifetime of studying how people function and learn, what they need and how they can organize. During the 2019 Participatory City Camp retreat, partners reflected on these and other preliminary reflections to co-create ways to test and scale a Participatory Canada intervention in Montreal. Partners involved in the camp at Wasan Island included the Maison de l’innovation sociale (MIS), la Ville de Montréal, Percolab Coop, Sacred Fire Productions, la Pépinière, Centraide du Grand Montréal and Les Interstices. The team came up with a vision that they referred to as Ville de villages, in which the Montreal prototype would be amplified through a mobilizing narrative that welcomes diversity, places neighbourhood life at the heart of city-making, and positions Montreal at the intersection of participation and inclusion. Two important features of the Montreal model include: • Acknowledging the wisdom and existing relationships that local groups have been cultivating with residents over time in order to find ways to meaningfully engage them into the broader ecosystem. • Harnessing and propelling the Montreal participation approach by unlocking the capabilities and principles of inclusive design, and building a vision of impact that is centered on regeneration of land, communities and individuals.

These principles and conversations continued to evolve and eventually led to a small live demonstration project led by Solon collectif. 13 To learn more about this gathering, please visit: https://medium.com/cities-for-people/ inclusion-equality-and-collective-leadership-at-the-heart-of-participatory-cities-according-to954ac4699d9f

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

• Maude Lapointe - Coordination, Ahuntsic-Cartierville • Chloé Dodinot - Coordination, Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie • Bertrand Fouss - Development & Partnerships • Karine Théorêt - Mobilisation, Ahuntsic-Cartierville • Eva Dominguez-Painchaud - Mobilisation & Inclusion • Magalie Paquet - Participatory Communications & Project Support • Camille Butzbach - Narratives, Research and Knowledge Mobilization

Neighbourhood Context Solon did not have a history of working in the borough of Ahuntsic-Cartierville; however, through interest, conversations, and a relationship with the local borough and the community, as well as months of planning and partnership development, Solon began Notre voisinage in the fall of 2020 to test the practical participatory ecosystem approach. The prototype centres around one particular corner in the western part of the neighbourhood that includes three streets and landmarks—la Terrasse Fleury, la Place Meilleur, and l’habitation Meunier-Tolhurst, a social housing development—and is known as Tolhurst-St-Benoît. This is a culturally and socioeconomically diverse neighbourhood that has seen a significant shift in demographics over the years with newcomers and refugees. The borough authorities and local partners have consistently highlighted particular needs and challenges of the neighbourhood including language barriers and lack of or disconnected resources and spaces for community programming.

Local COVID-19 Context Due to high numbers of COVID-19 in the area and lockdown measures in Quebec, the prototype was developed as an online platform, although the team did reach out to various local institutions such as the school and church in the neighbourhood for programming in the early days. The project launched publicly in early January 2021.

“I am impressed with Participatory Canada’s approach of engaging local actors in co-designing projects by and for the people. Stepping away from a service-based, top-down approach to collective, participatory initiatives is crucial for engaging residents and tackling fundamental issues.” Azzedine Achour former general manager of Solidarité Ahuntsic, Montréal

Prototype Approach For months, the Solon team (part-time staff members who were also involved in other projects at the organization), engaged residents and local partners to develop a co-created winter/spring program with starter kits that encouraged residents to participate from their own homes, while connecting with others through virtual workshops. Residents, local organizations and community partners collaborated in the kit development and facilitated the workshops.

Between February and April of 2021, the team delivered 66 starter kits, and 178 residents participated across nine projects: • Our Neighbourhood Plays • Our Neighbourhood Cares • Our Neighbourhood Shares Stuff • Our Neighbourhood Shares Stories • Our Neighbourhood Bakes Bread • Our Neighbourhood Bikes • Our Neighbourhood Mends • Our Neighbourhood Plants and Pollinates • Our Neighbourhood Shelters Birds This prototype closely follows the Our Neighbourhood prototype in Toronto (see the next section). Both are modeled after the Tomorrow Today Street pandemic adaptation of the participatory platform in London. To learn more about this prototype, see page 160, Notre voisinage evaluation et plan de suivi

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Toronto Regent Park, Toronto The Centre for Social Innovation and its sister organization, Social Innovation Canada, facilitate a nationwide network of social innovators, entrepreneurs and social R&D practitioners. The Centre for Social Innovation was one of the participants at the Wasan Island Participatory City Camp strategic planning and envisioning retreat that inspired Participatory Canada in Toronto. These conversations continued on through a dialogue on community wealth that took place with McConnell Foundation and many local and global partners including City of Toronto, Dark Matter Labs, Daniels Corporation and Toronto Community Housing Corporation. For nearly two decades, the Centre for Social Innovation has been working to build an extensive and strong network with partners, collaborators, members and funders in Toronto. It has been accelerating its members’ success and amplifying their impact. Like some of its other locations, the Centre at Regent Park started as a group of people coming together to share a workspace. After careful and deliberate discussion, they developed into cohesive communities. The organization saw Participatory Canada as an important avenue to animate and support the neighbourhood, beyond the walls of its spaces.

The Team The Centre for Social Innovation led the Participatory Canada prototype in the Regent Park community of Toronto. The project called Our Neighbourhood was part of the larger research initiative Every One Every Day: TO, with the support of Mitacs Canada. This in turn is part of an even broader vision of the Centre’s community wealth initiative for building sustainable, regenerative and participatory ecosystems within communities. With several locations throughout Toronto, the Centre for Social Innovation was the first coworking space in Canada 15 years ago. Since then, it has expanded beyond the city and created an ecosystem and community of social innovators. Regent Park was one of their locations accessed by the local community not only as a coworking space, but also as a community hub, a social enterprise incubator and accelerator and an innovation lab.

Team Members: • Denise Soueidan-O’Leary - Program Manager • Andrea Nemtin - Project Sponsor • Tonya Surman - CEO, CSI • Shona Fulcher - Chief Community Officer, CSI • Lisa Amerongen - Communications • Yuliya Tsoy - Designer • Kim Slater - Evaluation • Thomas Linder - Research • Bria Hamilton - Research • Averey Bet-Payumo - Student Intern • Sofia Lydiatt - Student Intern

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Vision The team envisioned that Every One Every Day would be transformative in the Regent Park neighbourhood. In addition to building social cohesion during the pandemic, it would model a different way for community groups and the municipality to interact with residents, centred on individual agency, community social capital, and collaborative processes that share decision making power with the community.

Neighbourhood Context As a neighbourhood, Regent Park is undergoing rapid transformation. Historically, it is one of the largest social housing communities in Canada. In recent years, financialization of housing, precarious work and a shifting economy has increased the income gap in Toronto. This inequality between socioeconomic statuses is starkly evident in Regent Park. The redevelopments have transitioned the demographic into mixed-income strata, shifting the social fabric of the communities and surfacing challenges around the integration of 10,000+ residents who live in subsidized housing with those in market-rate housing.

Local COVID Context During the pandemic, much of the programming transitioned online and the organization closed the doors of its long-time Regent Park location. The Centre for Social Innovation and Our Neighbourhood are opening a new home in Artscape, part of the Daniels Spectrum building with Toronto Community Housing Corporation, in 2021.

Prototype Approach Our Neighborhood was inspired by the Tomorrow Today Streets approach in London to fostering participation during the pandemic. The team provided starter kits for residents to start projects in their own homes and on their streets with their neighbours. Virtual workshops led by residents and local social enterprises and community partners that are part of the Centre’s community (Just Vertical, Paint Box, Green Thumbs Growing Kids, Art Heart, Regent Park Social, David Suzuki Foundation) complemented the hands-on kits. The prototype initially proposed two neighbourhoods of both Regent and Alexandra Parks, that both face similar challenges. After discussions with partners and residents in the neighbourhoods, the Centre decided to focus on Regent Park given existing relationships, resources and networks in the community. Learnings from the prototype could then inform developments in Alexandra Park and other neighbourhoods in Toronto in the future. The readiness of the team and the community propelled the Centre for Social Innovation to launch phase 1 of Our Neighbourhood in October 2020, the first prototype out the door. Phase 2 was planned for winter/spring 2021 with larger kits and multiple households working together. However, due to the devastating rise in COVID-19 cases in the province of Ontario the team has had to adapt to strict lockdown measures. Phase 2 was further delayed and contained fewer activities and less programming.

I am very keen to be active in Regent Park and to meet my neighbours. I love the idea of these projects.” EOED Participant

In all, 100 residents participated in over 25 workshops in Phase 1 (October-November 2020) across six projects: • Our Neighbourhood Paints • Our Neighbourhood Grows • Our Neighbourhood Explores • Our Neighbourhood Cooks • Our Neighbourhood Plants • Our Neighbourhood Learns In phase 2 (March-April 2021), over 30 residents participated in 4 projects: • Our Neighbourhood Pollinates • Our Neighbourhood Reads • Our Neighbourhood Blooms • Our Neighbourhood Stories To learn more about this prototype, see page 140, Every One Every Day: Our neighborhood project pilot phase report

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Practical Participatory Ecosystem Figure 7: Participatory City Participatory Ecosystem in Practice

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

5. SOCIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION REPORT

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Introduction Jan 2020 - April 2021 Social Research & Development Evaluation The purpose of the social research & development (R&D) phase of Participatory Canada is to understand whether the Participatory City approach is both feasible and viable, and if it has the potential to create value for all residents in a community, or in a neighbourhood. After this first year of social R&D we are closer to answering the questions.

The strategy we followed for scaling Participatory Canada was to support and partner with three city teams to test the Participatory City approach. These teams were provided with learning and development resources, hands on experience, and mentoring and funding. As a result, we’ve learned about what can and cannot be done to create the conditions for successful implementation of the approach.

“Scaling may be even harder and more demanding for organizations than innovation, because so many things that shape the success of their efforts are outside their control.” (Seelos & Mair, 2018, p. 228)

Guiding Questions of the Social R&D Evaluation This report sets out to capture what we learned during this first year of social R&D. The main questions we asked were:

To what extent is the Participatory City approach feasible, viable and desirable? And does it have the potential to create value for all residents in communities in Canada?

This led to four primary research questions we asked of each prototype:

1. Feasibility To what extent is it possible and desirable to create an ecosystem of participatory projects, and a well-functioning support platform?

2. Inclusivity To what extent is it possible to create an ecosystem of participatory projects with all residents of a neighbourhood?

3. Value Creation To what extent is this approach to building participation capable of creating value for individual community members and neighbourhoods?

4. Viability To what extent is this program likely to be viable in the current local economic, political and social contexts?

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Adaptations of the Evaluation The first year of social R&D centred on supporting teams wanting to adapt the Participatory City approach to a neighbourhood in their city. Prototype projects were identified in Toronto’s Regent Park, Kjipuktuk-Halifax’s North End, and Montreal’s Tolhurst-StBenoît in the spring of 2019. Whereas in the UK, the Participatory City Foundation focused on building an experiment in the single borough of Barking & Dagenham in London, here in Canada prototypes were rolled out in a range of Canadian cultural contexts. As these prototypes adapted the Participatory City approach to fit their neighbourhoods, the evaluation of these prototypes similarly evolved. Adapting Participatory City to new contexts is essential to the success of the approach, as is adapting the way in which it is evaluated. The shape each prototype took, how they were delivered, and the values they produced owed much to the different team and community members. Ultimately, outcomes must be identified and evaluated in the context of each location.

Methodology This report provides a synthesis of the evaluation carried out by the three prototype teams in order to give readers an in-depth understanding of the feasibility, value creation, inclusivity and viability of the Participatory City approach in a Canadian context. Additionally, this report aims to provide insights from the Participatory Canada core team in their role as learning partners and co-creators of the prototypes with the local teams. This core team included members from the McConnell Foundation, Participatory City Foundation, and COLAB (the author of this developmental evaluation report). The research approach and methodology used by each prototype focused on multiple forms of resident evaluation, team reflections and observations. Resident evaluation included quantitative measures of direct and immediate outcomes during individual sessions and workshops, as well as qualitative responses about benefits experienced through participation. The evaluation also included insights from each prototype team who participated in regular developmental evaluation conversations, facilitated both internally and with Participatory Canada team members.

Taking a Developmental Evaluation Approach A developmental evaluation framework was used to guide the evaluation strategy, as it emphasizes the importance of data emerging from the practical and immersive experience of developing a new approach and methodology. This description of developmental evaluation is from Patton (2006) Developmental Evaluation:

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

“Developmental evaluation supports innovation development to guide adaption to emergent and dynamic realities in complex environments. Developmental evaluation tracks and attempts to make sense of what emerges under conditions of complexity, documenting and interpreting the dynamics, interactions, and interdependencies that occur as innovations unfold.”

Varying Levels of Evaluation Experience, Expertise and Capacity Each team had different organizational contexts, structures, and experience with developmental evaluation. The Regent Park Toronto team included external researchers through a partnership with Mitacs Canada. In this case, highly skilled researchers on short term contracts worked in parallel with the delivery of the neighbourhood prototype. The Montreal team took an embedded approach, where the delivery team also lead the evaluation. This included collecting and analyzing data, as well as sensemaking. The process of developmental evaluation was new for this team. Meanwhile, the Kjipuktuk-Halifax team was made up of individuals from different organizations, and was housed in the Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre. The evaluator came from the local partnering organization Inspiring Communities, a group with robust experience in leading developmental evaluation. The evaluator was embedded in the team and part of delivery of the prototype. This evaluation was only possible because of the significant contributions from the Kjipuktuk-Halifax, Montreal, and Toronto teams. We give our thanks to all of the team members.

KEY FINDING 1 FEASIBILITY Research Question:

To what extent is it possible and desirable to create an ecosystem of participatory projects, and a wellfunctioning support platform? Key Finding for Social R&D Y1: The findings from year 1 of social R&D suggest compelling evidence that the Participatory City approach to building large scale participation is feasible, adaptable and desirable in a variety of Canadian contexts.

Insight 1

The Participatory City Approach is Highly Adaptive Insight 2

The Participatory City Approach can be a Platform for Truth and Reconciliation Insight 3

Coaching Support is Critical to Learning the Approach Insight 4

Demand from Community Members to Continue Insight 5

Growing Institutional and Organizational Demand Insight 6

A Desire to Build on the Social R&D Phase & Test the Approach PostPandemic PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

INSIGHT 1

The Approach Is Highly Adaptive The prototypes in this evaluation show that the Participatory City approach has the capacity to be adapted to different contexts and conditions on a granular level, while continuing to change, evolve and improve along the way. Each prototype integrated core principles and elements of the overall approach, while making it meaningful for local people and contexts. The ability to adapt to local context is essential to the success of the Participatory City approach, as is an appetite among members for ongoing learning and development. That both of these elements emerged so strongly from all three prototypes shows the potential for future scaling of the approach.

The partnership between Participatory Canada and local teams helped manage the complexities of implementation and adaptation, while contributing to learning for all participants. While this learning was critical to the successful delivery of the programs, it was not always easy. A generative relationship based on openness, patience and trust was required from both sides, so that local teams and Participatory Canada could meaningfully transfer the theory and practice of the approach, and apply it to the current situation. In all three cities, teams quickly adapted the approach in two ways: First, teams worked to tune the approach to suit the local context; secondly, teams then pivoted in response to the changing circumstances of COVID-19. To better appreciate these dynamics, it helps to situate each team in more detail.

Communications

Space

RESIDENT DRIVEN PROJECTS

Data

In Nova Scotia, Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax is an Indigenous-led group that centres reconciliation in all of its activities. In Montreal, Notre voisinage works to build solidarity among long-standing residents and newcomers to Canada, favouring projects that foster urban ecological transition. The Toronto team Our Neighbourhood is strengthening social cohesion, especially between residents from different backgrounds who live in different kinds of housing. In Montreal and Toronto, strict pandemic health measures had an impact on organizing. Despite this, the teams were able to adapt their tactics to continue to engage with residents online.

Social Practices

Network & Resources

Figure 8: Participatory City Magic Sauce The results from this year of R&D re-affirms the strategy of partnering with local organizations. These groups understand local dynamics and are able to build on existing neighbourhood, local government and organizational relationships. Most important, these local organizations help bring lived community experience to prototype development. Prototyping the approach in three different cities was a challenge, but it paid dividends in rich learning that contributed to the development and adaptation of Participatory City. The approach has continued to evolve, develop, and improve in each city, with new insights, practices, ideas, tactics and tools being added as the momentum grows. The next time the Participatory City approach is implemented, these elements will enrich and inform the overall experience. Participants in Canada did not merely replicate a model from the UK, but engaged in meaningful iterative learning and development in action. As the approach moves forward, we can expect to see improvement and development to meet realities in our communities.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

The Notre voisinage program in Montreal was able to achieve an important objective, namely creating bonds of conviviality and solidarity in the neighbourhood of Ahuntsic. This was a significant achievement as this is a neighbourhood where Solon, the group that led the prototype, had no prior network or programs. The group managed to build new relationships, including with les Tables de quartier, thereby establishing the foundation for future partnerships with Notre voisinage. In Halifax, a key adaptation was the way in which the team was structured. The North End of that city is an historically diverse community, and includes community members from the African Nova Scotian community, the urban Indigenous community and recently, community members representing growing gentrification. As a result, there was an effort to explore new forms of partnership and capacity building in support of multiple aims, including deepening learning and understanding across organizations, acknowledging different forms of knowledge and expertise, and connecting and leveraging resources. This team centred truth and reconciliation as a way to both acknowledge history in the community, and to create spaces where all are welcome.

Of the three cities, Halifax experienced the least COVID-19 restrictions, but team members there faced a two-week lockdown soon after the program began. This forced the team to pivot by making a number of their community-led sessions virtual. Crafting workshops and community chats moved online, but in order to support community members with this transition, the team used a hybrid approach where some workshop leaders were in-person when technological support was needed, while all attendants participated online. In some cases, the Halifax team hosted events that were both in-person and online, making them more accessible. All three teams adapted their approach differently, using local knowledge.

“Each prototype is unique and the successes and challenges of each make a great learning experience not only for Participatory Canada, but also for Participatory City teams in London. I see this as an ever growing and evolving platform that is now an international movement, changing peoples’ lives everywhere. What people need most, now more than ever, is this connection, a sense of belonging in their own community, and being a part of something that improves their lives in a meaningful way.” Aggie Paulauskaite, Cities Program Tutor, Participatory City Foundation

More detail may be found in their respective reports.

Figure 9: Participatory City Learning & Development Model

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

Cross pollination: Evidence of adaptability within the ecosystem poses new questions that should be explored in year 2. Is it possible to create conditions for surrounding communities so that, where there is demand, the platform and ecosystem can expand and grow? There could be a support structure inviting neighbouring community changemakers to learn the approach throughout the process. The boundaries between neighbourhoods are blurry, and there is excitement across these boundaries. A longer-term goal should be to establish a structure for this kind of growth and learning, so that participatory systems are accessible to neighbourhoods who want to build them.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

INSIGHT 2

Participatory City Approach Can Be A Platform For Truth And Reconciliation Truth and Reconciliation The 94 Calls to Action detailed in the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015) place a responsibility on governments, businesses, educational and religious institutions, health care professionals, civil society groups and all Canadians to recognize the value of Indigenous worldviews and practices. The report defines reconciliation as “…establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples … there has to be awareness of the past, acknowledgement of the harm that has been inflicted, atonement for the causes, and action to change behaviour.”

A key observation coming out of the Halifax experience is that there can be a push and pull between expediency and relationship work. For example, working within existing frames and structures to plan, strategize and implement often takes place more rapidly than the time required to deepen personal relationships and allow for collective learning around new systems and processes in the service of reconciliation. Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax helped bring to light specific examples of how reconciliation can be manifested and experienced at the neighbourhood and community level. Some of these examples are listed below, but require exploration in future iterations of the work, possibly through the development of a theory of change. • Use an Indigenous approach to relationship building. In particular, this means honoring the time to build meaningful and trusting relationships with the community. Intentionally create space to nurture relationships throughout the project.

Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax set out to discover how the Participatory City approach might highlight Indigenous culture and traditions, thereby benefiting the Indigenous community, and moving forward together with positive intentions backed by actions.

• Create spaces and invitations (e.g. newspapers) that reflect Indigenous cultures and worldviews, but are viewed as welcoming to all. • Build new connections between Indigenous-led (e.g., Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre) and non-Indigenous organizations to help foster a network of safe and inviting spaces that can support cultural exchange and inclusive participation.

The experience gained from this prototype shows that the Participatory City approach can be a vehicle for advancing truth and reconciliation. Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax is helping Indigenous perspectives be heard by non-Indigenous people in ways that haven’t been possible before. Throughout the implementation, the prototype is helping create opportunities for cross cultural relationships in both formal and informal spaces. Kjipuktuk-Halifax is helping shift power from funders and organizations to the Indigenous community. While truth and reconciliation was a core principle for the Kjipuktuk-Halifax team, the evidence suggests that this process can and should be integrated wherever Participatory City is being implemented in Canada. A key component of the Halifax team’s effort is centring reconciliation in the design, delivery and evaluation of the support platform and participation ecosystem. Adapting the approach to centre reconciliation required more work than the KjipuktukHalifax team anticipated. For example, adapting the Barking & Dagenham newspaper revealed how the work needed to better reflect the context of Halifax’s North End. The team challenged itself to create a design that could welcome not only members of the Indigenous community, but others as well. For example, the invitation to participate was sent out after many engagements, with a design that included symbolism relevant to Mi’kmaq, Métis, Inuit and African Nova Scotian cultures. The process involved conversations with Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre staff and elders, and back and forth with the designer to get it right. After all, there is no manual or guide for including reconciliation at this scale, while the deeply relational nature of this work means that timeframes and structures must allow for trust. Once this can be established, it is possible to explore approaches that centre Indigenous knowledge and practices. Throughout the process, team members asked themselves questions about reconciliation, including how to apply more traditional forms of governance or evaluation. These kinds of considerations take time to understand, let alone to implement, and the envelope around the prototype phase was insufficient.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

• Integrate practices and protocols that can support safe and respectful sharing and learning of Indigenous culture and history (e.g. land acknowledgements, cultural protocols, etc.). • Honour the wisdom of elders and knowledge keepers by inviting them into the design and delivery of the Every One Every Day platform and projects. • Inviting Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities to share and learn in safe and inviting spaces together. • Use guiding principles based on the 7 grandmother/ grandfather teachings, and build space into this process for reflection, relationships, and learning. .

Figure 10: Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Newspaper 2021. PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

STRATEGIC GROUP PRINCIPLES The following principles were created using the Mi’kmaw teaching of Etuaptmumk, “Two-eyed Seeing”, introduced by Elder Albert Marshall of Eskasoni First Nation, in the district of Una’ma’ki. This teaching asks us to take the strengths of both a colonized world and an Indigenous world, and, through both lenses, build greater capacity and success for all. These principles integrate Euro-Canadian practice with the Seven Sacred Teachings of the Mi’kmaq through a process of co-learning and an exchange of stories.

LOVE & OPENNESS

COURAGE & BRAVERY

Through the teaching of love, we approach our tasks with an open heart and steep our work in love so that we always remain welcoming and inclusive.

Through the teaching of courage, we unleash the tenacity we carry inside to overcome fears that prevent us from advancing in our worwwk by acknowledging our discomfort and facing it with bravery and integrity, together.

RESPECT & HARMONY

HUMILITY & RECIPROCITY

Through the teaching of respect, we acknowledge the existence of multiple truths and give equal consideration to all perspectives. We accept differences and do not judge or dismiss but work together to establish a mutual understanding that will sustain a harmonious environment for all to thrive.

Through the teaching of humility, we recognize that we are a part of something greater than our individual needs. We honour our interconnectedness – Msit no’kmaq, “all my relations,” by exploring beyond words, to the essence of ourselves and our existence on this earth. We appreciate our inter-dependence by supporting working relationships that are both reciprocal and steadfast.

WISDOM & REFLECTION

TRUTH & TRANSPARENCY

Through the teaching of wisdom, we utilize our individual gifts in ways that promote wellness and equity. We realize that our work is dynamic and always changing and we intentionally create space to reflect on the past and present to prepare for the path ahead.

Through the teaching of truth, we adhere to these principles and are purposeful in our work and intentional in our actions. We are aware of our personal truths and recognize the multiple lenses that influence how we see and act in the world so that we remain accountable and transparent in everything we do.

HONESTY, LEARNING & UNLEARNING Through the teaching of honesty, we remain true to ourselves, our community, and each other by always speaking from the heart. We create a safe space to learn, grow, and develop alongside each other and lead with curiosity, questioning what is, and why things are the way they are to surface our shared history.

The principles are beautiful. They depict that there needs to be vulnerability present to be in practice. - Strategic Group member 7 Figure 11 - Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Strategic Group principles (Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Evaluation Report, March 2021)

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

Explore the integration of reconciliation principles, initially created through a governance lens, alongside Participatory City inclusivity principles. How could these be adapted and/or applied at the community level? Include reconciliation as part of the resource/budget plan to ensure dedicated staff time can be focused on this. Develop pathways and timeframes that can support the successful integration of Indigenous knowledge and culture into the Every One Every Day platform and participation ecosystem (e.g. spaces, communications, projects, etc.). Commit to long-term relationship building, and to a vision of the Participatory City approach as a vehicle for truth and reconciliation. This is ongoing work, and not a short-term project. Evaluate and further define how the strategic group and decision makers might embrace truth and reconciliation work better, and identify how it can fit more easily with traditional planning, transition planning, and resource development processes.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

"Participatory Canada has given us the platform to move Reconciliation in Halifax so much further ahead. What I thought would take 20 years has actually taken a very short time. People are beginning to think differently. People are beginning to relinquish power traditionally held by funders and organizations to the Friendship Centre and Indigenous community here in Halifax.” Pam Glode-Desrochers, Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

INSIGHT 3

Coaching Support is Critical to Learning the Approach Scaling an approach from elsewhere is contingent upon having robust learning infrastructure in place. This learning infrastructure helps new initiatives build on core elements, and principles, while underpinning theories of change and adapting to local contexts. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, all learning and support between Participatory Canada and the prototype teams shifted online, but still proved invaluable. However, some core elements of the original scaling strategy were lost, including the opportunities for:

“Hiring and training a project team while at the same time trying to learn about and build the platform required lots of learning on the job and was particularly challenging, as each team member received different amounts of training around the approach, and none received very much. There were expectations around self-directed learning, such as reading reports and articles, however this does not work for everyone and requires extra time. It would have been helpful if each member of the team were introduced and trained on the Participatory City approach at the same time and to the same degree. Immersive learning is so critical to this approach, however in the absence of being able to travel to London, it feels imperative that the project team be exposed to the same fundamentals and tools where possible” Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Evaluation Report

• Hands-on training and in-person learning; • In-person relationship building between Canadian team members, partner organizations, and the team in London; • Testing and learning from the storefront and in-person aspects of the approach, due to physical distancing restrictions. The Participatory City approach is all about the magic created when residents get together, and the exponential collective benefit of working together; and • Visiting each other’s prototypes and learning by doing together.

Learning and support structures leaned heavily on virtual methods which included: • Co-design sessions with prototype teams and Participatory Canada in the planning and development phases; • Monthly reflection, learning, and problem-solving sessions facilitated by Participatory Canada; • Offering ongoing support from tutors; • Encouraging prototype team members to sit in and observe London’s virtual meetings; and • Holding monthly meetings with prototype teams to foster an emerging Community of Practice.

“Joining the big team meeting with the folks in London was one of the most educational experiences I had.” Denise Soueidan-O’Leary, Program Manager, Every One Every Day Toronto

The three city prototype teams had to learn the theory and practice of the approach with primarily virtual support, rather than through the in-person, hands-on learning originally planned for. Without the ability to travel to London to experience the approach first-hand, the teams relied on conversations with London team members, in addition to presentations, documents and videos. It is difficult to say what the impact of a lack of in-person learning was, but it is clear that the approach can be learned over virtual platforms.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

“My big aha moment came when I participated in a developmental evaluation meeting with the Every One Every Day team in London. The meeting solidified my understanding of the human-centredness of the approach, and allowed me to witness firsthand how big teaming works, centring on residents while simultaneously building an entire ecosystem • through the adapted Tomorrow Today Streets starter kits. What became clear in that moment was that there was nothing extraordinary about the individual projects—although turning plastic bottles into beautiful and colourful new products is remarkable— it was the power of all the projects happening in synchrony that set this initiative apart from anything I’ve ever been involved in.” Keren Tang, Participatory Canada Program Manager

“Joining the big team meeting with the folks in London was one of the most educational experiences I had.” Denise Soueidan-O’Leary, Program Manager, Every One Every Day Toronto

RECOMMENDATIONS

Regardless of the availability of in-person learning, the role of the tutors and mentorship proved invaluable and is worth continuing and amplifying. Tutors have played an essential role in supporting the local teams— especially the leads—to develop the approach and the local programs that are the core ingredients of Participatory City. Tutors ensure that all available tools are used, and relevant data is collected. The tutors and Participatory Canada team became the primary vehicle for transferring knowledge of the approach, given their experience with setting up a participatory platform. It is essential to have people familiar with the approach, but also to have people skilled in co-design, with an understanding of the elements of co-design. This includes co-design with residents, between residents and project designers, between the designers and the strategy, and finally, between local teams and Participatory Canada. More time should be given to teams to learn by doing, and to attain the invaluable experience that cannot be shared virtually. This kind of learning needs to be shared between teams and leadership in person. Project team members should be hired at the same time, so that everyone learns the fundamentals and gains experience with tools together.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

INSIGHT 4

Demand From Residents To Continue Encouragingly, feedback collected from residents in all the prototypes indicates that the approach is perceived as both positive and unique, and there is a strong desire for the programs to continue.

Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Launched in March 2021 and the program continued for 8 weeks until April 2021. There were:

Our Neighbourhood. Regent Park, Toronto Our Neighbourhood ran two phases. Phase 1 in fall of 2020 saw: • 100 participants • 25+ workshops • 6 projects Phase 2 (March-April 2021) included:

• 33 sessions,

• 30+ residents

• 26 hosts,

• 4 projects

• 235 registered participants with 65 on wait lists; • 167 session participants; • 28 At Home With Us Kits Distributed • 8 Different practical everyday projects

“There has been much evidence indicating both strong community support of the program and interest in participating in the future. Throughout the design phase of the pilot, emphasis was placed on how the Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax support platform could foster new connections across different parts of the neighbourhood. For example, we know that Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre provides a safe and welcoming space for Indigenous community members to be together and learn, and part of our aim was to draw new people into the centre who may otherwise not feel welcome, or that they have a reason to do so. Similarly, we intentionally established a network of community spaces that could invite and encourage diverse individuals and groups to connect across different parts of the neighbourhood.” Notre voisinage, Montreal Between February and April of 2021, Notre voisinage delivered: • 66 starter kits, • 9 workshops, with • 178 participants

“ There was a continual increase in registrations and participation throughout the project. There is a pool of residents who are increasingly satisfied with the project and who wish to become more involved. This trend, coupled with the continued solicitation of the mobilization team by residents via emails and phone calls, indicates that this approach is working well. It seems essential to us to consolidate this momentum and to include this program in a medium- and longterm perspective.”

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

“The feedback that we got is that we should run more programming like this, more frequently, and more reliably, so that residents could plan to participate. I think this alone speaks to the fact that there is an appetite for low barriered, fun, community-involved offerings. The Our Neighbourhood Project and Every One Every Day: TO have an identity in the neighbourhood, and the community is anxious to see what comes next from us.”

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

INSIGHT 5

Growing Institutional Demand Interest in the Participatory City approach is strong, and comes from civic leaders, developers, community organizations as well as from municipal and provincial governments, particularly in Nova Scotia and Quebec. We see institutional demand at two levels, with buy-in from a community-building perspective shared by private, public, and community sector leaders. Partnerships across existing community service providers and local businesses are a great example of community-wide interest at the organizational level. Significantly, there is also a great deal of interest from decisionmakers in larger institutions such as provincial and municipal governments. In each of the three cities, major decision-makers see value, and both change-makers and policy leaders are drawn to the potential of the Participatory City approach to create population-level outcomes. In Kjipuktuk-Halifax, there is a high level of interest in participatory ecosystems and their potential outcomes. An example of this interest can be seen in how partnerships have developed between organizations traditionally serving different communities, such as the collaboration between Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre, United Way Halifax, and Inspiring Communities. There is also evidence of support at a larger institutional level, with strong interest from the Mayor of Halifax, city councillors, provincial and federal politicians. Alongside this, there is seed structural support from public sector partners such as Develop Nova Scotia, a provincial Crown corporation and co-investor in the social R&D phase, and United Way Halifax. In Montreal, there was interest in the Participatory City Foundation’s work before the social R&D phase, with representatives from la Pépinière, Percolab Coop, and the Maison de l’innovation sociale (MIS) visiting Every One Every Day in its early days. Community groups and the municipality saw alignment with existing initiatives such as Tables de quartier, lab Transition, and even city-wide strategies such as Quartiers culturels. The partnership with Solon collectif for the social R&D phase even welcomed the co-investment and support of the local borough of Ahuntsic-Cartierville. A number of other organizations and local governments in the Montreal region and elsewhere in Quebec are working to build Participatory Canada in their communities.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

In Toronto, lead partner Centre for Social Innovation saw strong alignment between Participatory Canada and its community wealth initiative, a broader vision that also has support from the City of Toronto. In fact, the City is keen to learn from the social R&D phase about ways to “embed [the Participatory City approach] in city planning to ensure the strength and resilience of communities across Toronto in a post COVID-19 context.” Moreover, larger institutional partner Mitacs Canada has co-invested in the social R&D phase to support the research. Several real-estate developers including Tridel and the Daniels Corporation have been involved in discussions, with the latter committing investment into the future. An early feasibility conversation in 2020 with residents, organizers and planners from Alexandra and Regent Parks showed strong interest, particularly from the residents, about the need for initiatives that bring people of diverse backgrounds together. This conversation led to a critical decision point to focus on one area in Regent Park. In response, the practical everyday projects side of Our Neighbourhood mobilized a number of social enterprises and community organizations as part of the Centre for Social Innovation network. Phase 2 of the project saw many residents returning to participate and wanting to meet new people.

“The Notre voisinage project falls directly under the sixth major intervention priority of the 2019-2025 Strategic Plan for Sustainable Development of the Ahuntsic-Cartierville borough, whose objective is to meet the needs of the population in a fair and equitable manner, by putting in place mechanisms that promote solidarity and inclusion in order to strengthen the resilience of the community.” Émilie Thuillier, Mayor of Ahuntsic-Cartierville

RECOMMENDATION

Evaluate and compare the types of support local cities are receiving vs the type of support Participatory City UK has traditionally received. Are the supporters and funders giving the ecosystem the funding and dedication it needs without strings, and is the support platform governed in a way to facilitate the agency needed?

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

INSIGHT 6

A Desire to Build on the Social R&D Phase & Test the Approach PostPandemic A year of testing in a learning-rich environment established a foundation of knowledge and experience, as well as a baseline for reference to measure impact, changes and differences. All three teams expressed a strong desire to continue testing the Participatory City approach in year 2 in a way that will be intentional and informed by the experience of year 1. The leads on each team described a moment where aspects of approach clicked into place while implementing their programs. Once the teams moved beyond the planning and development phase and into delivery, the approach started to come alive and take shape. Many prototype team members admitted that only now in hindsight do they fully understand the components of the approach, and how they intertwine and work together. Furthermore, there is a strong desire to test the approach in a world with fewer COVID-19 restrictions. The people working on these initiatives are all deeply experienced in the world of community engagement and development, and cannot wait for the opportunity to test this approach in better conditions for bringing people together.

“I learned a lot from this project on both personal and professional levels, but I didn’t have the time to invest, explore and enjoy it in its entirety. I would have liked to be on this project at least 70% of the time. And I’d like the opportunity to put all of my energy into it in the future.” Wissam, Notre Voisinage Prototype Team, Montreal

“Given that over 100 people participated in this pilot program, I think there is an appetite for non-traditional engagement. A traditional program is the kind of engagement we are used to: where the parameters are set, and participants are guided through a learning process. In theory, Every One Every Day Toronto offered a different pathway to community engagement, a more participatory style of choose your own adventure, and was designed to have residents take the lead on planning and implementing their own neighbourhood initiatives. Due to COVID-19, and lockdown restrictions, it was a bit harder to make the full transition to the participatory approach, but the pilot allowed us to plant the seed, and introduce the concept, so that we can reintroduce the project post pandemic.” Denise Soueidan-O’Leary, Program Manager, Our Neighbourhood Toronto

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

“Every One Every Day Toronto offered a different pathway to community engagement, a more participatory style of choose your own adventure, and was designed to have residents take the lead on planning and implementing their own neighbourhood initiatives.” Denise Soueidan-O’Leary, Program Manager, Every One Every Day Toronto

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

KEY FINDING 2 INCLUSIVITY Research Question:

To what extent is it possible to create an ecosystem of participatory projects with all residents of the neighbourhood? Key Finding for Social R&D Y1: The findings set out in this report show early indications that the Participatory City approach is engaging a wide range of residents in each neighbourhood and building networks that bring together individuals and communities that have not been connected previously.

Insight 1:

Participatory City Approach and Third Spaces Engage Community Members Across Barriers and Cultural Divides Insight 2:

Diverse Communication Methods and a Strong Brand Invites More Participation Insight 3:

Inclusivity is Strengthened by Local Knowledge of Context

“This pilot phase is about understanding what needs to be different, how individuals can be supported to tap into their unique skills, talents and interests in order to cultivate a collective society that truly reflects individual and collective values” Aimee Gasparetto, Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

“There is almost a bit of a formula and there are pieces to that formula that you could adapt or might not work over here [in Halifax], but it is the collection of all of those pieces done very rigorously and with all this support around evaluation and things like that, that almost create these perfect conditions for inclusivity and participation to flourish and the idea that this support platform is really about connecting infrastructure and then connecting people to that infrastructure” Aimee Gasparetto, Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

INSIGHT 1

Participatory City Approach and Third Spaces Engage Community Members Across Barriers and Cultural Divides The prototypes proved that the approach can be a stepping stone for building broader bridging networks. Each initiative demonstrates how this approach engages residents in a way that is unique and valuable, simply because it has the ability to bring people together across barriers and cultural divides. This can be in contrast to other programs that exist in the same community. In Halifax’s North End, the prototype brought together urban Indigenous, non-Indigenous, African Nova Scotians, and others together in community settings. In Regent Park Toronto, this approach helped to bridge an historic gap between community members in both subsidized and market-rate housing. The Solon team engaged a completely new community of Tolhurst/St-Benoît in Montreal, connecting with local partners, and forming bridges between long-time residents and newcomers. The on-the-ground, comprehensive and inclusive nature of this approach welcomes community members regardless of age, class, and race. Each city has built from their knowledge of the community to create virtual and physical spaces that are welcoming to everyone.

Significantly, all three cities cited a lack of third places in their neighbourhoods that truly welcome all community members to connect and be together. “The Every One Every Day prototype demonstrated successful approaches in building inclusive participation and generated particular excitement and energy around sharing and learning across cultures, with strong potential to build upon.” Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Evaluation Report

“We noticed that of the various ways that we are involved in the community: the work-space, the Social Development Plan tables, the Civic Engagement Collaborative, and the Ice Cream Parlour, we were seeing completely different groups of residents. We were surprised at the ratio of market-rate residents versus social housing residents - with the market rate being more highly represented, than is typical. There were more “market” residents enrolled in the program than there were Toronto Community Housing Corporation residents.” Every One Every Day Toronto - Our Neighbourhood Report

“Me gusta la iniciativa, es un buen momento a la integración.” (I like the initiative, it’s a good opportunity for integration.) Notre voisinage Report, Montreal

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

Prioritize the resourcing and development of community storefronts and spaces, including makerspaces. Physical spaces are an essential component of the approach’s practical participatory platforms. This critical piece of infrastructure will help to strengthen inclusivity, anchor a growing network of spaces and projects, and support research around a small but realistic demonstration of the support platform. It will help to make and create purpose-designed spaces which make all community members feel welcome, and more concretely bridge across community groups.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

INSIGHT 2

Diverse Communication Methods and a Strong Brand Invites More Participation The development and use of a beautiful, strong, cohesive brand and communications goes a long way in establishing initial connections with the community. It helps to present stability and longevity, especially in the absence of street-facing storefront operations. While establishing newspapers was a significant endeavor requiring a substantial investment of resources, it was the most helpful invitational element of the platform in both Halifax and Toronto. Critically, the papers served as a highly engaging tool that grounded the work, organizations and residents. Building off of digital communication, a physical on-the-ground resource such as newspapers helped build inclusivity and equity for those with less access to technology. In Montreal, where the city was harder hit by rolling lockdowns during the outreach phase, the initiative faced challenges with delivery. Team members could not go door to door, were not allowed to enter social housing apartment buildings to distribute papers, and central community spaces were not open to the public. Add to this was the fact that there was a fear of sharing physical objects. The Montreal team’s use of WhatsApp made it possible to communicate more fluidly, with the ability to send photos, videos, and small messages which allowed more groups to be united. The creation of Whatsapp groups was an effective strategy for reaching participants, and helped animate a friendly exchange space in the context of remote activities. Toronto faced similar challenges as Montreal with strict lockdown measures. Existing storefront and community hub spaces where Centre for Social Innovation normally operates were closed, and most of the programming was done virtually or in some instances, outdoors. In Halifax, where delivery was possible and spaces such as the North End Library were open and operational, the team had no trouble getting papers into people’s hands. Most participants cited the newspaper as the primary way they learned about the workshops, followed closely by word of mouth and Facebook. It is worth noting that having a strong brand and communications strategy cohesive across platforms created an equitable approach to communications. Both digital and physical communications strategies reached people with and without access to technology and internet, and ensured that less people missed the opportunity to participate. The newspaper proved to be an effective and unique outreach method in a world where outreach and communications have moved almost solely to online formats. Given that the pandemic struck just as Participatory Canada kicked off, each local initiative pivoted to do as much as possible online. Clearly, not everyone has access to the internet, or to multiple computers that would allow family members to participate while others are using it for work or school. While online communications is an important aspect of reaching people, it cannot be the only way that community members are engaged.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

“The newspaper was beautiful, and it made the schedule and purpose of the project clear.” Participant, Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax

“Having a glossy program booklet, and materials included made it different from other programs, and enticed people to check it out.” Every One Every Day Toronto - Our Neighbourhood Report

RECOMMENDATIONS

Establish graphic design and communications expertise as a core resource within the project team to support the development and production of newspapers and associated communication materials like signage, decor and online event materials. This could be part- or full-time, depending on the cycle of production. It would also be beneficial to have communications support for managing the website outreach, promotion, and coordination of project communications. - Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Report Build on this success by integrating newspapers as a primary communications tool within the participatory platform. Define realistic production cycles that mirror program delivery and can grow over time based on available resources. - Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Report Use diverse communication platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp to create spaces for residents to communicate and lead conversations.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

INSIGHT 3

Inclusivity Is Strengthened By Local Knowledge Of Context Local knowledge and relationships proved essential for centering inclusivity and radical inclusion as an active driving force in the ongoing development and delivery of each initiative. The teams knew from lived experience who is typically excluded from social programs, and how to work to invite those community members. Team members found resources to help understand radical inclusion from their own lives, and elsewhere. One helpful definition came from the Burning Man festival in the United States, which welcomes anyone. There are no prerequisites for participation in the community. prototypes demonstrated that inclusivity is inherently cultural.

This is no simple way of establishing what radical inclusion should look like. The conditions for inclusivity are tailor-made in each place. While there are ideas and approaches to learn from, inclusivity will come from building and creating these conditions with community members themselves.

“The Every One Every Day prototype highlighted the importance of having meaningful and trusting relationships already within the community to gain interest and traction. Two of the project team members had existing connections to the community, and the Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre has been a community hub for decades. As a result, the project designer was able to quickly draw on a list of community members who could potentially host a session to get things started. These established relationships also had a positive influence on community participation throughout the pilot. Hosts, as residents, felt comfortable participating in the pilot because they trusted that adequate support would be provided by the project team and the Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre. Over the course of the pilot, these relationships grew and provided a strong foundation to build upon moving forward” Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Evaluation Report

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

“The borough fully supports the implementation of projects like this one which, by creating and strengthening social ties, strengthens the resilience of neighborhoods where they are carried out. In recent years, Solon has demonstrated its ability to lead such projects and this is the reason that led our borough to develop various partnerships with this organization. “ Émilie Thuillier, Mayor of Ahuntsic-Cartierville

RECOMMENDATIONS

Creating a welcoming and inclusive culture is fundamentally contextspecific, and is something created by the people involved, including those interacting with residents, who plan and organize logistics, and those who set strategic direction. How local team members work with one another is a fractal of how the entire approach functions. The team must embody and reflect the ways in which the entire approach functions, and the approach will look and feel different as it becomes relevant to a particular place. Ideally, all team members bring local experience and relationships in addition to the other expertise they provide to the team.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

KEY FINDING 3 VALUE CREATION Research Question:

To what extent is this approach to building participation capable of creating value for individual community members and neighbourhoods?

Key Finding for Social R&D Y1: The three prototypes demonstrated through a range of qualitative and quantitative data that the Participatory City approach is capable of delivering value for residents and neighbourhoods.

Insight 1:

Early Indicators for Long Term Outcomes Insight 2:

Highest Value for Community Members is Connection and Knowing Their Community Better Insight 3:

Community Members Have a Desire to Co-Create the Future of the Platforms Insight 4:

Geographic Focus Enhances Value Created for Community Members

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

“Especially during pandemic time, it has been so fulfilling to make tangible connections with strangers, who are friends now.” Participant, Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

INSIGHT 1

Early Indicators For Long Term Outcomes In each city the prototypes all created multiple participation opportunities for residents which is the necessary building block to repeated participation and compound outcomes. The participation activities vary from context to context, city to city, yet the value created is similar across all three cities. Common themes that are being observed and recorded are that residents are feeling more connected to their communities, sharing and learning skills and culture, and having a hand in shaping future programming. Participatory City’s theory of change in its most reduced form is that repeated participation leads to greater community resilience outcomes. The results of the three prototypes all show early parallels with the successes seen in Every One Every Day in Barking and Dagenham.

“Results from Participatory City show that fostering individual agency - via inclusive, accessible platforms that enable repeated micro-activities - is a gateway for fostering collective agency, which in turn aggregates and compounds into large-scale transformation. Simply put when people participate in meaningful, beneficial activities in their communities, they not only feel better but also build trust, community, and powerful networks. When people participate meaningfully in their communities, they set the stage for transformation.” Tools 2 Act, Year 2 Report For The Every One Every Day Initiative In Barking And Dagenham.

lle c Fa tive mi lie Imp s & ac Yo t In un di g ca Pe to o p rs le

CO 2

CO 1

CU RE & SE

COL LE INDIV CTIVE IDU EF AL S & FECT FA MI TO LIE S

S OOD RH

tors #7 t Indica mpac ent ive I m lect Environ

Collective Imp ac Mental & P t Indicat o hysic al He rs #1 alth

Col

HB IG NE

CO 3

15 Inclusivity principles

HO UR

Co Col lle le c

CO -C RE A

H IG

CO LL EC TI

CO 4

Coll ec Coh tive I esio mp n & act Ne Ind igh ica bo to ur rs lin # es 5 s

IDUALS, TO INDIV ECT HOODS R U EFF O B E H TIV NEIG EC ES, & LL LI CO AMI F

Outcomes Framework V.2. 2019 Figure 12: Oucomes Framework V.2 2019

e Impact Indicators #4 Collectiv Learning & Work

D TE

3 rs # ato dic rhood n I u t ac h b o mp ig e I & Ne v i g ct lle rnin Co Lea

#6 n ors tio at duc dic ro I n -p c t Co pa & Im on e cti iv ct ve A ti

W EL L

TIVE AGENCY COLLEC

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

CO - Compound Outcome

INSIGHT 2

Highest Value for Community Members is Connection and Knowing Their Community Better The results from each prototype show that people want to feel more connected to their neighbourhood, and that programs implemented through the prototypes are helping build that connection. In Halifax, 73% of community members surveyed reported making a new friend or connection. Obviously, the pandemic and virtual nature of some programming made connecting with others more challenging, but even with rolling lockdowns and restrictions on gathering, there are strong indications that a network is growing and that community connections are being made. Each prototype is indicating the benefits of sharing both skills and culture. As we’ve seen, this kind of sharing helps build resiliency, bridge networks across community, and contributes to participants’ confidence in trying new things. Community hosts and participants are sharing interest and excitement about gaining and sharing cultural, community, and skills-based knowledge. 84% of surveyed participants in Halifax said they learned a new skill. Session hosts stated they saw increased confidence among participants in the use of carpentry and building tools throughout a building workshop.

“Another major benefit was that it gave an opportunity for residents to share their culture and traditions with others in a safe, respectful, co-learning environment. Cultural sessions were well-received and were the most popular among participants. A number of participants requested that the program offer more sessions with Indigenous content in the future.” Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Evaluation Report

“Especially during pandemic time, it has been so fulfilling to make tangible connections with strangers, who are friends now.”

In Montreal, the pandemic made it difficult to share skills but many residents expressed excitement around strengthening the feeling of belonging, and creating more links in their community. The neighbourhood team was able to start seeing potential impacts of the approach.

“Because of the pandemic and all the restrictions, Our Neighborhood team couldn’t have the time and the possibility to build a closer contact and interaction with residents so it can allow us to understand the challenges that the residents in the neighborhood were facing. However, we noticed that the values and the goals of the program meet perfectly the needs and aspirations of most participants.” Notre voisinage Report, Montreal

In Toronto, similarly the team was able to see a high level of interest and demand for this type of programming, which is low barrier, fun, and community involved.

Participants shared that they signed onto the project to learn things and to connect to their community. They shared that they liked the ability to give back to the community, and the opportunity to participate with, and connect to other neighbours. Every One Every Day Toronto - Our Neighbourhood Report

“I’d like to get to know folks in the neighbourhood and contribute to a community feeling here!” Resident, Regent Park, Toronto

Participant, Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax

‘’I have just moved into the neighborhood and I would like to get to know it better. Also, I would like my daughter and I to be able to make a circle of acquaintances and friends.”

Notre Voisinage, Montréal Participant

Resident, Regent Park, Toronto

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

INSIGHT 3

Community Members Have a Desire to Co-Create the Future of the Platforms Across the three initiatives, team members saw interest from community members to help shape future programming and the development of the initiative. All three teams reported that communities both appreciated and saw benefit from co-designing the program, allowing members to contribute their own ideas. Exactly what this interest looked like was different in each city, but in Halifax, Toronto and in Montreal, there was evidence of excitement, and a willingness to share new ideas for what could be done next, and how to continue placing community in the lead.

“A desire and a wish expressed by most residents for projects to continue. The projects provoked and put into action a feeling of collective creativity where several residents proposed new ideas and initiatives. The projects and workshops have shown that the needs of structural projects that are part of a medium and long term approach are necessary for the neighborhood”

In Toronto, the hydroponics workshop generated so much interest that some participants started a hydroponics growing club and returned to participate in phase 2 of both the Our Neighbourhood Blooms and Pollinates projects. This type of re-engagement helps to identify potential for community-led initiatives to grow as the project continues. In Montreal, the majority of workshops were not led by community members in the same way as in Halifax or Toronto due to COVID-19 restrictions, and because it was the first time that team members had interacted with this neighbourhood. Nevertheless, residents showed interest and willingness to contribute to future programming. A range of evidence demonstrated that Notre voisinage has been well received, and proposed future projects and activities are resonating with residents who believe that the platform has the potential to meet their needs. The top values that should guide the future of the participatory platform, as identified by participants of Notre voisinage, are: • Strengthen feelings of belonging, and create links to neighbours; • Enhance solidarity and mutual aid; • Build an ecology of sharing; • Improve neighbourhood life; and

Notre voisinage Report, Montreal

In Halifax, resident feedback is driving the planning for the next phase. “Hosts appreciated an opportunity to share their knowledge and talent with the community and to be a part of the co-design process, developing content and customizing the session delivery to their level of comfort.” Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Evaluation Report

“Through the diversity of benefits recorded, and the uniqueness felt through the creation of space for cross-cultural sharing, the EOED pilot reinforced how this approach centres resident experience by working to create many different ways, for many different people, to participate on their own terms - with a sharp focus on strengthening ties between all of these opportunities.” Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Evaluation Report

“I haven’t heard of any other programs in the community that offer this level of community involvement.” Participant, Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

• Allow for learning, creativity, and fun .

RECOMMENDATIONS

Ensure that value for residents is the primary driver and focus for the program and the organization. Major population level outcomes will be impacted if residents lead the way and define needs in regards to social cohesion and community resilience. Too often, the focus and value of programming is determined by organizational and funding priorities. The Participatory City approach allows community members to take the lead when it comes to programming. This approach is not typical and can be a shift for how organizations measure success. Ensure that governance structure and funding relationships help support the ability for programs to centre residents and allow resident-driven determination of value and outcomes.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

INSIGHT 4

Geographic Focus Enhances Value Created for Community Members Evidence from the prototypes indicates that a smaller geographic focus in a particular neighbourhood enhances the ability to foster meaningful relationships and connection to place. Using a radial 15-minute walking distance from a central point in a neighbourhood) helps keep the scale of interventions achievable. Inevitably, what constitutes a neighborhood is subjective. The 15-minute walking distance parameter underlines the importance of having local knowledge. In Halifax, while the geographic area for the prototype was narrow and followed the idea of the 15 minute walkability concept, what constituted a neighborhood for community members was wider, more historic, and built on family and friendship. Remarkably, the narrow geographic focus reached a wider community, because of knowledge and resident relationships. Community members in each of the three neighbourhoods expressed a desire to build connections and opportunities for resource and skill-sharing with neighbours. Similarly to Insight #2, participants emphasized that these connections provided the most value to them.

• .

15 mins

Figure 13 - 15 Minute Walk Concept Model

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

RECOMMENDATION

The Participatory City approach inevitably helps to build a better understanding and definition of where and what natural and historic neighborhoods are within a city. This continued development of local neighbourhood knowledge and understanding should be shared with local planning bodies and municipal departments to ensure city operations are well connected to how community functions. This kind of sharing can help reduce barriers and ensure a long-term participatory ecosystem.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

KEY FINDING 4 VIABILITY Research Question:

To what extent is this program likely to be viable in the current local economic, political and social contexts?

Key Finding for Social R&D Y1: There are early indications that the Participatory City approach is viable in many different contexts and is able to integrate into existing ecosystems of local programs, community assets and businesses.

Insight 1:

Existing Local Relationships Reduce Barriers to Operations Insight 2:

Unique Value Proposition Amongst Ecosystem of Other Programs

Insight 3:

Great Potential to be Part of Pandemic Recovery Strategy Insight 4:

The Platform Suffered Without Physical Spaces Insight 5:

Diversity Of Resources Needed To Reach Minimum Viability 94

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

“We integrated local business, service agency, and grassroots groups into our pilot program. There was a lot of energy behind doing something different. The buy-in from local partners points to evidence that this kind of platform and programming is a welcome shift to a new way of doing things, and that it can be integrated in the local context.” Every One Every Day Toronto - Our Neighbourhood Report PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

INSIGHT 1

“Community leaders and local partners put us in touch with neighborhood residents who are very active in the neighbourhood. In particular, we were put in touch with the president of the tenant committee of HLM Meunier-Tolhurst, a social housing building, and a tenant, Nicolas-Viel,. Unfortunately, in these two instances, establishing these contacts did not allow us to recruit more participants. The strict sanitary measures, the ban on entering buildings and the digital orientation of the program (registration process and programming of workshops) due to the pandemic situation were detrimental to the kind inclusiveness we wanted to see.”

Existing Local Relationships Reduce Barriers to Operations In each city, and through the support of well-connected team members, the prototypes were integrated into the local ecosystem of programs, organizations, changemakers and businesses. This local systemic integration is a necessary building block for longterm success.

“Local groups and agencies are strong partners, and really add to the value of the model. Adding them in strengthens the platform.” Every One Every Day Toronto - Our Neighbourhood Report In Toronto, the team was well-versed in community work in the neighbourhood, and this provided the basis for knowing where to start, how to establish partnerships, and what the barriers were to participation. Knowledge of local organizations helped to build on existing relationships to support programming. Partnerships with organizations such as Art Heart, Just Vertical, Wosen, PaintBox, and Green Thumbs Growing Kids helped ensure that the program was built on community needs and reached the broader community network.

Notre voisinage Report, Montreal Over the duration of this prototype, the Solon team continued to build relationships and have established strong connections with local organizations for future development of Notre voisinage. Across the three cities there was a willingness from local businesses and organizations to get involved and support the prototypes. This willingness was was enabled by existing relationships and social capital. Municipal government and politicians expressed interest, but they are waiting on the results of this year of prototyping before getting more involved. Despite this, political integration occurred at the strategic level in all three cities. In Halifax, the Mayor’s office is part of the Halifax Strategic Group that provides stewardship of Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax, while in Toronto, the city provided a letter of support at the start. In Montreal, Notre voisinage received match funding from the borough government.

Every One Every Day Toronto - Our Neighbourhood Report In Halifax, existing local relationships existed on both an organizational and an individual level. At the organizational level, the association with the Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre provided stability, and helped to facilitate space and relationships as a long-term pillar in the North End. Individually, team members had extensive relationships both within other organizations, and with community members. This knowledge helped reach community members in ways that worked for them, and helped to facilitate use of spaces and partnerships with businesses like Alter Egos, a local cafe which is an important community institution. In Montreal, the team faced barriers working in a new neighbourhood. While a knowledge of neighbourhood culture in Montreal helped the team understand the needs of residents, not having relationships with key community organizations made reaching residents difficult, especially during a pandemic.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

In Toronto, the team recognizes that the municipality appreciates the idea of prototyping and piloting but need to see the data before getting involved. “The City [of Toronto] is looking at a larger rollout of community wealth and community infrastructure, embedding the Participatory City model in that work, as community infrastructure, is strategically advantageous to city buy-in” Every One Every Day Toronto - Our Neighbourhood Report .

RECOMMENDATION

Establishing partnerships with local and regional governments while in the development phase indicates greater long-term resilience and success, and is a necessary building block that works towards greater systemic integration.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

INSIGHT 2

Unique Value Proposition Amongst Ecosystem Of Other Programs The idea of a participatory ecosystem is one that people in communities and organizations get excited about. It feels both familiar and yet unique and innovative at the same time. Once organizations realize there is no threat of competition or scarcity, there is an understanding and excitement about how a participatory ecosystem can help fill gaps and bridge programs. Participation is conceptually simple but hard to pin down in a complex system of organizations that prioritize things differently from each other. Having an ecosystem that reaches people where they are, and that builds on their skills and passions provides a simple and unique value proposition. People working in the community sector recognize that giving resources to residents to lead projects is essential, and yet there aren’t many effective tools in place to do this.

“There isn’t anything quite like this offered in Regent Park. There are social programs, and art programs, and community greening programs, all for different age groups at different organizations. EOED Our Neighbourhood Project offered a one-stop shop of free programming for any and all residents in a variety of different areas. Parents and kids could join together, seniors felt welcome. It was inclusive, and offered a variety of areas to engage in.” Every One Every Day Toronto - Our Neighbourhood Report

“Several organizations serve the neighbourhood, but few specifically reach the people. Programs and services primarily meet specific and urgent needs: education, health, etc. There are few turnkey programs that make it easy to participate and perform and which seek to create friendliness, solidarity, joy, strengthen bonds, and connect people together. Notre Voisinage has come to respond to this issue by offering a complimentary program to the various programs that exist in the neighborhood.“ Notre voisinage Report, Montreal

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

“There are a lot of organizations that are doing a lot of amazing work, and often that work can be very focused, we are going to focus on youth, focus on seniors, it’s going to be about arts or about this. Whereas what I am seeing here is that Participatory City is really about weaving the fabric between all of these programs and services, and creating a very strong foundation from which residents can choose their journey and participate in very different ways. I think it’s the commitment to all of these components that bring together this support platform and just being very dedicated to growing that in a very intentional way over time.” Aimee Gasparetto, Program Director, Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax

RECOMMENDATION

Any new prototypes or platforms launched in Canada need to have autonomy, sufficient funding, support from political leaders and staff, and good relationships with local neighbourhood businesses and organizations, and must be driven by the needs and passions of the residents.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

INSIGHT 3

Great Potential To Be Part Of Pandemic Recovery Strategy While it was not intended to launch a participatory ecosystem during a global pandemic, upon reflection it is clear that what the Participatory City approach is trying to achieve is aligned with what is needed for a strong pandemic response and recovery. Not only do these programs help us get through the pandemic, but building community resilience and cohesion is what we need to recover, and be prepared for the next global challenge.

“With solid enrollment, fair participation in workshops, strong partnerships, and strong positive feedback, we are sure that there is a high potential for viability of this model in Regent Park. Though the pandemic had such a huge effect on the rollout of the pilot, I think there is a massive opportunity to have participatory platforms be integrated as part of the pandemic recovery strategy. The Every One Every Day: Toronto participatory platform can offer a way for residents to help “build it back better”

“I found sharing very interesting because these days, we have to find ways to get closer to our neighbors and little details like sharing a bread, it feels good.” Resident, Ahuntsic, Montreal

“Would love to see more of these in-person once Covid’s “over” - I would have really loved to actually meet the other members in the chat, and to have the time to get to know them individually. I also work from 9-5 so would appreciate some offerings in the evenings.” Resident, Regent Park, Toronto

Every One Every Day Toronto - Our Neighbourhood Report

There is a desire and a wish expressed by most residents for projects to continue. The projects provoked and put into action a feeling of collective creativity where several residents proposed new ideas and initiatives. The projects and workshops have shown that the needs of structural projects that are part of a medium and long term approach are necessary for the neighborhood. Notre voisinage Report, Montreal

100

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

101

INSIGHT 4

The Platform Suffered Without Physical Spaces The approach suffered without the support of purpose-designed physical infrastructure. While this looked different in each city due to pandemic restrictions, there was a loss of shared spaces where passive, organic connections are often made, and which help facilitate the platform in important ways. In Montreal and Toronto, the communities lacked physical space altogether. In Halifax, the prototype highlighted the need for dedicated community-facing spaces. From the Every One Every Day initiative in London, we learned that there are many benefits of having a physical presence in a neighbourhood. In the Canadian prototypes, there were three needs identified as most pressing: 1.

Ensure spaces are designed for inclusivity;

Spaces should be public-facing that invite participation at street level; and

Spaces should be open and informal, where organic connections can be made and projects can be finished. A kind of community space where residents can begin working on a project with others, take a break, and return to it another day.

In key finding 2 (Inclusivity), we discussed the importance of intentional and purpose-designed branding and communications to make people feel included. This need for intentional action needs to be reflected in physical spaces. In order to attract and retain resident participation, spaces that are used need to be designed with intention and reflect the culture of the neighbourhood and of community members.

“While the idea of open, inclusive and inviting space makes perfect sense in theory, in practice it has felt very different. For example, the idea of bright, white, open spaces (perhaps with more contemporary art) is not common (or appealing) within Indigenous spaces. The challenge I’m speaking to is about the creation of “open and inviting space for all” and/or “culturally neutral space” and/or “space that reflects who we are and what we value’’ - which often includes our cultural identity. This has been particularly tough to navigate in the context of our intended aims around reconciliation, which embodies an intention to both reflect and celebrate Indigenous culture in the cocreation of spaces and experiences.” Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Evaluation Report

“The pilot demonstrated how many different activities, located in different parts of the neighbourhood can help to build inclusive participation. That said, this network of spaces could be greatly enhanced through the establishment of a fully accessible and highly visible space to serve as an “anchor location”, supported by some deeper community partnerships that can help to build consistency and visibility around the work.” Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Evaluation Report

102

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Due to the pandemic, Toronto and Montreal prototypes were not able to provide the same kind of in-person programming. The teams reflected on what was lost when activities shifted to virtual programming.

“Being online, it was hard for folks to connect outside of the sessions and meetings - the organic walks home, and chance community meetings were not available.” Every One Every Day Toronto - Our Neighbourhood Report

“We do not have access to a third place in the vicinity where residents can come to collect the kits, and we found ourselves obliged to deliver the kits to their homes. This constraint required us more time and energy, in addition to all the additional logistics to manage.” Notre voisinage Report, Montreal Passive spaces for organic connection can be seen in the approach in the UK: on the street, in the storefront operations and in dedicated spaces like the makerspace. Not only do these allow for the exciting organic interactions that make the approach so magical, they make the community workshop more viable through the ability to spill over.

“One issue that has impacted the overall experience of participants was the length of time allotted for each session. For many of the sessions, there was not enough time to complete tasks, finish crafts and artwork, or, in some cases, for hosts to share all the content they had intended. In many circumstances, sessions exceeded the allotted time, and while many participants did not mind staying longer, others had commitments that would not allow them to stay, and they expressed disappointment. On two occasions, it was noted that hosts felt they were rushed moving through the content and sharing their knowledge, suggesting that maybe their session would be best offered in two parts.” Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Evaluation Report Dedicated spaces for community activity allow workshops to spill beyond the allotted organized time. In the Build With Us workshops in Halifax, some participants finished building projects such as benches and mini-libraries within the parameters of the workshops, while other participants needed more time to work. The hosts were able to share their knowledge, but what was needed was more passive space and time to allow participants to return to finish their project. Dedicated and highly visible streetfacing spaces allow for this type of organic community work to continue as well as create opportunity for other community members to see and get excited by project outcomes. On an operations level, Montreal similarly struggled with not having basic platform space to distribute kits and invite people to participate in. Even in the context of the pandemic, these dedicated spaces could be outdoors and allow for distancing (weather permitting). (weather permitting).

RECOMMENDATION

Ensure that funding and supports are in place for the development of purpose-built and designed spaces. The design and building of these spaces could be opportunities for community members to participate. If indoor gathering is not available, these program spaces could be outdoors. Schedule more unstructured and informal time during programs to provide different ways for residents to connect and engage with one another.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

103

INSIGHT 5

Diversity Of Skills & Resources Needed To Reach Minimum Viability The time commitment required to adequately meet the needs of each project extended beyond the capacity of all three teams. The relatively small teams in each city served many different roles and functions, including communications, evaluation, delivery, management and administration. This proved especially challenging for prototypes with part-time project team members or team members split between different projects. While everyone agreed that more work than originally anticipated is needed to launch and make a viable participatory ecosystem, in practice team members discovered that a range of specialized skills was also required. These specialized skills include front line community work, project management, horizontal leadership, graphic design, spatial design, and evaluation. All of these skills take time to foster.

“The resources to adequately build, maintain and grow this platform are IMMENSE. And to this day, I’m still unclear what a “phased approach” even looks like. In one sense, it feels like you either have a support platform or you don’t. It’s almost like you need to know what the minimum requirements are before you get started and have them in place (i.e., 1 fully functional and accessible space; 2 project designers + 1 graphic designer, etc)... and THEN start to build.” Team Member, Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax

104

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

Build in extra time for co-designing the program, newspaper and other visual communication aspects that are time consuming, but an important step or ‘first impression’ to an inclusive project.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

105

WHAT MADE SCALING PARTICULARLY COMPLEX? Reflections From Participatory Canada Core Team While the results from social R&D year 1 contained in this report are hugely encouraging, delivering something as ambitious and complex as Participatory Canada has brought considerable challenges and robust learning. This section outlines some of the key challenges and learning from the perspective of the Participatory Canada core team as they worked to support the Participatory City approach as it was tested in three cities.

The team identified 6 primary challenges that made scaling particularly complex:

“SCALING WAS MORE COMPLEX AND MORE DEMANDING THAN EXPECTED”

3. Complex Co-Design Process

- Nat Defriend, Participatory City Foundation Early thinking about scaling assumed that the Canadian prototypes would likely follow a fairly linear process, approximately replicating the stages the UK team went through in getting the project established in London. The reality was that co-design, co-creation, and scaling demanded far more from the Participatory Canada leadership than had originally been planned for, especially in the research and development phase, and this primarily because of the context of COVID-19. The level of adaptation required to fit the evolving situation with the pandemic was underestimated, and the development in each city was complex. Supporting the three prototypes as well as the initiative in Barking and Dagenham during COVID-19 increased the complexity. The core team recognizes that kickstarting new initiatives with the Participatory City approach will always be complex, particularly in the start up phase. There are no shortcuts to the deep learning necessary for this phase to be successful. The prototypes provided an understanding of the learning required, as well as of the learning infrastructures that must be in place prior to undertaking further work.

106

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

1. COVID-19 Pandemic 2. Establishing a High Number of Collaborative Working Relationships 4. Creative and Intellectual Property 5. Shifting Program Delivery Patterns 6. Influence of Organizational Priorities and Culture

1. COVID-19 Pandemic The pandemic had wide ranging and deeply disruptive effects on all aspects of this social R&D phase. It’s impossible to disentangle the challenges faced from prototyping something new from the challenges faced because of the pandemic. As a result of the disruption caused by the pandemic, we should ask to what extent did we test a participatory platform? COVID-19 restrictions limited the prototypes to such an extent that in some instances they were a far cry from the original hopes and expectations. On top of the burn-out, fatigue, the emotional and mental distress caused by the pandemic, the prototypes were frequently pivoting to work within changing restrictions and regulations. Both the prototype teams and the Participatory Canada core team had to constantly adjust schedules, tactics, and expectations. The socially distanced and restricted realities of 2020 and 2021 disrupted the scaling of an approach that is centred on connecting people. Changes and adaptations made as a result of OVID-19 not only shifted prototypes further from original expectations, it also meant that the prototypes were different from one another in ways that could not be anticipated, as each team responded to provincial and local regulations and circumstances.

RECOMMENDATIONS Prototyping is a learning mindset, and the approach to developing ideas and concepts should not stop at the end of this Social R&D phase. Rapid learning, adapting, and development is in the DNA of this approach, but the time and energy required should not be underestimated. Prototyping of the approach should continue, and may be considered a phase 2 of the existing prototypes, as COVID-19 restrictions are lifted and all aspects of the approach can be tested in each location. Every new city or neighbourhood that prototypes the Participatory City approach needs to be treated as a unique circumstance that will require extensive effort to adapt, regardless of the pandemic or other external circumstances.

Regardless, the prototypes created significant understanding and demand for the model among local stakeholders, and generated experiential knowledge for the prototype teams. There are indicators that the approach is valuable to local communities, and that the prototypes are setting the foundation for achieving longer term outcomes.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

107

2. Establishing A High Number Of Collaborative Working Relationships The approach underlying these prototypes is based on the assumption that close collaborative and generative relationships allow local city teams and Participatory Canada to co-design local initiatives together. This offer the best chance for transferring the knowledge and practices of the approach for these prototypes to be successful in distinctly different contexts. Building this type of relationship faced several challenges.

No In-Person Time Relationships suffered a significant loss when travel and in-person meetings were no longer an option. The relationships between Participatory Canada and the three prototype teams and partner organizations were all fostered over video conferencing, emails, and telephone calls. While important, these modalities were far from ideal when it came to building trust and relationships. Additionally, the lack of in-person meetings meant less of the experiential learning, and less of the co-design and co-building that would have otherwise occurred in physical meetings. Team members in the cities joined at different times, and some attended or missed online workshops. This led to asymmetric learning, and to a fragmentation of knowledge.

Scarcity of Participatory City Foundation’s time The Participatory City Foundation brought significant content knowledge about building practical participatory ecosystems. Launching three prototypes simultaneously meant that PCF team members had to navigate many relationships at the same time, while managing their own changing situation in the UK. Developing local relationships is always demanding and needs dedicated time in person for trust relationships to develop. These local relationships extended beyond the prototype teams to organizational leadership, strategic partners, local government representatives, politicians, and beyond. Participatory City Foundation and McConnell Foundation together played an important advocacy role to create the conditions for the teams to deliver the prototype. The remote, online, highly scheduled, agenda-led way of doing this runs counter to how this would be done effectively under different conditions: in-person, informally, and through spreading creative energy and excitement as the learning and the strategies were developed and co-designed.

108

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS Scaling required a high number of close working relationships to be nurtured, particularly between the prototype teams and Participatory City Foundation. New cities / teams should anticipate 6-12 months of learning the approach through experiential and hands-on methods and building relationships before launching a prototype. The process is complex, and amounts to more than simply putting the approach in place. Local teams need to understand they are saying yes to an open source and collaborative relationship entailing co-learning and development. There must be an understanding of the time, effort, and practices required to nurture the necessary relationships. Establish the essential infrastructure components that need to be in place before attempting to support the launch of multiple prototypes simultaneously. The potential for complexity in each prototype is high and requires effort to build and maintain strong relationships.

3. A Complex Co-design Process As a principle, co-design underpinned how team members planned to adapt the Participatory City approach to community contexts in Canada. Co-designing is a shared endeavour where local teams and Participatory Canada find new ways to fuse knowledge, insights, and networks. The goal is to design a plan which has the best chance of working in context, because of the sources of input. The assumption is that neither the local organization nor Participatory Canada could design an effective project in isolation. It is through this collaboration of resources, models and relationships that a strong project will develop. The original plan was that teams would travel to London and experience the approach first-hand, and then PCF would work closely with local teams to co-design prototypes. The in-person learning opportunities were lost due to COVID-19, and as a result, learning and co-design processes started to blend together. This put the PCF team in a position where they were hosting co-design sessions, while also still having to act as content experts presenting core principles of the approach that had to be integrated. The co-design process was trying to find a tricky balance of openness and design constraints. It wasn’t a completely open process where a brand new approach was being co-created. There are key aspects of the approach that have been shown to achieve long term outcomes. However, at the same time, the approach had to be adapted to be relevant to each place.

RECOMMENDATIONS The people that create the initial co-design partnership agreement need to be the same people delivering the project, to ensure that nuances of the participatory co-design process are understood by all. Map out the participatory co-design process so that all parties can safely land in a place, even if it is not where they had expected. As much as possible, communicate the design constraints that participants will work within. Acknowledge that every city and every neighbourhood will be different. There are many factors that will influence the complexity and pace of the co-design process. Establish a shared understanding of co-design and the Participatory City approach, and emphasize that working together is a prerequisite. This includes acknowledging that the co-design relationship requires vulnerability and openness to change on many levels, and for all partners. Reconcile, among all parties, the challenge of embedding the approach and the core principles, while working to adapt and create something that is relevant and meaningful for a new place and context.

Ultimately, generative relationships were fostered. The prototype teams expressed that the further they got into the delivery of the actual work, the more they understood the interconnected and integrated fundamental elements of the approach, and the greater the benefit of having access to team members in London who could provide coaching, tools and resources.

Figure 14: Participatory City Design Process

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

109

4. Navigating Creative & Intellectual Property, & Open Source Sharing Navigating ownership and authorship while striving for a culture of open source sharing and co-creation was a challenge throughout the process. In the original partnership agreements, the intention was a partnership of equals, where parties shared responsibility for the success of the work, respected each others’ contributions and co-designed and iterated together as the prototypes unfolded. All parties were understood as contributing differently to the partnerships, but there were clear and appropriate responsibilities and resourcing for the different elements. As each team adapted aspects of the approach, including tools, materials, communications and resources, to be culturally relevant to their place, questions about authorship and ownership inevitably arose. Local organizations felt a need to make an approach their own, while at the same time embracing the core principles. Clearly, participating organizations need autonomy, ownership, and agency while also building on the Participatory City approach as far as it has been designed and tested to date. It is important to note that there is often a sense of competition in the community sector, stemming from that fact that organizations rely on limited resources and funding. At the same time, there is also a culture of sharing and learning across the sector, and a desire to build upon each other’s work without duplicating effort. This tension showed up in this year of prototyping, as it does regularly across the sector and throughout Canada. Learning from people leading participatory platforms, and accessing tools and resources to adapt and build is embedded in the DNA of the Participatory City approach. This openness contributes to its strength and ability to adapt and improve. Navigating attribution, authorship, and ownership will need to be handled explicitly as more neighbourhoods and cities are added to the mix, and as cross-cultural work grows and grows. Some questions that need to be explored include: • How might we foster a culture of open source sharing and learning across all participatory platforms and organizations using this approach? • How might organizations or teams be recognized and given meaningful attribution for their contributions, while keeping the spirit of openness and co-creation? •

110

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

5. Shifting Program Delivery Patterns The Participatory City approach appears simple at first glance, and that’s the beauty of it. There is a high level of design used across a wide array of communications, including websites, reports, videos and infographics. Underneath the surface, the Participatory City approach requires systems and behaviour change to be fully realized. At the core of Participatory City are intentional practices for teams working together, for partnering with local governments, and for open source learning and development. As might be expected, these practices are often at odds with dominant systems. As prototype teams worked to integrate and adapt core elements of the approach to local and organizational contexts, ingrained patterns of working and behaving were at times dissonant with the behaviour change envisaged and required. Building a platform leading to reliable outcomes in areas such as mental health, social cohesion, and wellbeing is complicated, and represents a significant shift for most organizations. Although it may look easy from the outside, the knowledge, skills and capacities to lead this work takes years to develop to the point where it is effective.

RECOMMENDATIONS Create pathways to share knowledge. Ensure that as the Participatory City approach grows in Canada, systems change learnings are shared beyond those directly involved, to help shift systems across the community sector. Work with partners in cities who understand and agree to be co-developers and co-builders of this new field of practice, and who commit to building knowledge collaboratively and sharing this openly with the world.

“Distinguishing a participation-based approach from the service delivery model is important in the community development world. It is one thing to design a program or service and deliver FOR residents and community members; is is quite another to build internal motivation, agency, autonomy, funding, and culture within the community for people to share skills and learn from each other, across differences, as equals instead of the typical “expert-student” or “service provider-service user” dyads.” Keren Tang, Participatory Canada Program Manager.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

111

6. The Influence Of Organizational Priorities And Culture On The Approach In the UK, Participatory City Foundation exists to solely serve the purpose of Participatory City and its mission. In Canada, three previously existing organizations took on the prototypes, because of interest and alignment with existing missions and mandates. Embedding the approach within existing organizations was completely uncharted territory. In Canada, each team saw Participatory Canada as one of many programs that contribute to the priorities and mission of their respective organizations. Organizational priorities shaped the direction of the prototypes, and organizational culture influenced how the prototype team members worked together. As the approach is adapted, we can anticipate a creative tension between elements of the approach that have worked in London for many years, and each participating organization’s mandate and culture. Adaptation happened not only in response to local context, but to organizational context as well. These organizational contexts included the lived experience and expertise of the prototype team, as well as the different organizational cultures and priorities. Each city context is unique, and each organization has different levels of experience in community development and engagement, and different aspirations for a participatory platform. The Participatory City approach demands that the organization’s priority and outcomes be defined by community members. It is assumed that this approach must be adapted on all levels to achieve significant outcomes. This includes the way the team and the organization interacts with residents, with the neighbourhood, with local government and with funding structures. Ultimately, this should be seen as a creative tension between the approach and each organization’s mandate and existing focus areas. This can translate to organizations’ needing to address internal programming dynamics at the expense of concentrating efforts on resident-centered engagement.

112

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS Prototyping the Participatory City approach may not work well with major social innovation organizations who already have established plans, and see the approach as one of many in their toolbox. For the approach to be successful, there needs to be scope, intention, and flexibility for residents to set the direction and outcomes of the program, and to work towards increasing participation rates as a priority. Clearly communicate the need for change to happen on many levels within organizations wanting to participate; the approach is not just one of a number of different programs. Part of this means communicating the time, funding and number of team members required to enable building a participatory platform. Consider setting up new organizations where the mandate is flexible and clear, and the teams can be built cohesively around the roles and experience required to build the platform and participatory ecosystem.

Social Research and Development Evaluation Report

Appendices

City Full Reports: Halifax:

Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax evaluation report

Montreal:

Notre voisinage evaluation et plan de suivi

Toronto:

Every One Every Day: Our neighbourhood project pilot phase report

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

113

Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax evaluation report

114

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

EVERY ONE. EVERY DAY. KJIPUKTUK HALIFAX EVALUATION REPORT MARCH 2021

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

115

PJILA’SI ~ BIENVENUE ~ WELCOME The pilot phase of Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax (EOED) took place in the North End community of Kjipuktuk (Halifax) which is situated on Mi’kma’ki, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq. Oral histories, supported by written evidence and artifacts, tell us that the Mi’kmaq have occupied this territory for over 13,000 years. Mi’kma’ki is covered by the Treaties of Peace and Friendship, which the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqey, and Peskotomuhkatiyik Peoples first signed with the British in 1726. These treaties did not implicate or affirm the surrender or transfer of lands and resources to the British but recognized Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqey title and set the rules for what was to be a long-standing relationship between nations, initially preventing war and facilitating trade. For the Mi’kmaq, these treaties are revered as legal covenants. These sacred pacts are the foundation of Mi’kmaq Euro-Canadian government relations and we all, as treaty people, must recognize and appreciate their legitimacy if we are to truly acknowledge the presence of the Mi’kmaq, both in the past and the present. This land acknowledgement is a commitment to build upon as we recognize that such statements are inconsequential without meaningful action toward reconciliation. Through a process of reflection and unlearning, we continue to educate ourselves on the legacies of colonialism, now and moving forward, with an unbiased and concrete understanding of our shared history and of the culture and traditions of the First Peoples of the land we are operating on.

THE SPIRIT OF RECONCILIATION IS IN RELATIONSHIPS. WE MUST NURTURE THE SPIRIT. Msit no’kmaq is a Mi’kmaw term meaning, All my relations. It signifies a respect for the interconnectedness that exists among ourselves, with our surrounding environment, and with the sacredness of Mother Earth and all of Creator’s gifts. We invite all of our partners and project stakeholders to consider Msit no’kmaq as we move forward together in creating healthy and sustainable communities that support an ecosystem of participation and mutual respect and understanding.

Sharing our culture is important to give others a better understanding of how we can move ahead as allies. - Indigenous Elder, Session Host

116

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We’d like to thank the people who worked hard to bring Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax (EOED) to where it is today, including: EOED Strategic Group and Evaluation Working Group Members: Pamela Glode Desrochers (Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre), Jennifer Angel, Anna Meranik and Mathew Neville (Develop Nova Scotia), Sue LaPierre, Pamela Yates, and Sara Napier (United Way Halifax), Sara Colburn (Engage Nova Scotia), Annika Voltan (Community Sector Council of Nova Scotia), Louise Adongo and Cari Patterson (Inspiring Communities), Tom McGuire (ATN Group Consulting), Shaune MacKinlay, Cheryl Copage-Gehue and Mary Chisolm (Halifax Regional Municipality) and Miriam Zitner (Halifax Partnership). The leaders and contributors from the Participatory Canada team: from the Participatory City Foundation - Tessy Britton (Founding Chief Executive), Aggie Paulauskaite, Saira Awan, and Laura Rogocki (PC City Tutors); and from the McConnell Foundation - Keren Tang (PC Development Manager), and Jayne Engle (Director, Cities for People); and from COLAB based in Halifax - Sophia Horwitz and Greg Woolner.

EOED PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS: • • • •

Aimee Gasparetto, Program Director Frances Palliser-Nicholas, Project Designer Tammy Mudge, Evaluation Lead Cynthia Maclean, Neighbouhood Hub Coordinator

With Support from MNFC Elder, Debbie Eisan. Our warmest thanks and appreciation to everyone who has contributed time, inspiration, ideas, and resources, and engaged in the vision of inclusive participation and reconciliation in Kjipuktuk-Halifax.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

1171

TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Introduction to Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pilot Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wije’winen-Come With Us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Working Together for Transformative Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strategic Group Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 4 5 6 7

KEY MILESTONES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Pre development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Launch & delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reporting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 10 12 13

INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 DEVELOPMENTAL EVALUATION: HIGHLIGHTS, KEY FINDINGS, AND CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Feasibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inclusivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Value Creation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Viability & Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Advancement of Reconciliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 18 20 22 24

CLOSING STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

118 2

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION TO EVERY ONE EVERY DAY KJIPUKTUK-HALIFAX Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax (EOED) is a pilot initiative, inspired by Participatory City in East London, UK that is demonstrating how participation in practical everyday activities can transform people’s lives and the neighbourhoods in which they live. Kjipuktuk-Halifax is one of three Canadian cities working in partnership with the Participatory City Foundation and Participatory Canada to explore the transformative social infrastructures we need to create, build upon, and sustain thriving communities, now and in the post-Covid era. Local partners include the Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre, Develop Nova Scotia, Inspiring Communities, Engage Nova Scotia, United Way Halifax, Community Sector Council of Nova Scotia, Group ATN, Halifax Regional Municipality and the Halifax Partnership. EOED aims to inspire new connections and friendships, born through everyday participation in useful and enjoyable activities, many of which could make life easier, all of which help to foster a shared sense of togetherness. In Kjipuktuk-Halifax, this vision embodies a platform for reconciliation in neighbourhoodswhere people can learn about Indigenous culture and history but also have opportunities to share across cultures, building a new understanding of one another and the places we call home.

Beginning in September 2020, a mini-support platform was developed that could enable diverse neighbours to come together to design and start projects that benefit them and the community. The EOED support platform included functional spaces connected across a neighbourhood, a project team working side-by-side with local residents through a process of co-design, ideas and resources to stimulate a network of practical participation projects, and a community newspaper to generate broad interest. The result was a 6 week program featuring 8 neighbourhood projects and 30 resident-led sessions across 8 different venues, with a key focus on centering Indigenous knowledge and cross-cultural sharing and learning. The EOED sessions were made possible by local residents, including Elders and Indigenous knowledge keepers and crafters, coming together to share their ideas, time and talents. Together they sparked our collective imaginations around what we could be doing more of together each and every day and revealed insight into how inclusive participation and reconciliation could manifest, hand in hand, in neighbourhoods.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

1193

PILOT GEOGRAPHY: HALIFAX NORTH END The Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax (EOED) pilot rolled out in the North End of Kjipuktuk-Halifax, which is situated on the northern part of the Halifax Peninsula immediately north of Downtown Halifax. While the pilot was open to everyone, communications efforts focused specifically in an area of the North End bordered by four main streets that cut across the city from North to South (Barrington St and Gottingen St) and East to West (North St and Cunard St).

According to a Community Profile and Asset Map for Uniacke Square and North End Halifax, a significant portion of housing in this area is made up of rental units (57%), followed by public housing (35%) and lastly, home ownership (8%).

57 % 35% 8% RENTAL UNITS

Even though we are so close together, there’s a lot we don’t know about each other. - MNFC Board Chair This area of the city is culturally diverse and holds historic and modern day significance for Kjipuktuk-Halifax’s Indigenous and African Nova Scotian communities. Specifically, it is where the Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre (MNFC) opened its doors in 1973 - and is now one of 125 Friendship Centres across Canada. MNFC is recognized in Kjipuktuk-Halifax and Nova Scotia as a welcoming and safe space that offers culturally relevant programs and services for Indigenous community members - many of whom are deeply connected to the Centre and the community it supports. Across the street from the MNFC are two sister organizations - the Mi’kmaq Child Development Centre and Direction 180 - a community based methadone clinic that services the broader community.

120 4

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

PUBLIC HOUSING

HOME OWNERSHIP

A few blocks North of the MNFC is a public housing development called Uniacke Square which is recognized as a predominantly Black community. Many of those who live in and around this area are former residents or descendants of Africville - a historically Black community that sat on the shore of the Kjipuktuk-Halifax Harbour from the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s but was demolished in the 1960s in the name of urban renewal. In recent years, there has been an influx of new residents moving to Uniacke Square, particularly newcomers to Canada, contributing to increasing cultural diversity in the area. In recent years the North End of Kjipuktuk-Halifax is a community that has been threatened by gentrification resulting in the displacement of local residents and shifting demographics. Amidst these ongoing shifts, community life in the North End remains vibrant with many organizations serving as well-known hubs for local residents - each with their own connections to different community groups in the area. In the early stages of planning for EOED, a key focus was to develop a support platform that could not only leverage existing community assets, but also strengthen ties between them and build new connections across different parts of the neighbourhood.

WIJE’WINEN - COME WITH US

The MNFC is working on the development of a new facility, adjacent to the historic landmark of Citadel Hill and just steps away from their current home on Gottingen St. Designed as Kjipuktuk-Halifax’s first ever Indigenous inspired and informed building, the new facility will honour the contributions of Indigenous Peoples to the region’s culture and history and serve as a highly visible emblem of reconciliation that welcomes everyone.

While offering culturally relevant programs and services to a growing urban Indigenous population, the new centre will be a central hub in the heart of the city that can facilitate new connections with the broader community to foster meaningful participation and cross-cultural exchange among Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities alike. It is imagined that this new facility will be part of a permanent support platform that can nurture and grow an inclusive participatory ecosystem in neighbourhoods and communities across Kjipuktuk-Halifax. To coincide with plans to relocate to a new home, and to better reflect the journey MNFC wishes to take with the whole community, the MNFC introduced a campaign: Wije’winen, meaning Come With Us. Advanced by Elders, this term is a welcoming invitation that expresses a sense of moving forward together.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

1215

A PLATFORM FOR INCLUSIVE PARTICIPATION AND RECONCILIATION The EOED pilot has been a journey with the MNFC, to explore how inclusive participation and reconciliation can manifest in neighbourhoods. Throughout its development, we have applied and learned from valuable approaches and practices that have been researched and effectively implemented through the work of Participatory City in East London, UK. The local team in Kjipuktuk-Halifax worked alongside Participatory City Tutors, who shared their experiences and insights related to the co-design process and working to build participatory culture.

We have also gained valuable insight into the implications for this work if reconciliation is to be centered. In some cases these learnings have been applied in real time - such as through the development of communications tools, integrating Indigenous knowledge and wisdom, and practices to enhance cultural exchange among residents. In other cases, they have been integrated as key questions and recommendations that could inform future iterations of this work in Kjipuktuk-Halifax and beyond.

WORKING TOGETHER FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE Since its inception, the EOED pilot has been supported by a Strategic Group (SG) that is made up of cross-sector partners who came together to guide early phases of the work and provide support via existing infrastructure and systems. Together, this collaboration is deeply invested in the potential to create transformative social infrastructure that can help to nurture new forms of participatory culture across Kjipuktuk-Halifax and Nova Scotia. The MNFC has acted as lead delivery partner for the pilot and the relationship between the SG and the MNFC is one of mutual learning and partnership.

122 6

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

If reconciliation could be done quickly, or by any one group alone, it would already be done. - Executive Director, Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre Early in the development of the EOED pilot, the SG set out to develop a set of guiding principles that could support new ways of working and measuring progress, as a means to explore reconciliation in practice, through the lens of governance. This work was woven throughout our meetings with focused time for learning and reflection around Indigenous knowledge alongside one of the Elders at MNFC. One outcome of this work was a set of guiding principles, informed by the Seven Grandfather/ Grandmother teachings to help draw insights around how we work together as a critical indicator of success.

LOVE & OPENNESS

COURAGE & BRAVERY

Through the teaching of love, we approach our tasks with an open heart and steep our work in love so that we always remain welcoming and inclusive.

RESPECT & HARMONY

HUMILITY & RECIPROCITY

WISDOM & REFLECTION

TRUTH & TRANSPARENCY

The principles are beautiful. They depict that there needs to be vulnerability present to be in practice. - Strategic Group member PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

1237

KEY MILESTONES EOED PILOT

124 8

Funding Secured for KjipuktukHalifax Pilot

EOED Program Director Hired

Recommendations for EOED Pilot Delivery Model

EOED Project Designer Hired

SG Guiding Principles Developed

SG Project Charter Developed

Neighbourhood Hub Coordinator Hired

EOED Lead Evaluator Hired

Co-Design of EOED March Program

EOED Evaluation Framework Developed

EOED Website & Social Media Launch

EOED Program Delivered (6 weeks)

EOED Program Opening

EOED Newspaper Launched & Distributed

EOED Program Closing

EOED Final Report

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

PRE-DEVELOPMENT PHASE: JULY 2019-AUGUST 2020 JULY 2019

PA RTICIPATO RY CITY C A M P O N WA SA N ISLA N D

Participatory City Camp on Wasan Island attended by representatives from Halifax, Montreal and Toronto Halifax progresses as one of three cities to test feasibility through development of a demonstration project

OCT 2019

Halifax hosts lunchtime talk, featuring Founding Chief Executive of the Participatory City Foundation Halifax hosts a full day development workshop with local leaders Halifax Strategic Group engages in learning and planning for Halifax pilot (9 organizations, 14 individuals) Funding Secured for Kjipuktuk-Halifax Social R&D Pilot

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

1259

DEVELOPMENT PHASE: SEPTEMBER 2020-JANUARY 2021 SEPT 2020

Program Director hired Interviews with SG members: mapping work & perspectives to date

M N FC ELDE R SH A RES A TE ACH IN G A RO UN D O R A N G E SH IR T DAY WITH TH E STR ATEG IC G RO UP

Orientation, learning, & planning for Social R&D pilot (Program Director + PC Foundation + PC Canada).

Presentation to SG: interview findings & recommendations for moving forward

OCT 2020

Solidify delivery model for Kjipuktuk-Halifax Social R&D pilot

Learning & Planning: • outreach & partnerships (NE orgs & businesses) • pilot co-design (MNFC staff + NE residents) • program architecture (PC Foundation & MNFC staff) • branding & communications (MNFC staff & PC Foundation)

Presentation & Discussion with MNFC staff (22 staff members)

Branding: Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax

126 10

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

DESI G N IN G TH E M A RCH PRO G RAM

NOV 2020

EOED Project Designer hired SG Learning and Reflection: MNFC Elder shares 7 Grandmother/Grandfather teachings to inform guiding principles EOED project plan finalized for Social R&D phase Co-design (MNFC Staff + NE residents & businesses) Oct-Dec: conversations with 50+ potential hosts and 20+ local orgs & businesses Initiate development of EOED newspaper (MNFC staff & PC City Tutors)

DEC 2020

Presentation to United Way Halifax (UWH) staff on EOED and link to UWH neighbourhood hub network Co-design for March Program with NE residents and MNFC staff and community members Project Planning for Social R&D pilot (Codesign, March program sessions, program architecture, newspaper, space planning). Design and Development of EOED website and facebook page Development of SG Project Charter

JAN 2021

Lead Evaluator hired Neighbourhood Hub Coordinator hired Session co-design with MNFC staff and residents Meeting with staff from Halifax Regional Municipality: Production of briefing report for CAO Finalization of EOED March Program (8 projects with 33 sessions) Development of communications plan for March Program Development of SG Guiding Principles PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

12711

LAUNCH & DELIVERY PHASE: FEBRUARY 1ST-APRIL 14TH 2021 FEB 2021

FEB 1: Launch of EOED website and facebook page FEB 2: Launch EOED newspaper: 2500 copies distributed door to door + 800 via local orgs EOED Evaluation Framework completed Space set up for March Program Production of EOED communications materials Development of Covid Plan for March Program

MAR 2021

EOED Program Opening 130+ attended on zoom + 405 engagements FB EOED March Program • 30 sessions delivered • 26 session hosts • 235 registered participants with 65 on wait lists • 167 session participants • 28 At Home With Us Kits distributed

Media Interviews: 4 media interviews including print, radio and TV Speaking engagements and presentations: 7 story sharing sessions on local and national platforms

128 12

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

REPORTING PHASE: APRIL 1ST-APRIL 30TH 2021 APR 2021

Delivery of final sessions for March Program EOED Program Closing Final Halifax Report for Social R&D Phase

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

129 13

EVALUATION APPROACH The evaluation approach to EOED Kjipuktuk-Halifax is based on a framework developed in January 2021. It focuses on the four guiding research and development components introduced by Participatory Canada for the purpose of adaptation and learning on a national level. They are Feasibility, Inclusivity, Value Creation, and Viability. We added a fifth component, Advancement of

Reconciliation, to solidify and maintain our commitment to reconciliation throughout every phase of the project, and to educate all involved in the history, culture, and traditions of Indigenous Peoples. In the spirit of reconciliation, the Participatory City research and development components have been translated into the Mi’kmaw language.

FEASIBILITY KETANTOQ ~ STRIVE TO OBTAIN INCLUSIVITY TOQOLUKWEJIK ~ WORK TOGETHER VALUE CREATION KSITE’TAQAN ~ SOMETHING CHERISHED VIABILITY NIMJI’MUATL ~ SUPPORT, ENCOURAGE ADVANCEMENT OF RECONCILIATION NESTU’ET AQQ TETAPU’LATL ~ BECOME KNOWLEDGEABLE AND DO RIGHT BY

To support the evaluation process and the Lead Evaluator in her learning journey, we formed an Evaluation Working Group (EWG), which included experts and professionals with extensive evaluation experience. The primary function of the EWG was to support the Evaluation Lead by offering input and suggestions throughout the

130 14

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

process. We held three online meetings during the pilot phase. Regular check-ins with the Inspiring Communities Director of Research and Evaluation provided additional support, offered further insight and expertise, and provided an opportunity to address any evaluation concerns with the pilot.

We generated the findings in this report drawing on information from the following sources: • • • • • • • • •

Participants Hosts Project Team members Evaluation Lead’s personal reflection notes EOED Strategic Group EOED registration spreadsheet EOED program planning spreadsheets Session notes Observations

We collected evaluation data through: • • • • • •

• • • •

Observations (30 sessions) Document review Database review On-site surveys (52 participants) Online surveys (10 participants, 1 host) Telephone/Zoom interviews (3 participants, 3 hosts, 3 Project Team members, 4 Strategic Group members) Reflections exercises (13 participants) Weekly Project Team check-ins and reflections (4 members) Reflection session with SG (9 members) Closing session reflections (7 hosts)

EVALUATION FINDINGS There are five sections of evaluation findings, based on the five guiding research and development components. We present the findings using both thematic groupings and story sharing, which combines a Euro-Canadian and an Indigenous approach to understanding and sharing knowledge, staying true to each voice as possible. Each section includes Highlights, Key Insights, and Future Considerations. In Highlights we present the experiences of the Strategic Group members, Project Team members, Participants, and Hosts. From there, we formulated Key Insights to identify learnings from these experiences. Fi-

nally, Future Considerations focuses on informing future EOED Kjipuktuk-Halifax phases, and on ensuring that we tend to this process in a good way, honouring tradition and spirit.

I prefer to hear the stories from the project, they have more impact than numbers. - Strategic Group member PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

131 15

KETANTOQ ~ STRIVE TO OBTAIN (FEASIBILITY)

EOED Kjipuktuk-Halifax is striving to obtain a level of inclusive community participation that will build community capacity and encourage North End residents to establish and strengthen their connections with neighbours, and with local businesses and organizations. The EOED pilot phase created a supportive and connected platform of spaces and people that assisted in bringing ideas to life during the March Program.

HIGHLIGHTS

This program is different in that it is grassroots, and it empowers people to think of other ways they can start similar activities on a weekly basis. - Participant

The March Program has provoked the community’s curiosity. - Participant

FINDING OUT ABOUT THE MARCH PROGRAM Discovering how participants learned about the March Program is critical in determining what mode of communications will be most beneficial moving forward. Of the 62 participants surveyed, 29% reported that they learned about the March Program from the EOED newspaper. Second to this was the 26% who reported that they learned about the program by “word of mouth”, mainly from a friend, family member, or co worker. 18% reported that they learned about the program from the EOED Facebook page. The promotions and activities look super exciting and much needed during this time of social isolation to help us all feel connected and part of a community. - Resident

The newspaper was beautiful, and it made the schedule and purpose of the project clear. - Participant REGISTRATION AND ATTENDANCE Residents could register for any of the March Program sessions through our website, however, we did not collect data about the website’s ease of use or how people engaged with it outside of registering for the March Program. A total of 300 people registered for the sessions (65 of whom were on a wait list). Of the 300 participants, we recorded 122 as having attended (41%). Residents could also register for two different “At Home with Us Kits”, which were developed as a means to expand inclusivity and participation for those who may have wanted to take part but were unable to do so in person or online. In total, 28 participants registered for this take-home activity and we distributed 30+ additional kits through partnering community organizations. The 30 sessions that were delivered included four “Tea & Bannock” sessions that invited community members to drop-in for a cafe style conversation with Elders from the community. Three of these were held in-person at a local cafe and one was

132

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

I loved the window design and I appreciated the use of placemaking as a community building activity. - Participant recorded live from the MNFC and streamed via the EOED Facebook page. During the Facebook live Tea & Bannock session, eight participants were viewing and actively commenting and asking questions. While the Tea and Bannock sessions did not require registration, a participant tracking sheet showed that 37 participants attended the three in-person sessions. Community members hosted the sessions for the March Program with the support of the EOED Project Team. In total, 26 hosts took part in the co-design and facilitation of one or more of the 33 sessions. To promote the program, we produced and distributed 3300 copies of the EOED Newspaper to households and organizations in the North End.

KEY INSIGHTS

The bannock was good, the company was even better. Everybody wanted to talk, and everybody wanted to ask questions. Whoever came up with this... I think it’s one of the best things that ever happened at the Friendship Centre. - Host

BUILDING PARTICIPATION The EOED pilot highlighted the importance of having meaningful and trusting relationships already established within the community in order to gain initial interest and traction. Two of the project team members had existing connections to the community and the MNFC has been a community hub for decades. As a result, the Project Designer was able to quickly draw on a list of community members who would potentially host a session to get things started. These established relationships also had a positive influence on community participation throughout the pilot. Hosts, as residents, felt comfortable participating in the pilot because they trusted that adequate support would be provided by the project team and MNFC. Over the course of the pilot, these relationships grew and provided a strong foundation to build upon moving forward. After taking part in the EOED pilot, nearly all hosts stated that they would be willing to host another session, either the same session or something new. Of the participants surveyed, 5% stated that they would be willing to host a session, and 31% offered ideas for future sessions.

• The EOED newspaper was the most effective medium for communicating the story and work of EOED and inviting participation of the broader community. Its production posed a steep learning curve for project staff and required a significant investment of time and resources - from the local team and Participatory City Tutors. This and other communications requirements surfaced the need for dedicated human resources in this area, even in early stages of the work. • The development process for the newspaper provided sharp insight into how this work will be different if reconciliation is to be centered. We challenged ourselves to create a design that could be a welcoming invitation for the Indigenous community, but also everyone. The process involved on-going dialogue with MNFC staff and the designer to get it right - and the importance of ensuring adequate time for planning visual design elements. • The importance of project staff who know and understand the community is paramount. These existing relationships contributed greatly to our success in engaging session hosts, securing a network of local venues, and promoting the EOED March Program throughout the community. • Pre-registration posed a barrier to participation and inclusivity but it is uncertain to what degree. It’s likely that this posed limitations related to technological accessibility (comfort with technology and access to the internet), as well as the extra planning required when drop-in sessions are not an option. • The EOED pilot revealed the high degree of oneon-one support and connection required to build and grow participation culture. While the majority of hosts expressed excitement to host again, shifting participants into the role of host will require significantly more time and support.

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

Due to Covid-19 restrictions, registration was required for the entire March Program and the first week was delivered entirely online after the announcement of a Covid-19 circuit breaker just days before the launch. This posed challenges related to attendance, and many sessions became full with wait lists, only to then have 50% of those registered show up to the session. This was a missed opportunity to participate for those on the waitlist and posed limitations on who could participate overall. The program did really well at pivoting and shifts. - Strategic Group member

• Integrate newspapers as a primary communications tool to support ongoing and increased participation over time. In doing so, define realistic production cycles that mirror program delivery and can grow over time based on available resources. • Establish graphic design and communications expertise as a core resource within the project team to oversee the development/production of newspapers and other communications tools and materials. • Deepen research around how required pre-registration affects inclusive participation. Further experiment with drop-in style projects when they can be tested safely and closely consider how best to manage attendance during these sessions.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

133

TOQOLUKWEJIK ~ WORK TOGETHER (INCLUSIVITY)

Creating an ecosystem of participatory projects with all residents of the neighbourhood requires the community to work together. These working relationships must foster cultural diversity and acknowledge the many lived experiences that make up the community’s past and present, reinforcing collective agency and supporting inclusivity.

HIGHLIGHTS

We need to keep an open-mind for the program, constantly asking ourselves “Who aren’t we reaching?” and always looking for new opportunities to reach out to people in the community. - Project Team member

BUILDING INCLUSIVE PARTICIPATION While we did not collect specific demographic data from participants, many observations made by project team members provided anecdotal evidence that the EOED sessions attracted people of diverse ages and cultural backgrounds, including: • Children taking part in a wide range of sessions from neighbourhood walks, to making traditional dream catchers, to tea and bannock, and introduction to capoeira. • Many different hosts offering a wide range of skills and talents helped to attract diverse participation. While some participants attended several sessions, participant lists indicated that unique community members were drawn to each session. • Indigenous and non-Indigenous community members hosting and participating. Many of the hosts for the March Program were Indigenous and it was clear that sessions attracted both Indigenous and Non-Indigenous participants. • People from different cultural backgrounds expressing desire to learn and share. This was observed by different people asking questions and expressing willingness to share openly. During the Dream Catcher session, a father and son shared their Jewish customs with the group while making and learning about dream catchers. They also spoke about their interest in learning the Mi’kmaw language. (Observation)

134

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

During the session on smudging and powwow knowledge, two participants introduced themselves as Indigenous, seeking to learn more about their culture, while two others introduced themselves as non-Indigenous, interested to learn about the practice of smudging. (Observation) During interviews, some people suggested that participants did not fully represent the North End community. For example, one person indicated that they would like to have seen more seniors participating in the program (acknowledging that they may have been limited by Covid restrictions), and another would have liked more youth involvement, specifically as hosts.

A WELCOMING INVITATION FOR ALL Significant effort was placed on designing invitations and spaces that expressed a warm and welcoming invitation for all. For example, the EOED newspaper and website contained images, colors and symbols that reflected Indigenous culture, but also design elements aimed at everyone. We also arranged the MNFC to be a family friendly environment area for children to play, and decorated the room with bright and colourful banners, signage, and cafe style seating. Many different staff and community members made comments to project staff around the warmth and inviting feel of these elements. The pilot rolled out across a network of eight venues - all of which were identified as familiar and inviting spaces for different groups of community members. While this appeared to help foster new connections across the community, it also posed challenges related to varying degrees of control over venue design and layout, accessibility, and scheduling.

This was so awesome, I really enjoyed it. You have all done such an amazing job with these sessions, and the communications materials - it’s all so beautiful. I want to know what’s happening next…. We’ll definitely be there! - Participant CULTIVATING SAFE SPACE The EOED sessions provided a safe and comfortable space for participants to co-learn and share their personal experiences. For example, during one session, the Elder who was hosting invited participants to ask questions they thought may be sensitive and that they may not have another opportunity to do so outside of the session. This established a level of comfort in the room and promoted meaningful discussion. During another session hosted by two residents who grew up in the North End, an open discussion revealed how the neighbourhood has changed over the years. This was expressed through stories, which conveyed both concern and hope for the community. Participants from a younger generation were particularly engaged during this session, which they reflected through their attentiveness, responses, and questions. The opinions and stories the hosts openly shared with the group were personal at times, indicating a high degree of comfort in the space.

ASSESSING ACCESSIBILITY We did not gather data about the impact of accessible venues and spaces on participation. In terms of physical accessibility, the MNFC has a chair lift at the back entrance, which could potentially accommodate wheelchair access with support although this was not used during the March Program. Other venues were wheelchair accessible and did not appear to pose limitations with respect to physical accessibility.

KEY INSIGHTS • The EOED pilot demonstrated successful approaches in building inclusive participation and generated particular excitement and energy around sharing and learning across cultures. • More research is required to understand local barriers and opportunities related to deepening participation and inclusivity among diverse groups, particularly in relation to accessibility issues. • While there are many potential factors contributing to the creation of welcoming and safe space, on-going attention is required to continuously nurture both the subtle and apparent forces that help to build a sense of comfort and ease among hosts and participants. • The pilot demonstrated how many different activities located in different parts of the neighbourhood can help to build inclusive participation. However, this network of spaces could be greatly enhanced through the establishment of fully accessible and highly visible “anchor locations” to strengthen visibility and inclusivity for all.

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS • Expand research around the impact of different accessibility issues on participation in all phases of planning, co-design, delivery, and evaluation. • Prioritize the establishment of a local storefront (at minimum) as an essential component of the EOED support platform which can anchor a growing network of spaces and projects and support on-going research around inclusive participation. • Explore formal partnerships with local organizations that could help to build a stable network of host venues and leverage existing resources across the neighbourhood (e.g., HRM facilities, Halifax Public Libraries).

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

135

KSITE’TAQAN ~ SOMETHING CHERISHED (VALUE CREATION)

The success of the EOED project is heavily reliant on its ability to generate value for its participants. Co-designing the March Program together with residents created an opportunity to explore what residents feel is beneficial to their community. This process supported the aim of creating a program that could be cherished by all residents currently living in the community and for the generations to come.

HIGHLIGHTS

The idea that we can change the way that our city looks based on what we build and do together...that’s what stands out for me. We were building benches together... and seeing the confidence build in someone that they can actually build something like that for their community. It was the shared struggle of getting a nail in straight, but we did it together. - Host

RELATIONSHIPS & CONNECTIONS The most reported benefit that residents received from attending the March program was the opportunity to socialize and reconnect with others in the community. Of the 62 participants surveyed, 73% reported that they made a new friend or a new connection in the community from participating in the March Program. While the opportunity to socialize and reconnect with neighbours was the most frequently reported benefit, the need for social connections and activities may have been heightened due to the longevity and restrictive nature of Covid-19. Especially during pandemic time, it has been so fulfilling to make tangible connections with strangers, who are friends now. - Participant

BUILDING SKILLS & CONFIDENCE A direct benefit of participating in the March Program was learning a new skill and/or acquiring new knowledge and 84% of survey participants said that they did just that. In addition, for hosts, having an opportunity to share their skills and knowledge, which highlighted their talents and abilities, gave them a boost in confidence. One participant looked across the room and asked another participant, “Aren’t you my neighbour?” This sparked a conversation which gave neighbours a chance to connect on a deeper level. (Observation)

Actually meeting strangers at the workshop and then through the workshop making connections that I wouldn’t have had otherwise...I feel different than I did before, being in this community, like I have more threads to this (friendship) center and community. - Participant One participant shared that she was a doctor and then an Elder in the group spoke to some work they were doing with the hospital around bringing smudging into the building. The Elder then extended an invitation to discuss Indigenous practices in healing. (Observation)

SHARING ACROSS CULTURES Another major benefit was that it gave an opportunity for residents to share their culture and traditions with others in a safe, respectful, co-learning environment. Cultural sessions were well-received and were the most popular among participants. A number of participants requested that the program offer more sessions with Indigenous content in the future. The March Program provided a great opportunity for sharing cultures and has great potential to further this learning and sharing. - Elder Host

During a cultural session, one host appeared to be proud of the land base knowledge he carried and honoured to share his experiences with others in the group. (Observation)

136

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

One participant, who attended the session with her five-yearold daughter, used the moment to demonstrate the importance of contributing to the community and as an opportunity to teach her valuable life lessons such as embracing diversity and managing stereotypes and prejudice. (Observation)

POSITIVE INFLUENCE ON MENTAL HEALTH Participants reported that participating in the sessions had a positive influence on their mental health. In some cases this was due to session content (e.g., Introduction to Yoga: Where do I start? ) but it was primarily the result of offering a co-learning experience where residents were free to share and learn in a safe environment and creating opportunities for residents to socialize, be active, and reconnect with their community. Personally, I was having a stressful day and really appreciated the opportunity to get out and go for a walk and meet new people in the community. It was a great way to get physical activity into the day and connect with neighbours. - Participant

ENGAGEMENT & GRATITUDE

Most participants attending the sessions appeared to be fully engaged. This was reflected in ongoing conversations during the session, the number of participants asking questions, the depth of co-learning and story exchanges, body language, and bursts of laughter. Participants also showed gratitude and thanks towards each other and the project team during each session.

To counter the issue of participants having to leave the session before their craft was complete, hosts and project team members offered to send out a Youtube video to further support participant learning. Participants appreciated this idea, and the Project Team sent an email with Youtube links after the sessions.

HOST FEEDBACK Hosts appreciated an opportunity to share their knowledge and talent with the community and to be a part of the co-design process, developing content and customizing the session delivery to their level of comfort. The hosts we interviewed also shared that they appreciated just having to show up and not having to be involved in logistics of organizing their sessions. I haven’t heard of any other programs in the community that offer this level of community involvement. - Participant

KEY INSIGHTS • The new relationships and connections made throughout the EOED pilot are the glue that holds this work together and close attention should be paid to maintaining and building these connections, particularly in the absence of delivery cycles.

During one of the Tea & Bannock sessions, an Elder who was hosting showed some young children in the group a gift they had received from a community member, a small ship, and they explained what the Mi’kmaw name of the boat would be translated in English. The children were very interested. This sparked a conversation about learning the Mi’kmaw language and the potential for offering Mi’kmaw language classes online in the future. (Observation)

PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK When participants were asked how they would rate the sessions (from poor to excellent) 84% rated their sessions as excellent. 15% of survey participants said that the content was what they liked best about the sessions. One issue that has impacted the overall experience of participants was the length of time allotted for each session. For many of the sessions, there was not enough time to complete tasks, finish crafts and artwork, or, in some cases, for hosts to share all the content they had intended. In many circumstances, sessions exceeded the allotted time, and while many participants did not mind staying longer, others had commitments that would not allow them to stay, and they expressed disappointment. On two occasions, it was noted that hosts felt they were rushed moving through the content and sharing their knowledge, suggesting that maybe their session would be best offered in two parts. There wasn’t enough time during the session to give an appropriate explanation and have a discussion of cultural content. - Host

• The diversity of benefits recorded, and the uniqueness felt through the creation of space for cross-cultural sharing, reinforced how this approach centers resident experience by working to create ways for many different people to participate on their own termswhile strengthening the connective tissue between people and opportunities. • While hosts felt well supported and appreciated their limited involvement in logistics, the true nature of a participatory approach encourages residents and hosts to take part in the many facets of project design, delivery, and evaluation (including logistics). This calls for on-going modelling and support from the project team, who require adequate time and training to avoid falling into familiar patterns of program design and delivery.

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS • Build on the momentum of the EOED pilot by continuing to identify pathways of engagement that enable on-going connections between residents and organizations, with opportunities for co-designing future phases. • Develop a structured approach for preliminary and on-going training to support the whole project team in applying and modelling participatory approaches and practices. Apply insights generated from this to the development of a localized experiential learning model for diverse individuals and organizations.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

137

NIMJI’MUATL ~ SUPPORT, ENCOURAGE (VIABILITY)

The EOED pilot aims to strengthen community resilience over time. A resilient community is one that is connected and supportive, leaving no one behind. In times of distress and uncertainty, resilient communities support and encourage their residents, local businesses, and organizations by coming together and offering their skills, knowledge, and resources to best navigate these challenges and fluctuating circumstances.

HIGHLIGHTS

EOED has the potential to strengthen community resiliency, providing there is an awareness of how the community operates and a deep understanding of what residents view as important or beneficial. This deep-seated process takes time and will be a major determining factor to the project’s overall success. Therefore, community endorsement and support of the program by residents as well as local business and organizations is imperative.

LOCAL SUPPORT & INTEREST There has been much evidence indicating both strong community support of the program and interest in participating in the future. Throughout the design phase of the pilot, emphasis was placed on how the EOED support platform could foster new connections across different parts of the neighbourhood. For example, we know that MNFC provides a safe and welcoming space for Indigenous community members to be together and learn, and part of our aim was to draw new people into the centre who may otherwise not feel welcome, or that they have a reason to do so. Similarly, we intentionally established a network of community spaces that could invite and encourage diverse individuals and groups to connect across different parts of the neighbourhood. Over the course of the pilot, there were many instances of local organizations reaching out to project team members, with offers to support and collaborate. After one particular session, a host who is also involved in the youth social enterprise where the session was hosted offered to donate flower boxes for a future session that could later be placed throughout the community. On another occasion a volunteer from a local screen printing shop who attended a session on mask making expressed interest in partnering on creative projects and hosting at their neighbouring organization. At the neighborhood level, local organizations provided space, staff support, and expressed an overall willingness to help in whatever ways they could. Around the time that local health officials announced a Covid-19 circuit breaker, a manager at the North End Library reached out to see if we needed any additional support with transitioning sessions to online. - Project Team member

A local business owner spoke about the diversity of the community and said that being a part of this project gave them an opportunity to connect with residents in the community who they knew were there but were unable to reach. They continued by emphasizing the importance of partnerships in making this happen. (Observation)

138 22

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Shortly after the public launch of the EOED pilot, and as momentum grew around the work, the Program Director, sometimes alongside another team member, engaged in 4 media interviews and 8 presentations/gatherings related to different themes. After one conversation with an inter-cultural design class at NASCAD, a student reached out with a visual interpretation of EOED that resonated deeply with project staff. I am an international student from NSCAD. You gave a lecture on the Every One Every Day activity in our professor Leslie’s class last month. This is a great organization and activity. I stayed in the city of NS for two years. At the beginning, the unfamiliar environment, culture and language often made me feel lonely and fearful of communication. Seeing such activities made me feel a lot of the warmth and friendliness of this city. - Community member This program allowed me to connect with residents that I knew were there but was unable to connect with. - Host Even just the opportunity to visit spaces in the neighbourhood. I’ve lived in the North End for more than 10 years and have never been inside the Friendship Centre. - Participant

REFLECTIONS ON SUPPORT AND VIABILITY Cultivating A Strong Team: The development of the EOED pilot surfaced high demands around individual and collective learning related to participatory frameworks and approaches, resident co-design, developmental evaluation, and more - each of which needed to be adapted and applied on the ground, in real time. This requirement around the quick application of learning was felt in different ways across different stakeholder groups, each working to advance the work with varying lenses, and at different points within the system. In the case of the project team, much of this learning was self-directed, or developed through conversations and coaching with the Participatory City Tutors.

The one-on-one discussions and coaching time that was provided by the PC Tutors was extremely helpful - particularly for such a massive undertaking of creating our first newspaper, which involved so much learning as we went. - Project Team member The Project Team zoned in on elements of co-design with residents, communications, modelling participatory practices, and project evaluation. The challenges to learn and act quickly at this level were felt among team members and exacerbated by varying start dates and degrees of training, and varying degrees of comfort with the technical and administrative requirements for managing a high degree of logistics and one-on-one relationships with residents. Among the SG, co-learning was centered around the city-level application of this work and the discovery of how the PC approach and learning model could best integrate into existing structures and systems. The SG was also deeply invested in working together to understand how reconciliation could be practiced through a lens of governance - both of which present opportunities for future learning and application.

SUPPORT & CAPACITY ACROSS LEVELS The SG also provided extra support and capacity for the work, which manifested through different forms and relationships. Some SG members provided funding or resource support such as graphic design, others made key connections to potential partners and infrastructure, and some provided support and capacity building for EOED project staff. Specifically, two of the EOED project staff were part time, and shared across MNFC and two different partner organizations (also SG members). While these staffing structures posed some challenges related to extra layers of logistics and administration, and project staff needing to navigate different organizational demands and cultures, these relationships directed significant support and capacity to the project team, and reflected a deep commitment to co-learning and development around this work. All of these teams worked at different times and in different ways, with Participatory Canada, the PC Foundation, and local teams in Toronto and Montreal in an effort to build collective

understanding around a national approach. This work is, and will continue to be, influenced by the different lenses and organizational contexts represented by all those involved and throughout the pilot, the commitment of multiple influential organizations has enabled a strong network of support that can serve the ongoing development of this work in very beneficial ways.

Having some staff at MNFC and some at United Way and Inspiring Communities, while explainable, had some challenges in terms of team cohesion and structural integrity. - Strategic Group member

KEY INSIGHTS • Local organizations and businesses appeared to support and encourage the unique vision of EOED, many of whom suggested different ideas and opportunities for future collaboration. • Strategic Group members provide a critical role and support structure that can help to mobilize partners and champions, support resource and capacity development, and enhance the integration of the EOED platform into existing systems and structures. • EOED is, at its core, a learning model that requires a strong framework to enable on-going learning and capacity buliding within and across multiple teams and stakeholders. It is critical that a thoughtful and supportive approach to learning be cultivated and resourced.

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS • Develop a comprehensive learning framework that can support diverse stakeholder groups to engage in multiple and overlapping learning domains such as participatory culture, developmental evaluation, systems integration, and the advancement of reconciliation. • Dedicate time and resources towards team building and facilitated dialogues that can help to ground team members in different personalities and cultural contexts that influence working styles and relationships. • Evaluate and further define how the SG and decision makers can further integrate the work of reconciliation and specifically how this informs processes of learning, planning, and resource development. PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

139 23

NESTU’ET AQ TETAPU’LATL ~ BECOME KNOWLEDGEABLE AND DO RIGHT BY (ADVANCEMENT OF RECONCILIATION) The 94 Calls to Action detailed in the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015) place a responsibility on governments, businesses, educational and religious institutions, health care professionals, civil society groups, and all Canadians to recognize the value of Indigenous worldviews and practices. The report defines reconciliation as “…establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples … there has to be awareness of the past, acknowledgement of the harm that has been inflicted, atonement for the causes, and action to change behaviour”. It is with this consideration that the EOED pilot sought to become knowledgeable of the ways in which this initiative could highlight Indigenous culture and traditions and do right by Indigenous communities, moving forward together, in a good way, with actions to back our intentions. This project is an opportunity to take control and push the envelope; to try and incorporate as much Indigenous authority and ways of doing things into it as we could.

This commitment to advancing reconciliation is unique and is not part of the participatory approach that is being implemented and evaluated by the Participatory City Foundation in East London, UK. As such, specific adaptations in Kjipuktuk-Halifax were informed by in-depth discussions with MNFC staff and Indigenous community members and should be further developed and led, alongside Halifax’s Indigenous community. We hope that this approach serves as a learning opportunity for partners and stakeholders to gain a better understanding of the significance and urgency in working towards reconciliation with Canada’s Indigenous population and engaging in meaningful action.

This project is a learning opportunity and a chance to shift people’s thinking away from the colonial approach, pushing them to think differently. - Strategic Group member

- Strategic Group member

HIGHLIGHTS RECONCILI-ACTION (GOVERNANCE) The EOED pilot incorporated Indigenous knowledge into the governance structure of the project. This was done by inviting an Elder to multiple EOED Strategic Group meetings to share teachings and insight into Indigenous ways of knowing and being in the world. Grounded in this knowledge, the group engaged in open dialogue and seven guiding principles were created. These were later revised based on feedback from group members. Near the end of the EOED pilot, we held a drop-in Zoom session with Strategic Group members to reflect on the impact of the principles on the work. Participants reflected on whether they had seen the principles in action. The limited timeline of the pilot meant that there was not enough time spent working together to meaningfully evaluate the impact of the guiding principles. When considering future governance models, these principles offer a strong foundation to guide working relationships and decision making but require the collective identification of practices to support and evaluate progress.

I wish we had the principles sooner; it would have impacted how the group was structured; we could have referenced them. - Strategic Group member

140 24

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

These principles are not like any other set of principles, like business, focused on profit, these focus on people. You can see how they are all interconnected and if you do not follow just one, you cannot follow the others. - Strategic Group member

KEY INSIGHTS RECONCILI-ACTION (NEIGHBOURHOOD PROJECTS) There were five Indigenous themed sessions offered, plus additional sessions which included Indigenous content and teachings including the Tea and Bannock sessions. This provided participants, and in some cases the local community, with a chance to learn more about Indigenous culture and traditions and gain some hands-on experience with Indigenous crafting. Among the participants we surveyed, the sessions with Indigenous content were the most popular.

The March Program provided an opportunity for non-Indigenous folks to sit down with an Elder from the community. This would not normally happen. - Host The EOED pilot helped to surface specific examples of how reconciliation could manifest and be experienced at the neighbourhood level. While many of these observations were anecdotal, they offer insight into potential outcomes that can be further researched in future phases of work, including: • Using an Indigenous approach to relationship building. In particular, honouring the time needed to build meaningful and trusting relationships with the community and intentionally creating space to nurture these relationships, without rushing, throughout the entirety of the project. • Co-creating visual design elements (e.g., newspapers, space design) that honour and reflect Indigenous culture and serve as welcoming invitations for the whole community. • Building and strengthening connections between Indigenous and non-Indigenous organizations to help foster a network of safe and inviting spaces that support cultural exchange and inclusive participation. • Working with Elders and knowledge keepers to integrate practices/protocols that can support the respectful sharing and learning of Indigenous wisdom. • Creating safe and inviting spaces for neighbours (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) to participate in practical and enjoyable projects while also emphasizing the sharing of cultural knowledge and perspectives.

I have always wanted to know and learn more about this community and do things with the Indigenous community. That is what this program has meant to me... opening new doors to things I’ve wanted to explore for so long. - Host

• There is no manual or “how-to guide’’ for reconciliation and the deeply relational nature of this work means that we need timeframes and structures that allow for trusting relationships to evolve, with the Indigenous community, the local community and other stakeholders and partners. • Team members experienced a “push and pull” between working within existing frames and structures to plan, strategize, and act swiftly versus deepening personal and collective learning around new systems and processes (ie. in service of reconciliation). Adequate time is required for discussing and building a process that helps to advance reconciliation across multiple levels (e.g., governance, co-design, projects). • MNFC staff and community members offered guidance and support to embed Indigenous knowledge into the foundation of the pilot and create the conditions for safe and respectful sharing of Indigenous culture. This appeared to be well received and appreciated, and a driving force behind what made EOED particularly unique, with deeper meaning for residents. • The pilot offered a starting place to explore how Indigenous knowledge can help to shape governance and accountability structures. By introducing Indigenous teachings, with open dialogue around them, the work of the Strategic Group centered around co-learning and helped to explore new ways of how we may define and measure progress.

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS • Develop timeframes and structures that can support the integration of Indigenous wisdom into the EOED platform and particiaption ecosystem. This includes centering Indigenous voices and knowledge systems across all faucets of work and ensuring that this is reflected in the resource/budget plan (eg., dedicated staff working hours). • Maintain a focused effort on establishing new connections between Indigenous and non-Indigenous organizations to help foster a network of safe and inviting spaces that can support cultural exchange and inclusive participation within and across neighbourhoods. • Develop a Theory of Change based on the learnings from the pilot (grounded in reconciliation and inclusive particiaption), and use it to guide the evaluation of structures and frameworks that support and stregthen the work (ie. learning and evaluation frameworks, approach to governance, etc.). PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

141 25

We’ve been living in parallel for so long. It’s about time we came together. - Resident

CLOSING STATEMENT Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax aims to inspire a way of life in neighbourhoods and communities where the things that we value, like relationships, culture, or connection to nature, are reflected in the places we live and the things we do together. And where reconciliation can be practiced daily, through welcoming opportunities to learn from and with Indigenous communities so that we may respect and honour the culture and traditions of many different nations, and build trusting relationships that can nurture a new path forward. In the short time that EOED was brought to life in Kjipuktuk-Halifax, we saw a glimpse of many different residents working side-by-side to bring ideas to life in the neighbourhood, while supporting others to take part. We sparked excitement and curiosity around what life could be like if everyday, there were inviting spaces for neighbours to easily connect, share, learn, and create. At the centre of all of this, we initiated a journey towards reconciliation in neighbourhoods, sparking our collective imaginations around what’s possible with spaces and opportunities to be together in new ways. While we hope this is just the beginning, the vision for EOED rests in the hands of no single individual or organization, but rather, is an invitation for all of us to take part in creating a future society that centres connectedness, healing, regeneration, and where the creative potential of everyone, can be realized. Wela’lin~Merci~Thank you

142

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

143

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD Ahuntsic-Cartierville Borough Tolhurst/Saint-Benoît

ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

144

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD Ahuntsic-Cartierville Borough Tolhurst/Saint-Benoît

ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

145

Table of contents 3 Feasibility 1 Context P4

TELL US ABOUT THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH YOU CONDUCTED THE OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD SOCIAL R&D INITIATIVE

2 Project

development summary and timeline

WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE AND DESIRABLE TO CREATE AN ECOSYSTEM OF PARTICIPATORY PROJECTS AND A WELL-FUNCTIONING SUPPORT PLATFORM?

Inclusion

P22

WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT CREATING AN ECOSYSTEM OF PARTICIPATORY PROJECTS OPEN TO EVERYONE LIVING IN THE AREA IS POSSIBLE?

Value creation

P29

WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THIS PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT APPROACH CAN CREATE VALUE FOR RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBOURHOODS?

P35

Viability and demand

HOW VIABLE IS THIS PROGRAM LIKELY TO BE WITHIN THE CURRENT CONTEXT (ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, SOCIAL, ETC.)?

146

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

4 Adapting

P39

and learning

Team KARINE THÉORÊT EVA DOMINGUEZ-PAINCHAUD ALIX RUHLMANN MAUDE LAPOINTE WISSAM YASSINE

notrevoisinage@solon-collectif.org

facebook.com/notre.voisinage

OUR PARTNERS Miel Montréal, Le Comité, GUEPE, CANA, Geneviève des Créations Ploukk. Merci au Dépanneur O-Coin Fleury, 444 Rue Fleury O

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

147

Context TELL US ABOUT THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH YOU CONDUCTED THE NOTRE VOISINAGE SOCIAL R&D INITIATIVE. CHOOSING THE AREA:

collective projects that aim to create convivial, eco-friendly and

united communities. Initially based in the Rosemont–La Petite-

aims to strengthen community resilience while fairly and equitably

Patrie neighbourhood, our organization has worked since the spring

addressing the population’s needs by establishing mechanisms to

of 2020 to develop our mission and implement the Notre voisinage

promote solidarity and inclusion [Translation].

project in Ahuntsic.

- Émilie Thuillier, Ahuntsic-Cartierville borough mayor

The Notre voisinage project is key to the development of Solon’s mission to encourage and accompany citizens in creating local

In addition, Notre voisinage is directly aligned with the sixth key priority of the Ahuntsic-Cartierville borough’s

2019–2025 strategic plan for sustainable development. The plan

Through Notre voisinage, we were able to test out new approaches to civic action (turnkey projects; quick, direct impact; collective learning and outcomes).

148

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

The map contains three areas to explore: 1

The initial area where the Tolhurst/

Saint-Benoît project (blue triangle) was set up in the Ahuntsic-Cartierville borough

The

main

locations

Tolhurst/Saint-Benoît:

targeted

Terrasse

Fleury,

Place Meilleur and HLM Meunier-Tolhurst

Canada Post’s booklet delivery area

(green area)

It should be noted that the booklets were distributed in the map’s

• The lack of similar programs and third places in the area despite

green area to avoid ghettoizing the project within a small socio-

the fact that several local organizations were looking for ways to

demographically homogeneous area (blue triangle). The goal was to

reach this population.

facilitate access to the more affluent sphere to foster high-quality, inspiring encounters. Tolhurst/Saint-Benoît (blue triangle) was the first Ahuntsic area chosen for this experiment. Reasons included: • Solon’s desire to set up a third place in Ahuntsic: Notre voisinage was an opportunity for Solon to engage with and understand the needs of an ethno-culturally diverse and immigrant population,

• The opportunity to develop a better understanding of a new territory and its population. • The expansion of Solon’s reach in the borough: The non-profit could expand its presence to include new territories in addition to LocoMotion project neighbourhoods and strengthen partnerships between Solon and local organizations.

i.e. a different population from the one it usually works with in Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie. • The expansion of Solon’s neighbourhood action and intervention areas: While already locally established with the LocoMotion project (red circle in the map above), the new project helped Solon build relationships with citizens unfamiliar with the non-profit and its mission.

THE TOLHURST/SAINT-BENOÎT AREA’S DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND TYPOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS The area has a population of about 4500 which is characterized by a low-income population made up mostly of renters and public transit users. The north of the area is mainly made up of homeowners. Children are very present, and there are fewer individuals living alone in the area than the borough average. The neighbourhood is home to a significant number of non-Canadian citizens and features more first-generation immigrants than other Ahuntsic neighbourhoods. Visible minorities are also highly present: The majority are French-speaking, but there is also a significant Arabicspeaking community as well as some Spanish speakers. The built environment is primarily made up of medium-sized buildings (in the west and, more recently, around Place Meilleur), small buildings with lower rents, and post-war detached houses (some of which are single-storey).

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

149

Project Development Summary and Timeline Total Lockdown in Montréal Design Phase Kit selection and design Booklet design Workshop development

July–November 2020

Booklet Production Printing of 4000 booklets

December 2020

150

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Launch of Notre voisinage Distribution of 3000 booklets

January 6–19, 2021

Launch event at Saint-Benoît park cancelled Partnerships put on hold (Ahuntsic Borough – Saint-Benoît school – Habitations Nicolas-Viel – MeunierTolhurst HLM – CANA)

January 11, 2021

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

First Information Session Welcome and project presentation

January 20, 2021

Expansion of the Area Served Distribution of 600 booklets (600 households)

January 31, 2021

8 projects 261 sign-ups 178 participations 124 kits purchased and distributed

April 19, 2021

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

151

Feasibility WHAT DEMONSTRATES THE POSSIBILITY AND DESIRABILITY OF CREATING AN ECOSYSTEM OF PARTICIPATORY PROJECTS AND A WELL-FUNCTIONING SUPPORT PLATFORM? It should first be noted that Notre voisinage’s platform includes all strategies used to inform, engage and support residents during the project’s development (kits, communication tools, Facebook, and team support).

I. HOW MANY PEOPLE PARTICIPATED? Between January 6 and April 19, 2021, the 8 projects had 261 sign-

The participants included residents from 82 of the Tolhurst/Saint-

ups. Among the 178 participants, a large number of people took part

Benoît area’s postal codes, which explains the presence of several

in more than one project:

families in our projects.

• 25 people signed up for 1 project • 8 people signed up for 2 projects • 15 people signed up for 3 projects • 12 people signed up for 4 projects • 5 people signed up for 5 projects • 12 people signed up for 6 projects • 2 people signed up for 7 projects • 2 people signed up for 8 projects

152

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

Projects

Inscriptions

Participants

Created/purchased kits

Distributed kits

Plays

Cares

Shares Stuff

Shares Stories

Bakes Bread

Bikes

Mends

Plants & Pollinates

Shelters Birds

TOTAL

261

178

124

* An activity box was installed in Saint-Benoît Park but is not yet available for use. Included in the box: sand buckets and shovels, balls, kites, racquets, toy trucks, etc.

Additional insights into residents’ participation and project changes resulting from the pandemic: Certain projects—Plays, Shares Stuff and Cares—required additional development time due to a number of constraints, including resource limitations (human and material), contextual constraints (winter, COVID-19, partnerships) and time restrictions (tight deadlines). This time was used to better understand and incorporate the dynamic associated with resident participation.

Changes made to the Plays project: For example, in collaboration with the urban design studio Le Comité, we planned an itinerary featuring games (sled racing, tictac-toe in the snow, multicoloured ice, snow sculptures, castle and sanctuary, and a winter feast) along a winter route with signage as well as an activity box (flying carpet sleds, snow block and snowball moulds, plastic skis, balls, snowshoes, spikeball sets and skipping ropes). The route was intended to help participants discover and reclaim their community while meeting neighbours and having fun. Unfortunately, the borough could not approve the rollout of the route as it represented a gathering risk in a red zone. Nevertheless, with clear sanitary measures and a mandatory sign-up process in place, we were able to launch the Plays project with the installation of an activity box in Tolhurst Park on April 10, 2021. A sign on the box specifies how to sign up using a QR code that then leads to a form. Participants must agree to the terms of service, which include compliance with sanitary measures. After accepting these instructions, they receive the lock code. As of April 19, 2021, 21 families had signed up to use the Tolhurst Park activity

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

153

box. Some families even added items to the box, including buckets and shovels for playing in the sand. The next step was to launch the Saint-Benoît Park activity box in May 2021. The projects will then be shared on social media and families will be invited to contribute to both activity boxes. For the Saint-Benoît Park project, the borough’s recreation service lent us a large storage box. It will be available for families to use starting in May. In addition to the two existing boxes, a third box will be installed in early summer on the vacant lot behind Place Meilleur.

The engagement strategy for the Shares Stuff project: This project launched in early April. Participant consent was required for the project to operate. This helped ensure the confidentiality of the sensitive data contained in the sharing directory. Although 40 people were signed up for the project as of April 19, fewer than 10 are currently participating. We are, however, confident that this type of sharing project will appeal to the families making use of the activity boxes. An email invitation will be sent to them to encourage them to sign up for this item-sharing project for household supplies and tools.

Changes made to the Cares project: Pandemic-related logistical challenges led us to suspend this project just as the program was starting. The plan had been to match residents in need of help with those ready to help them. This proved impossible to do remotely. We tried coordinating our efforts with Entraide Ahuntsic-Nord, a local organization that operates a telephone helpline for area seniors. After discussing it with them, we chose to postpone this project until safer conditions exist that ensure this vulnerable and at-risk population’s safety. Our goal is to make this a trust-based project. For that to happen, we first need to invest time into getting to know interested participants.

154

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

II. HOW DID THE AREA RESPOND TO THE PROJECT? While there was some mistrust and reluctance (related to the pandemic and associated sanitary measures) among certain residents and partners, discussions with residents, their feedback, the number of people who signed up and the participation rate (68%), prove just how well the Notre voisinage program was received. The proposed projects resonated with residents who felt our proposals responded to their needs and concerns [All the quotes in this document have been translated from French]:

An area looking to get more involved and strengthen neighbourhood bonds: “To meet my neighbours” | “To get to know people in my area” “For us and our children to build relationships with people in my neighbourhood” “To participate with my kids” “To get closer to our community” “I enjoy taking part in community projects, and, since my children attend Saint-Benoît school, I’d like to meet other parents from the neighbourhood.” “To create a sense of belonging to my neighbourhood and become more involved.” “My daughter and I want to get involved with our neighbourhood!” “To learn and share” “I’m new to the neighbourhood. I need to have fun and meet new people!”

Building solidarity and fostering mutual aid: “I’m curious to learn and would like to offer my help. As for the other projects, I don’t need the knowledge or simply lack interest.” “To the best of my ability, I’d like to help develop neighbourhood life and mutual aid” “Solidarity and sharing” “This sharing of knowledge is very interesting. We already do it with those in our immediate vicinity, and we also help newcomers...” “It’s good to know people in your area and help each other out.” “I appreciate mutual aid.” “I’m interested in sharing with my neighbours and helping each other out.”

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

155

Sharing: “We have three young kids, so our free time is in short supply (it’ll come I guess!). But we have lots of things we could share (sewing machine, ladders, etc.). We also have a garden.” “I have items to fix and little knowledge of how to repair clothes. I also don’t own a sewing machine.” “I’m very interested in sharing items! It can help us move towards a zero-waste world!” “I think sharing is interesting, whether it’s knowledge, items, etc.” “For my kids and I to meet our neighbours, help each other, and share tools and knowledge” “I’m interested in sharing materials.” “Repurposing. I also garden.” “I’ve got time to share, with my car for example, or accommodate others.” “It’s a pleasure to share and build connections.”

The importance for residents to take part in their neighbourhood life: “Social involvement, love of nature” “Neighbourhood life” “I like getting involved in community actions.” “I’m a board member for Habitations Nicolas Viel.” “To foster community spirit in the neighbourhood and make it a pleasant place to live” “Having lived in the neighbourhood for 28 years, I’m eager to help improve my neighbours’ and the neighbourhood’s quality of life through sharing and support.” “It’s very local.” “I love taking part in community life!”

Curiosity and excitement: “I really like doing activities. I live alone and enjoy these kinds of projects. A friend of mine saw the booklet, thought of me, cut out the application form out and gave it to me.” “Really great initiatives!!” “I’m curious to know how it’ll go.” “Your initiative is very inspiring to me.” “Exploring :)” “The topics are really interesting.”

156

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

Learning, creativity and fun: “I really enjoy doing projects.” “Because they’re creative and interesting!” “I like seeing birds and trying to guess their species. Since moving here, I’ve discovered an interest in local birds.” “To learn and socialize” “I’m a cyclist, and I’d like to have a better knowledge base for maintaining and repairing my bicycle.” “I started biking last year. I’m finally exploring the city (its neighbourhoods, residents, parks and shops)!” “I love the arts, and sharing is interesting. For example, photography. And as for the bees, I live on a second floor and I’d already started planting flowers for them last year.” “It promotes independence and know-how.” “It would be nice to learn more about the city…”

III. WHAT CHALLENGES DID YOU ENCOUNTER IN GROWING PARTICIPATION? (ENGAGEMENT) We encountered several difficulties while developing the project.

The pandemic

We also had to reorganize the team and our approach to

management and communication, including switching to virtual meetings, centralized files accessible to all team members, and daily and weekly follow-ups, to adapt to pandemic realities.

Engaging partners Our compressed timeframe (January project launch) did not suit

Ban on gatherings: The total lockdown prevented us from

our local partners, most of whom were short of staff and financial

implementing our field engagement strategy and from distributing

resources. Along with the strict sanitary measures, this caused

booklets, especially in the Meunier–Tolhurst low-income housing

many partnerships to be put on hold (e.g. those with CANA, Saint-

area.

Benoît school, Meunier-Tolhurst HLM, Habitations Nicolas-Viel,

Most kits were incompatible with sanitary measures:

• We needed to adapt projects from in-person settings to virtual ones (for workshops, their facilitation and coordination). For example, the initial concept for the Bakes Bread and Mends projects was to have neighbours share materials (kits) for making

etc.). Subsequently, we noticed that many of these organizations had hired new employees. This complicated our ability to know in advance which actions we could collaborate on. Finally, our small geographic area of operation further complicated partnerships.

bread or mending clothes. However, the risks of spreading the

Weather-adapted projects

virus forced us to adapt and reconsider this concept. Instead,

During the winter, extreme cold and weather conditions forced us

participants each received an individual kit for their home. This

to adapt several projects, including Plants & Pollinates and Shelters

undoubtedly impacted the collaborative nature of the project.

Birds. We set up online workshops to help prepare for this summer’s

• We had to postpone some of the projects’ launches—such as for

collective activities.

the Plays, Cares and Shares Stuff projects—due to lack of time and sanitary measures that prohibited sharing common items and spaces. OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

13 PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

157

Cancellation of the in-person launch event This was due to the lockdown and Montreal’s red zone classification.

An engagement strategy in need of adjustment The distribution of 2400 booklets via Canada Post in the Tolhurst/

Building an on-the-ground relationship of trust

Saint-Benoît area resulted in only 15 sign-ups, a very low figure.

Community residents’ lack of familiarity with Solon meant more time and effort were required to build up a relationship of trust and increase awareness of our projects. We tried to address this issue by involving local partners to help establish this relationship, but the pandemic forced us to put these partnerships on hold, as explained in point B.

Adjustment of the strategy (as of January 31, 2021) Expanding our target area eastward The distribution of 600 booklets by the team (to 600 new households) resulted in: • 11 more people signing up for the program • 15 more people liking our Facebook page • 18 more subscribers

“I was happy to read the booklet I received at my home. I’m happy to see that mutual aid still exists.” Individual follow-ups We spoke to each person who signed up for the program by phone to thank them, welcome them, establish a dialogue with them, answer their questions and identify their interests. Our goal was to boost the program participants’ engagement.

“I signed up for the Facebook page, but I don’t want to jump into building something right now. I lack the energy with everyday life, my kids, etc.” Recruitment and engagement through peers Motivated and committed individuals were asked to engage and

Follow-up approach: • Send welcome emails and leave a phone number where they can reach us. • Send reminder emails a day and an hour before the workshop. • Send thank you emails to participants after the activities.

recruit members of their social circle: a total of 20 people indicated that they had heard about the Notre voisinage program through friends and family. One very involved area participant generously offered to run a baking workshop. She invited several neighbours to participate in the Bakes Bread project, and four of them signed up. One participant of the Mends project (the only one to attend the

These individual follow-ups also gave us a better understanding of

information session) told several neighbourhood mothers about the

why certain people chose not to participate:

project and invited them to join. The project now has 20 participants.

’’The story time didn’t work for my schedule, but if you change the day, I’d be interested in participating.”

158

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

Making use of resource persons and community leaders Local partners put us in touch with highly engaged area residents, notably the president of the Meunier-Tolhurst HLM tenants’ committee and a tenant of the social-housing building Habitations Nicolas-Viel. Unfortunately, neither instance resulted in us bringing in more participants. In the end, strict sanitary measures, a prohibition against entering the buildings and the program’s components (the sign-up process and workshop programming) that were moved online due to the pandemic worked against us achieving the desired inclusiveness Active communication and online engagement: shifting from a field engagement strategy to an online one We improved our remote engagement by increasing the visibility of our communications across our online platforms (the Notre

Making the application form available in four languages (French,

voisinage Facebook page, the Solon website and the Solon

English, Arabic and Spanish)

Instagram page) as well as through the Facebook pages of partners

On February 22, 2021, we began planning the delivery of the kits.

who run programs and are in close proximity with local residents

Our preferred approach involved preparing a form and information

(Entre-maison Ahuntsic, Ahuntsic-Cartierville borough and CANA)

campaign specific to each project on Solon’s and our local partners’

[All links in French].

social media pages. The forms allowed us to collect the information necessary for kit deliveries. It also helped us promote the various

We also actively shared our communications and announcements

projects and initiate a co-creation process with participants within

on various local Facebook groups, particularly the Fleury Ouest

the context of remote engagement. The application forms included

-Vie de quartier page, but also the pages for Communauté active

a call to action and a section where participants could share their

Tolhurst, the Parents de l’école Saint-Benoît (CSSDM), Bazar

thoughts on participating in co-creating the project.

d’Ahuntsic, Ahuntsic, etc. [All links in French]. This strategy helped us reach a more diverse group of people. We made sure to clearly state in our communications that the program is for Tolhurst/Saint-Benoît residents. Despite this, on several occasions, people from outside the area signed up. We were thus made aware of how hard it can be to reach an area as small as the program’s targeted neighbourhood via the internet. Adapting and scheduling 100% online workshops, with home delivery of the kits We set up several online workshops hosted by partners and residents. Guerilla Marketing (January 25, 2021) Solon’s team hit the streets for an on-the-ground poster campaign in the lead-up to the information sessions, with the goal of promoting the projects and increasing resident participation: • 72 posters (12 different designs) were installed • 4 people mentioned becoming aware of the program thanks to the posters • 13 more people signed up for the project • 16 more people liked our Facebook page • 18 more registered for projects online

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

15 PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

159

Some of the questions included in the form to encourage participation and co-creation were: • Please tell us a little bit about why you are or are not interested in these projects. • If you have other ideas that are not part of the projects proposed above, please note them here. • Do you know any neighbours, friends or family members in the area who might also like to participate in these projects? • We are considering new workshops and meeting times (only online for now, but one day in person!) for the sewing project. Please check the boxes for what interests you from this list. • Is there a technique or a type of creation that you would like to present to group participants? • We will try to find a schedule that works for you. When would be best?

IV. WHAT OPPORTUNITIES WERE CREATED BY RESIDENTS’ PARTICIPATION? WHAT NEW IDEAS EMERGED? The projects helped foster creativity and generated a sense of collective creation. Several residents suggested the following new ideas and initiatives:

“Dog walking, spring chores, a walking group (or sport activities for young and old)” “Taking drawing or painting classes” ‘’En invierno, mi hija sugiere que en cada tempestad de nieve, se organicen concursos en los parques para los niños y sus padres (integración familiar) por ejemplo premiar el mejor hombre de nieve, en navidad la mejor figura de Noel, el parque es grande que tranquilamente podrían participar 50 familias manteniendo la distancia requerida. En verano, concurso para los niños con premios que les incentive, pueden ser en grupos o individuales, que canten, que bailen y todos con inscripciones previas, en el pasado vi en el parque Tolhurst que los miércoles por la tarde, es dia familiar, y a los adultos bailando, lo mismo se podria hacer tambien con los chicos, un concurso de baile, canto, de dibujo, me gustaría ir al parque y aplaudir a alguno que participe en un concurso.’’ (During the winter, my daughter suggested that, for every snowstorm, competitions could be organized in the parks for children and their parents (family integration). For example, a prize could be awarded for the best snowman or the best Christmas sculpture during the holidays. The park is so big that 50 families could easily participate while maintaining

160

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

appropriate physical distancing. In the summer, a contest could be held for children with prizes to encourage them. They can participate, in groups or as individuals, to sing, dance, draw. I previously noted that Wednesday afternoon is a family day at Tolhurst Park. I’d like to go to the park and cheer on contest participants. [Indirect translation]) “Classes for kids at the park?” “I really enjoyed cooking. Maybe ask chef Marie-Fleur St-Pierre, who lives in the neighbourhood, to make a recipe for us during an online workshop.” ’’Our local area is learning how to grow vegetables on our balconies.” ’’In the summer, we could organize a barbecue at Tolhurst Park so we could meet each other in person.’’ “A reading group” ’’I’d like to see if car-sharing can work, and if so, how?” In addition, the projects and workshops highlighted to us the importance of designing projects that were focused on both medium- and long-term participation and that address the area’s needs.

“Some of the projects could be tied in with neighbourhood schools. The plant project, but also story time, biking, the activity box...” “Language partnerships would be nice, or pairings to help neighbourhood newcomers build a network. Also, parallel activities for children and parents.”

V. WHAT CHALLENGES DID YOU ENCOUNTER WHILE SETTING UP AND MANAGING THE SUPPORT PROGRAM?

Constraints on civic engagement

The strict sanitary measures imposed by the authorities (the ban

who enrolled in the project.

on gathering, exchanging objects, using third places, etc.), the

Our inability to conduct engagement activities focused on faceto-face meetups and events with area residents (as a result of the sanitary restrictions) negatively impacted the number of people

residents’ feelings of fear and insecurity, and the borough and local

Adapting the kits

community partners’ reluctance initially forced us to pause the

Sanitary restrictions led to us adapting our kits for an online setting,

Plays, Cares and Shares Stuff projects.

Remote development and coordination

rather than an in-person one. Our challenge was finding a way to combine most projects with workshops that encourage discovery, knowledge and mutual aid. The adopted approach was adapted to

We tested working remotely with residents, as well as with the

families as well as to people living alone. The online approach and

team itself. Due to sanitary measures, we missed out on seeing

the absence of a third place required us to deliver kits to residents’

each other, sharing our impressions and thinking up solutions in

homes and involve them in the process of choosing kits that fit their

person. Remotely working together on this project presented a

needs.

huge challenge. It also led to frustration as we would have preferred to be present in person more often to help accompany the groups

Kit delivery logistics

of participants.

This part of the process was both extremely time-consuming and logistically challenging for Solon’s engagement team. Without access to a third place in the neighbourhood where residents could come pick up the kits, we found ourselves having to deliver them to

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

17 PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

161

placing an added burden on people already overwhelmed by their everyday lives and associated challenges. Several people were adamant that they did not want to get involved in projects at this time for these reasons. Many other people mentioned to us that, for them, now was not the right time to be sharing things. As an example, the Meunier-Tolhurst HLM did not want an activity box on their property, and sharing bread was also considered risky by some.

“Great initiative, but I think it would have been wiser to wait until the end of the pandemic before investing all this energy into the projects. In the present context, I think participation will be much lower (the LocoMotion program, for example).”

participants’ homes. This required extra time and energy, on top of

Partnership development constraints

the additional logistics to manage.

Given the reality of the pandemic, Solon was unable to draw on the

A very compressed timeframe

management mode. The many challenges they faced, including a

The project’s timeframe proved to be rather tight for both residents and partners, who felt they didn’t have enough time to take ownership of the project or become fully involved.

A weak sense of belonging The Saint-Benoît area is a transitory one, especially for newcomers. Its residents have a rather weak sense of belonging to the neighbourhood and therefore a lower level of involvement in neighbourhood projects.

The lack of access to a local third place Resulting impacts included: • The lack of a gathering place where people could meet, connect, discuss and take part in the projects’ workshops. • Our partners’ inability to connect with participants and facilitate project-related workshops and events for them. • The absence of a space for storing the kits, materials and tools

help of local community partners, most of whom were in crisislack of resources (financial, human, etc.), meant they were unable to participate in the project. Despite being otherwise committed to help, they were forced to put the collaboration on hold, with some simply deciding not to get involved at all.

“It’s a great project, but we can’t risk an outbreak among HLM tenants. It is therefore strictly forbidden for Solon to enter the Habitations Meunier-Tolhurst buildings or distribute the Our Neighbourhood brochures.” – (Community Organizer – OMHM) “Despite the project’s relevance and it tying into our goals, the board of directors voted against our team’s contribution. This was done to protect our colleagues’ health and avoid the dangers of burnout.” (Director of the Entre-Maisons organization)

required for sharing and picking up kits.

Distrust and fear among certain residents Sanitary measures increased feelings of distrust and estrangement among residents. This is especially the case among those living in social housing (Meunier-Tolhurst HLM) or cooperatives such as Habitations Nicolas-Viel. In addition to the fear associated with item-sharing, the crisis also significantly affected mental health,

162

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

VI. WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT THE POTENTIAL SUCCESS OF THIS PROGRAM (PLATFORM) IN THIS OR OTHER AREAS OF MONTREAL? Most residents expressed a desire for the projects to continue:

“I’d love to continue with you if possible.” In addition, the following observations confirm the program’s potential success in other neighbourhoods:

First observation: Residents are increasingly satisfied with the project, and they want to increase their involvement. We have also seen a steady increase in sign-ups and participation throughout the course of the project. This trend was mirrored by the engagement team’s continued solicitation of residents by email and phone. It showed us that this engagement approach works.

“Inspiring.” “Such a good idea.” “Excellent idea.” ’’Brilliant! I don’t understand how there aren’t more people participating!” “Nothing but positive.” “Love the idea... time is a little short/scheduling issues for the other groups I’m interested in.” ’’I like it, it gives me the opportunity to share ideas and knowledge and meet other people.” “Inspiring.” “Interesting, focused on mutual aid” “It’s an interesting concept.’’ “A very well-organized and friendly program with a nice variety of activities.” ’’I love the idea, its form and what’s being offered.’’ “A very nice initiative.” “Truly excellent. I didn’t know it existed. I’m glad to know it does. Well done.” “Excellent initiative“

Second observation: There is an ecosystem of complementary partners (services and missions) to be developed and strengthened. Collaborations during the social R&D phase allowed Solon, newly arrived in Ahuntsic, to quickly identify the pool of key players that made up the neighbourhood’s community ecosystem. During the development phase, we got in touch with several local partners who work with the local population. Unfortunately, these initial contacts did not result in concrete collaborations for Notre voisinage. The reasons for this are detailed in Section V. That said, the various community players are now aware of us, and we are often called upon by our partners when potential synergies with our Ahuntsic projects appear. Additionally, this experience helped us develop important relationships with organizations we would not necessarily have prioritized during the initial stage of our development in the territory. Examples include several social-housing organizations such as Entre-Maisons, OMHM and Habitations Nicolas-Viel. Discussions are already underway with these organizations to develop other projects related to the coming transition.

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

19 PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

163

throughout the Notre voisinage program’s development. The

Fifth observation: Sanitary measures will be relaxed in the coming months, and we can expect a return to normalcy thanks to vaccination.

borough wanted to know how they could support the program. They

Our projects will be even more feasible once this occurs.

Third observation: The borough would like to get more involved. The borough office and elected officials’ position remained clear

invited us to several meetings so that we could identify our needs and keep them updated on the program’s evolution. They distributed our communications, lent us equipment (the activity box in SaintBenoît Park) and included us in their recreation service’s event schedule this winter. Looking ahead, the borough is supporting our Espace Meilleur project in a multitude of ways. This includes ensuring that the city grants us the land, sharing the certificate of location with us to ensure its easement and taking care of site clean-up this spring.

Sixth observation: Solon’s team has solid experience when it comes to increasing engagement It has been able to develop its co-creation and co-production skills through recent projects, including Notre voisinage. These new skills, which continue to evolve, can be used to enhance future projects.

Fourth observation: We developed a better understanding of the area and its residents’ issues and needs.

Seventh observation: Adjustments to the engagement and communication strategy made by the team in January paid off.

Through discussions with several partners, we learned that one

We have seen a significant increase in workshop sign-ups and

of the area’s predominant issues relates to the difficulty of living together with different groups of people (for example, between various ethno-cultural groups, families and people living alone). These same partners noted that a program like Notre voisinage could be highly effective in helping to break this isolation, build

attendance. Many participants are returning to activities and signing up for new projects. A growing number of registrants have also become active members: 68% are currently active, meaning that they have participated in at least one activity or that we remain in contact with them.

relationships of trust between neighbours and reduce mistrust between various groups of people.

164

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

For example: • Shares Stories: 10 out of 18 people are active in this project 10 people (3 adults and 7 children) out of 18 (6 adults and 11 children) who participated in story time also took part in activities from other projects. • Mends: 15 out of 21 people are active in this project 1 person attended the project information session, 10 people (9 adults and 1 child) participated in the sewing workshop and 5 people use the area’s WhatsApp group to discuss sewing. 7 people who took part in the information session, the sewing workshop or sewing machine sharing also participated in activities from other projects. • Bakes Bread: 13 out of 20 people are active in this project 2 people participated in the project information session, 13 people (3 children and 10 adults) attended the baking workshop, and 5 people (adults) took part in the bread discussion. 7 people use the area’s WhatsApp group to discuss bread. 7 people who took part in the information session, baking workshop or the discussion among neighbours also participated in activities from other projects. • Shares Stuff: 8 out of 40 people are active in this project 8 people are registered in the sharing directory, and 4 people are involved in co-designing the project and building engagement. • Plays: 21 out of 34 people are active in this project 4 people participated in the co-development workshop, and 4 adults and 8 children helped install the first activity box in Tolhurst

Highlights:

Park.

• 261 sign-ups for the 9 projects

• Plants & Pollinates: 47 out of 48 people are active in this project 9 people participated in the bee workshop, and 39 people took part in gardening for pollinators. The next 2 workshops will be for 25 people. • Shelters Birds: 29 out of 42 people are active in this project

• 178 project participations (workshops, events, crafts, etc.) This puts the sign-up to participation conversion rate at 68% • On March 4, we passed the 100 followers mark on our Facebook page. We also had 89 likes. By April 27, we had 98 likes and 111 followers.

16 people participated in the bird workshop, and 26 people did so for the birdhouse workshop. • Bikes: 19 out of 39 people are active in this project 9 people participated in the first online workshop, 10 people did so for the second online workshop, 6 people took part in the first workshop in the park, and 7 did so for the second workshop in the park.

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

21 PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

165

Inclusion WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT CREATING AN ECOSYSTEM OF PARTICIPATORY PROJECTS OPEN TO EVERYONE LIVING IN THE AREA IS POSSIBLE? I. WHAT IS THE AREA’S DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE, AND HOW DOES PROGRAM PARTICIPATION REFLECT THIS? WHAT WAS LEARNED ABOUT THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE WAY THAT THEY PARTICIPATED? Demographic profile: Household composition

In terms of languages spoken, the area is predominantly French-

The Saint-Benoît area is, by all appearances, a varied one. Two

speaking. There is also a significant Arabic-speaking community

trends can be detected: the presence of families (many couples with

as well as some Spanish speakers. French is most often spoken at

children who appear to be in the 0–14 age group) and many single-

home (66%), but nearly 9% of residents have Arabic as their mother

person households, with people who live alone although they are

tongue and 5% have Spanish. French and a non-official language

possibly part of a couple. People over the age of 65 are uncommon.

(presumably Arabic and Spanish) are more often spoken at home

There is, on average, a higher presence of couples than in the other

than in other areas (8%).

areas of Ahuntsic, and a high proportion of couples with children. Housing Immigration

The area’s housing stock is significantly older than the average in

There are significantly more first-generation immigrants in this

Ahuntsic or Montreal, and the local dwellings have a slightly smaller

area than in others. More than 4 in 10 people report being first-

number of rooms than dwellings in other areas of Ahuntsic. There

generation immigrants (43%), and there is a significant proportion

is a strong presence of renters in this area and rents are fairly

of non-Canadian citizens (18%). These immigrants are more likely

affordable. There is a higher proportion of people who moved to

to be sponsored by family (33%). Visible minorities are also more

the area within the past five years than the Montreal average (the

numerous in this area (44%) than in the federal electoral districts of

mobility status 5 years ago was 46% vs. 43% in the federal electoral

Ahuntsic (38%) and Montreal (34%).

districts of Ahunstic and 45% in Montreal). A significant part of the

166

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

area (Place Meilleur, Terrace Fleury) is considered a transitory place for newcomers. This weakens the sense of belonging and reduces interaction between residents, thus explaining the neighbourhood’s lack of citizen initiative. Nearly 7 out of 10 people are renters, which is higher than in other Ahuntsic areas. Specific characteristics of certain of the area’s units: The MeunierTolhurst HLM is a building with 120 social-housing units which includes a community space managed by the Entre-Maisons neighbourhood organization. The majority of these units’ occupants are recent immigrants of Arab and African origin. There is also a housing co-op in the heart of Saint-Benoît, in the middle of a residential rental district.

DIRECT MARKETING: We tried to directly speak to residents by going door to door and meeting people in parks and in front of schools, etc. SUPPORT AVAILABLE THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT: There is a team dedicated to answering questions by phone, email and via our Facebook page. FLEXIBLE, SHORT AND REQUIRING LITTLE COMMITMENT We adjusted to the participants’ rhythms by employing flexible schedules and always asking for their availabilities. The kits were prepared so as not to require much time from the participants. SIMPLE, NO COST, NEARBY AND ACCESSIBLE There was no cost

Income

to the participants. Our goal was for them to participate and have

The residents’ socio-economic profile shows two extreme trends.

fun. We took care of buying the kits and even handled their home

On one end is a wealthy population, and on the other end is a

delivery by asking participants when the best time would be to

population that is much less affluent. The area is among the least

receive the kits.

affluent in the Ahuntsic-Cartierville borough. Furthermore, the prevalence of low-income households is higher than in other areas within the borough. Given the particularities of the area, we developed an inclusive development plan that aimed to create the conditions for all projects to be inclusive and inviting for people of culturally diverse backgrounds. Adjustments made to the kits related to the sanitary measures and the inclusive measures adopted by the team helped increase the participation of people of diverse backgrounds. For example, 25% of the Makes Bread project’s participants are of ethno-culturally diverse backgrounds. Inclusion measures: ATTRACTING TALENT: We provided a space for talented individuals to express themselves and showcase and share their knowledge. For example, the Bakes Bread project was facilitated by an area resident. This was also the case for the Mends project.

WELCOME CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The majority of those registered for the Shares Stories project were families. We encouraged parents to invite their children to the activities and workshops. Children are not counted in the sign-up figures as they were registered with their parents; however, many children participated in our activities. • Story time: 11 children • Bread workshop: 3 children • Sewing workshop: 1 child • Plants & Pollinates: 14 children • Shelters Birds: 9 children • Plays: 18 families signed up, 7 of which had 2 children, 4 had 3 children, and 7 had 1 child, adding up to a total of 33 people registered.

“Seeing children interact and engage with stories” “Tremendously. The kids really enjoyed it.”

100% OPEN AND WITHOUT STIGMA: Families, children, seniors, people with reduced mobility and people from diverse backgrounds, among others, participated in the project. There is a place for everyone, whether beginners or experts (e.g. in the bicycle project, the sewing project, bread baking, etc.). This results from the culture of mutual aid and knowledge-sharing, which lies at the very heart of the program and is encouraged throughout. BUILDING PROJECTS WITH THE HELP OF EVERYONE: The program is open to everyone, especially seniors. In fact, seniors

CULTURALLY ADAPTED COMMUNICATION Communication

took

place

four

different

languages

representative of those spoken in the area: French, English, Spanish and Arabic. In addition, different types of media were used in order to reach a maximum number of people. Online media: Facebook page, application forms. Printed media: booklets, pamphlets, posters.

make up about 20% of the program’s participants. For example, 20% of the Bakes Bread group were seniors.

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

23 PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

167

Project

Seniors

Children

Families

Diversity*

Shares Stories

Bakes Bread

Bikes

Mends

Plants & Pollinates

* Diversity: this refers to ethno-cultural diversity (racialized persons)

Participants’ spoken language French (91) English (3) Arabic (1) Spanish (2) It should be noted that some people listed French as their language of communication even though they also speak other languages.

II. HOW WAS PROGRAM PARTICIPATION SIMILAR TO OR DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF OTHER NEIGHBOURHOOD PROGRAMS? Several facts emerged from our observations, interactions and discussions with local residents and organizations. • The area is underserved by projects. Several organizations operate in the neighbourhood, but few specifically do so in the area targeted by our program. The available programs and services address basic and specific needs such as education and health. Easily implemented turnkey programs that are simple to participate in and that aim to provide a friendly atmosphere,

citizen space to better reach local residents and invigorate the living environment.”

• Entre-Maisons is physically present in three Ahuntsic HLMs, including the one in Tolhurst/Saint-Benoît. Their staff facilitate projects and activities with the tenants, including music and entrepreneurship classes and homework help. However, the community space used for their activities is not accessible to tenants outside the hours of operation or when the facilitators are not present. In addition, the space is reserved solely for use by the HLM tenants.

strengthen neighbourhood bonds and bring people together are few and far between. Notre voisinage has stepped up to help fill this void, providing an innovative program that complements the area’s various existing programs.

What distinguishes Notre voisinage from other existing programs: Notre voisinage projects are open to everyone and allow tenants to meet non-HLM residents. They also aim to encourage meeting new people, facilitate the acquisition of new skills and help participants

• Solidarité Ahuntsic, the Ahuntsic community council, once occupied a local community space in the Saint-Benoît sector, but it closed in 2010. The space served as the area’s epicentre of engagement. It included a drop-in daycare and activities such

have fun. Notre voisinage is also flexible enough to allow project activities to occur outside the facilitators’ work hours. Lastly, the model grants participants autonomy in regard to workshop facilitation and their choice of kits.

as sewing, computing and cooking. Solidarité Ahuntsic’s former director confirmed to us that “this area is in serious need of a

168

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

III. WHAT CHALLENGES TO INCLUSIVE PARTICIPATION DID YOU ENCOUNTER? At the start of the project, we learned that the first 17 sign-ups were

were placed directly into mailboxes, the rates of registration and

residents living in the area that surrounds the one we had initially

participation were significantly higher.

targeted (Terrace Fleury, Place Meilleur and Saint-Benoît Park). This first group did not reflect the area’s demographic profile, particularly in terms of ethno-cultural diversity.

• An inability to recruit influential individuals residing in the area due to their unavailability and lack of time. • Despite expressing significant interest in the project, Saint-Benoît school was unable to take part due to the sanitary restrictions.

Therefore, we asked ourselves two questions:

Why are we not reaching more people from diverse backgrounds?

How can we attract a greater number of people from diverse

backgrounds, seeing as they account for a majority of the area’s residents (The Terrasse Fleury–Place Meilleur–Saint-Benoît Park triangle)?

This diminished participation levels among the neighbourhood’s children and parents. • Another obstacle we encountered was our inability to go out and meet residents, whether at community centres, block parties, near their homes, or park kiosks. These approaches are normally good options for engaging people of diverse backgrounds. These engagement strategies could not be carried out due to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Our activities had to be conducted online, which

The answers to these two questions are manifold:

may also have presented a barrier to participation for individuals

• The population is difficult to engage due to the area’s transitory

less comfortable with technology (the digital divide).

nature. There is a weak sense of belonging, especially among newcomers. • The team was prohibited from accessing the Meunier Tolhurst HLM and Habitations Nicolas Viel. Both locations have a third place along with a pool of residents from diverse backgrounds. • A considerable fear of spreading the virus made area residents reluctant to participate.

• Some of our participants rarely use Facebook, which is one of the primary communication platforms of Notre voisinage . We therefore asked participants what their preferred means of communication was in order to reach them in the way most convenient to them. Depending on the individual, we used phone, email or WhatsApp groups to contact them. This latter option allows us to communicate more smoothly as we send photos, videos and voice and text messages that help strengthen the

• The booklet failed to deliver in terms of increasing engagement

group. For now, WhatsApp groups have been created for the

and participatory action, hence the need to go out and meet

sewing and bread projects. Unfortunately, as not all participants

people and put up a large number of signs at building entrances,

use WhatsApp, not all group members can participate in these

on the streets, in the neighbourhood park, etc.

discussions. Nevertheless, these groups represent an interesting

• An extremely significant factor that helps account for the low rate of registration and participation: We signed a contract with Canada Post to distribute booklets to apartments buildings located

strategy for reaching certain participants, creating a greater sense of belonging and facilitating a friendly space for discussion in the context of the currently remote activities.

in the Fleury West area (Fleury Terrace and Place Meilleur, the yellow zone in the above map). This area was the project’s priority target. The planned delivery method was one booklet per mailbox. When we followed up and investigated, we found that this had not been the case. In speaking to residents, in particular participants who discovered the project without the help of the booklet, we discovered that the mailman had simply left a pile of booklets at each building’s entrance. Many people never saw the booklets, which negatively affected the registration and participation rates in the Terrasse Fleury–Place Meilleur–Saint-Benoît Park (blue triangle) area. This experience taught us that booklet distribution should be handled by the engagement team. However, due to COVID-19, this was not possible. In areas where the booklets

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

25 PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

169

IV. WHAT DOES THIS TELL YOU ABOUT THE PROGRAM’S POTENTIAL FOR SUCCESS IN THIS AREA OR YOUR CITY, IN REGARD TO INCLUSION?

place in Ahuntsic, the engagement strategy necessarily focused on encounters and discussions with area citizens. Over the course of a few half days of being physically present in the area, we managed to hold discussions and establish a dialogue with 21 people. We had meaningful interactions and shared very positive discussions in the streets and in Saint-Benoît Park. Response to the project was very

An inclusive approach that extends to several areas:

positive, with several people we spoke with even providing us their

The inclusion measures (see the inclusion measures paragraph in

enliven the area, strengthen the connections between residents

section Inclusion. I) implemented by the Notre voisinage program demonstrate how the team actively pursued the involvement of a diverse population while also reaching out to representative individuals in the area.

“Facilitating discussions between neighbours, creating connections through common interests and sharing expertise and resources is definitely ideal. The workshop topics you offer are also relevant and very interesting and can appeal to a wide variety of residents. Kudos for this initiative :)”

unit number. Ten or so of the discussions we had with residents confirmed to us that there was a need for projects that would and help create a sense of belonging. Among the people we engaged in person, 19 were of diverse backgrounds: • 5 women (3 of Arab origin, 2 of African origin) • 7 men (3 of African origin, 2 of Hispanic origin, 2 from Quebec) • 6 children (3 of Arab origin, 3 of African origin) – 3 girls and 3 boys • 3 young people (2 young men and 1 young woman)

Local leadership to help increase inclusion: At the community level As indicated in the VI. section about feasibility, several organizations

The employed inclusive approach resulted in a high level of participation among residents. A total of 83% of the people who filled out application forms live in Tolhurst/Saint-Benoît (see map), while 17% come from outside the area. There are several reasons for the participation outside the target area: People wanted to connect and participate despite not living in the area. They too were in need

are interested in future collaboration with our team. Advancing discussions with these organizations, who work directly with the area’s residents, is therefore both feasible and beneficial. These organizations played a central role in helping certain individuals become involved: Marie Yolaine’s sign up offers a good example of why relying on certain key individuals in the area is important.

of initiatives in which to take part. Lastly, some were motivated by

Marie Yolaine often works weekends, making it difficult for her to

the projects’ focus on mutual aid and solidarity.

partake. She was, however, very interested in the project. She was

“The projects create diversity in the community.”

referred to the program by Mehdi, a member of the Entre-Maisons team. He helped her to sign up by phone. She wasn’t comfortable with the technology being used for the workshops, so we suggested

Future opportunities to increase people of diverse backgrounds’ civic engagement:

doing a test together in advance. This personalized support allowed

There is a real opportunity to increase the degree of civic

At the resident level

participation among people of diverse backgrounds during phase 2. It should be noted that the easing of sanitary restrictions, as a result of the vaccination campaign and a decrease in cases, will allow us to more easily reach out to area residents while strengthening the relationship of trust. We have found that on-the-ground engagement is essential to engaging the area’s population, especially people of diverse backgrounds. During the project’s design phase (September 2020), and prior to the total lockdown (November 2020), Solon’s

her to take part in the project.

A real possibility exists to strengthen the core group of motivated, active residents who took part in several projects and are starting to get to know their neighbours. This cohort should be able to take charge of certain projects, thus providing engagement leadership for the area. An inclusive third place

team went out to meet with residents at the Terrasse Fleury, at

Furthermore, Solon setting up a third place should help us reach

Place Meilleur and in Saint-Benoît Park, with brochures briefly

a more diverse population (Solon is currently seeking out such a

presenting the project in hand. Given that Solon lacked a third

place). Once secured, a third place should help Solon make itself

170

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

better known and establish a relationship of trust with the area’s

L. is also well connected in the area: She finds it important to get to

various populations. By inviting them to get involved in the third

know her neighbours and connect with them.

place’s activity scheduling and management, residents will be empowered to take action.

The participant experience as a success factor for inclusion The platform’s potential inclusion-related success is reflected in certain residents’ experiences as participants. Their developing a deeper and more enduring form of commitment is another key aspect of this potential success.

Resident experiences: Below are the stories of a few residents who participated in multiple projects and highlight the various levels of interaction. PARTICIPANT L.’S EXPERIENCE L. did not receive the booklet directly. She was instead made aware of Notre voisinage program by a nearby friend who did. The friend was not interested, but she knew that L. might be. She cut out the application form and gave it to her. L. then contacted us by phone to request additional information, and we began developing a relationship of trust with her. She then filled out the application form and proceeded to drop it off in the box at Depanneur O-Coin Fleury. She then called us to again confirm her enrollment. What motivated her to sign up was the prospect of being able to build relationships, meet neighbours and enjoy herself despite the ongoing sanitary restrictions. L. lives alone, and with the ongoing health crisis many of the social activities she usually partakes in are no longer occurring.

“I enjoy tai chi and bowling, but I can’t do either at the moment.”

“When I first arrived, I was handing out cards to my neighbours with my apartment number to make myself known in the area.” We asked her if she thought her neighbours would be interested in the project. She explained:

“People here don’t like projects. They play dominoes, cards, and that’s it. I invited my neighbours to join the projects, but they said, ’Nah, we don’t want to get our hands dirty!” In fact, the two projects she initially signed up for involved putting her hands into dough (Bakes Bread) and earth (Plants & Pollinates). It was precisely what drew her in. She indicated to us that WhatsApp was among her preferred means of communication, which is what we used to provide her with details about an upcoming project information session. In this way, a relationship of trust was established. L. then attended the Notre voisinage Bakes Bread information session with another participant. The two put forward the idea of project participants sharing their contact information. In this way, the WhatsApp Bakes Bread group was born. In addition, although L. did not initially sign up for Notre voisinage Shelters Birds, we spoke to her about both the Beaks and Feathers workshop and the birdhouse building workshop during one of our discussions. She was excited to take part and signed up for her third project. L. is very active in all three projects. So far, she has participated in six program activities (the bread information session, the bread workshop, the Beaks and Feathers workshop, the birdhouse building workshop, the pollinator workshop, and the gardening workshop).

According to L., sharing is an important component of Colombian culture.

“I found the sharing aspect very interesting because, these days, we have to find ways to connect with our neighbours and little things like sharing a loaf of bread feels good.”

She also shared bread that she baked as part of the project with a neighbour. Last, she often writes to us on WhatsApp to ask us questions, share photos of her achievements or to build on the relationship of trust and open dialogue between us (for example, wishing us a good day or expressing her gratitude for the activities she participates in).

She already shares tomato sauce and other foods with her neighbours.

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

27 PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

171

PARTICIPANT M.’S EXPERIENCE

The Plants & Pollinates project also greatly appealed to her.

Although M. is not often on Facebook, she learned about the Notre

“There’s a community garden where I grow vegetables. I’m interested in attracting bees to help the pollination process.”

voisinage program through a post announcing the sewing class on the Fleury Ouest – Vie de quartier group. She speaks French, but her mother tongue is Spanish. She is originally from Peru. She was glad to be able to fill out the application form in Spanish. She decided to sign up for six projects: Cares, Shares Stuff, Bakes Bread, Mends,

And the projects provide an opportunity for her to develop social

Plants & Pollinates and Shelters Birds.

connections.

The program appealed to her, as several of the projects reflected

“[...] and because I’d like to make friends!!”

her interests.

“I used to make birthday and wedding cakes. I bake bread. I took a fashion design class several years ago.”

The sewing workshop took place the day after she signed up. She

She also had sewing knowledge she could share.

“I enjoyed breaking my routine, seeing new girls who are willing to learn and the very calm teacher eager to share her knowledge.”

“I like to sew, embroider and knit, but I lack practice in sewing. I took a fashion design class many years ago. I’m able to take measurements and develop a pattern based on them. In embroidery, I enjoy many techniques. In knitting, I don’t have much experience, but I’m able to make winter hats and scarves, baby booties, etc. I also like to crochet.” She is also an experienced baker.

“My specialty is wedding cakes and decorating. I’m not currently doing this is a job, but I hope to do so again soon.”

really enjoyed the workshop.

She told us that she would be interested in sharing her expertise with others in the group.

“I’d definitely be happy to teach participants how to sew shopping bags using recycled fabrics or fabric remnants. They’re very cheap. Also, I could share how to decorate kitchen dish towels with crochet appliqué embroideries. I can also teach you to embroider in cross stitch.” Workshops facilitated by M. will be offered to the Mends group in the near future. M. is very active in three projects. So far, she’s participated in seven program activities (the sewing workshop, the bread workshop, the discussion about bread between neighbours, the Beaks and Feathers workshop, the birdhouse building workshop, the pollinator workshop and the gardening workshop). She also helped spread the word about the program to her network. She invited a (neighbour) friend to partake in the projects with her, which led the friend to sign up for Mends, Makes Bread and Plants & Pollinates.

172

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

Value creation WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THIS PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT APPROACH CAN CREATE VALUE FOR RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBOURHOODS? I. IN WHAT WAYS DOES THIS PROGRAM ADDRESS RESIDENTS’ NEEDS? In the targeted area, there is a lack of civic projects that help strengthen solidarity and mutual aid while facilitating connections and promoting a friendly atmosphere.

“Observations: There are few gathering places such as gyms to practice sports or a youth centre.’’ “There is nothing going on in this neighbourhood, especially in winter.” Residents confirmed to us the need for a project like Notre voisinage. Due to the pandemic and the sanitary measures in place, the team had neither the time nor opportunity to more closely interact with area residents to get a fuller understanding of the challenges they faced. However, we found that the program’s goals and values were consistent with the majority of participants’ needs and issues.

Solidarity and item-sharing: Several participants expressed a desire to help each other among neighbours. “Interested in sharing with my neighbours and help each other out” “We have three young kids, so our free time is in short supply (it’ll come I guess!). But we have lots of things we could share (sewing machine, ladders, etc.). We also have a garden.” “Sharing interests me.” “I’m very interested in sharing items! It can help us move towards a zero-waste world!” OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

29 PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

173

“I’m interested in sharing items.” “Interesting, focused on mutual aid”

Creating moments of joy and pleasure “Truly excellent. I didn’t know it existed. I’m glad to know it does. Well done.” “Seeing children interact and engage with stories” “Tremendously. The kids really enjoyed it.” The table on page 9 shows the extent to which the projects answered these residents’ needs (solidarity, sharing and fun). To that effect, the number of sign-ups for three projects, Plays, Cares and Shares Stuff, were among the highest. This is attributable to residents’ desire to help each other in difficult times, share items with people in need and together benefit from joyful moments.

Developing and strengthening a sense of community belonging The area is viewed by many as a transitory one, especially for newcomers. Many participants did not know their neighbours (in the Terrasse Fleury–Place Meilleur–Saint-Benoît Park triangle).

“Creating a sense of belonging to my neighbourhood and getting more involved” “I enjoy involving myself in community action.” “Social involvement, love of nature” “To the best of my ability, I’d like to help develop neighbourhood life and mutual aid.” “To foster community spirit in the neighbourhood and make it a pleasant place to live” “To get to know people in my area” “My daughters and I want to get involved with our neighbourhood!” “Having lived in the neighbourhood for 28 years, I’m eager to help improve my neighbours’ and the neighbourhood’s quality of life through sharing and support.”

Creating connections and making them stronger, meeting people and making new friends “New acquaintances, new friends” “I’m new to the neighbourhood. I need to have fun and meet new people!” “For us and our children to build relationships with people in my neighbourhood” “For my kids and I to meet our neighbours, help each other, and share tools and knowledge” “I enjoy taking part in community projects, and since my children attend Saint-Benoît school, I’d like to meet other parents from the neighbourhood.” “It’s a pleasure to share and build connections.” “I just moved to the neighbourhood, and I’d like to get to know it better. Also, I would like for my daughter and I to develop a circle of acquaintances and friends.”

174

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

“It’s good to know people in your area and help each other out.” “I really like taking part in activities. I live alone and enjoy these kinds of projects.” “I feel the program is a very good way to get to know your neighbours.” “Me gusta la iniciativa, es un buen momento a la integración. (I like the initiative. It’s a good way to integrate)” [Indirect translation]

Learning and knowledge sharing “I’m curious to learn and would like to offer my help. As for the other projects, I don’t need the knowledge or simply lack interest.” “To learn and socialize” “This sharing of knowledge is very interesting. We already do it with those in our immediate vicinity, and we also help newcomers.” “I have items to fix and little knowledge of how to repair clothes. I also don’t own a sewing machine.” “I’m a cyclist, and I’d like to have a better knowledge base for maintaining and repairing my bicycle.” “I think sharing is interesting, whether it’s knowledge, items, etc.” “It promotes independence and know-how.” ’’In this pandemic setting, the projects you offer are welcome. I look forward to sowing seeds for flowers that will bloom and be attractive to pollinators.”

Piquing interest and curiosity: The project addresses the need for individual creativity while also stimulating collective creativity. ’’I’m curious to know how it’ll go.’’ “Your initiative is very inspiring to me.” “Because they’re creative and interesting!” “Exploring :)”

Developing residents’ confidence in their abilities: “To stop being afraid of bike maintenance!”

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

31 PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

175

II. HOW AND TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE PROGRAM CREATE NEW RELATIONSHIPS AND CONNECTIONS? On numerous occasions, participants mentioned that they were able to make new connections through the project.

“We chose this neighbourhood for its family-friendly nature and so we could build relationships with our neighbours. We’ve already been able to make friends with some of our closest neighbours. Taking part in more community activities while meeting new neighbours is great!”

“I’m touched by it, it’s helpful when someone lends me something.” “In my culture, we greet everyone and offer them food.” “I really enjoyed connecting and interacting, getting to know each other and spending time together. It’s really positive!” “When I saw the project’s name—”Shares Stuff”—I liked it right away!” In addition, creating WhatsApp groups to support certain projects helped develop these connections. For example, in the Notre

“I participate in several Notre voisinage projects to meet new neighbours. I recently filled out my contact information in the Item Sharing Directory, telling others that I was looking for a metal shovel to break the ice in my yard. My neighbour stopped by my house the next day to lend me her shovel, and we chatted for 45 minutes while our kids ran around and played together.”

voisinage Mends WhatsApp group, a participant who had not yet attended the workshops offered used patterns to the rest of the group. Two group members expressed interest and will go pick them up. Although this project does not specifically include sharing, the idea of sharing patterns came spontaneously from the participant and was well received. This unprompted gesture generated a greater sense of belonging to the project. Participants realized that it is not just a series of scheduled workshops about sewing, rather, it is a community of neighbours who share an interest in sewing, helping each other, sharing knowledge and creating connections. Another example concerns the Bakes Bread project. Their WhatsApp group is very active, even if not all project participants

“I’ve lived in the neighbourhood for 10 years and, thanks to the Notre voisinage program, I’ve finally met a whole bunch of neighbours! We recognize each other during online activities and then say a big ‘hello’ when we run into each other on the street. It’s magical!”

are part of it. Messages, videos and photos are frequently sent to share new bread-related recipes, tips and tricks. Members also use it to wish each other a nice day or to celebrate special days. In addition, as sharing bread with neighbours is an important part of the project, the participants encourage this by sending photos of bread they bake while offering it to their neighbours. Friendships are blossoming and, in this time where face-to-face interaction is discouraged, this virtual sharing between neighbours is more than

The following discussion between two participants illustrates how

welcome!

the program helped create new connections.

Discussion between two participants “I like to share. I share tomato sauce with my neighbours.” “This is the first time I’ve come across such a fun program!” “We can be multipliers!” “We can’t go out, but we can share!”

176

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

III. TO WHAT EXTENT AND IN WHAT WAY DOES THEIR PARTICIPATION DIFFER FROM OTHER PROGRAMS IN WHICH THEY PARTICIPATE? Based on our observations, other programs in the area address complex issues such as immigrant reception, education, employment, etc. Few programs offer easily implemented turnkey projects with a support platform and tools that are open to everyone, inclusive, flexible and low-commitment, and that aim to help strengthen solidarity, create joyful moments and stimulate collective creativity. Among residents, our projects met with a resounding success. Several people found the concept behind the projects, including the kits and the accompanying support, to be innovative.

’’Brilliant! I don’t understand how there aren’t more people participating!” “Interesting, focused on mutual aid” “It’s an interesting concept.’’

“A nice variety of activities” “A very well-organized and friendly program with a nice variety of activities.” “It gives me the opportunity to share ideas and knowledge and meet other people.”

’’I love the idea, its form and what’s being offered.’’ “Truly excellent. I didn’t know it existed. I’m glad to know it does. Well done.” The 62% participation rate is a good indication that residents appreciate this approach. It should also be noted that certain participants chose to sign up for additional activities (see the Participant Experience section). We see this as a sign of success for the Notre voisinage program’s content and format.

Certain citizens also view the projects as being complementary to services offered by the City of Montreal.

“Especially during lockdown, interacting with neighbours has been harder. To some degree, Solon’s offering strikes me as being quite complementary to the recreation department’s. It’s like a way to reach people at home for workshops that aren’t available in person.”

The learning and acquisition of new skills and expertise among participants is an important aspect of participation, as is participant feedback for the various workshops.

“How to sew with a sewing machine and how to use bar tacks” “I enjoyed learning how to sew bar tacks by hand and hem using cross-stitches.” “Utilización de agujas, ensanche de costuras’’ (Needle use, seam allowances) [Indirect Translation] “Choosing the right stitch depending on the type of fabric. Repairing a small snag or transforming a piece of clothing” “A better technique for hems/the bottoms of pants to prevent them from breaking off” “Letting out and taking in clothes” –The Mends project–

The variety of content and themes offered, along with the included learning and solidarity components, proved very popular among participants. This leads us to believe that there was an unmet desire for this type of program that Notre voisinage helps address.

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

33 PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

177

IV. WHAT DOES THIS TELL YOU ABOUT THIS PLATFORM’S POTENTIAL FOR SUCCESS IN YOUR AREA OR CITY? The program allowed us to achieve an important objective: building friendly, solidarity-based relationships in an Ahuntsic community. This first step was essential for establishing initial contact with local residents. Going forward, Solon aims to participate in a concerted effort to transform the neighbourhood in its entirety, both socially and environmentally. This effort will take many forms, including opening Solon’s third place and developing an engaged, inclusive community that brings together citizens, organizations, businesses and institutions. Planning a phase 2 that builds on our initial momentum and allows us to sketch out our program with both the medium and long term in mind is an essential next step. This second phase would centre on: The continuation of certain of the kit-based projects. An appetite and desire to continue participating in the Plays, Bikes, and other

projects exists among residents.

Residents’ proposals for new initiatives in line with the issues and circumstances they deal with.

The presence of a third place, to be set up by Solon in Ahuntsic near Tolhurst/Saint-Benoît.

The launch of a citizen project this summer to develop a vacant lot (Espace Meilleur) in the Saint-Benoît area in collaboration with the

borough, Ville en Vert, Habitations Nicolas-Viel and Solidarité Ahuntsic. For more details regarding the platform’s potential for success, we invite you to read section VI in part Feasibility: What does this tell you about the potential success of this program (platform) in this or other areas of Montreal?

178

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

Viability and demand (systemic integration)

HOW VIABLE IS THIS PROGRAM LIKELY TO BE WITHIN THE CURRENT CONTEXT (ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, SOCIAL, ETC.)? I. WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE OF A DEMAND FOR THIS PLATFORM TO EXIST AND/OR BE DEVELOPED (ON THE PART OF RESIDENTS, LOCAL PARTNERS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS)?

to improve neighbourhood and community life. Over the course of

(see also section IV. in part Feasibility)

project.

the next few months, Solidarité Ahuntsic is hoping to co-facilitate workshops with Solon as part of the Notre voisinage program. Specifically, workshops regarding the Espace Meilleur site, with the goal of both helping build connections between neighbours and beginning the participatory process for the site development

Demand from local partners The local partner network is motivated and willing to continue developing the program within the area. Their interest in the project continues to grow. We see potential in continuing our discussions with them to establish an action plan for the next three years. A more concrete partnership is taking form with the borough’s community council, Solidarité Ahuntsic. They are interested in working with Solon to invigorate the Saint-Benoît area, starting this summer. Through its Learning Citizenship, Solidarité Ahuntsic seeks to encourage residents to engage in participatory projects

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

35 PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

179

“There’s a place where people toss garbage that could be cleaned up and beautified by turning it into a vegetable garden, once the rototiller is fixed.” R. offered to lend his neighbours a compost bin and help with the landscaping to make the place more child friendly. In addition, some individuals from outside our target area have shown interest in expanding the project.

“I LOVE the idea! I hope to see a similar project in my area soon.” The Carrefour d’aide aux nouveaux arrivants is another local

We have also noticed, for example, that participants from outside

organization we have tried to collaborate with to co-facilitate

Tolhurst/Saint-Benoît are interested in signing up for Notre

activities and increase awareness of the program. This organization

voisinage. On several occasions, several such people signed up for

accompanies newly arrived immigrants to the neighbourhood but

activities that we had purposefully left open.

doesn’t necessarily stay in touch once integration occurs. At the time of our program’s launch, the Carrefour was actively recruiting to address its shortage of in-house staff and was therefore unable

Demand from the borough

to partner with us. They however remain interested in the possibility

The Ahuntsic-Cartierville borough provides part of Notre voisinage’s

of collaborating on specific projects at Saint-Benoît school, where

financing and grants us certain permits to occupy public space.

a Carrefour community, education and cross-culture worker has

In addition, the borough has begun discussing collaboration by

been operating for a few weeks. Solon is currently working with

allowing the project to be linked with certain other related activities.

parents at the school to develop a project aimed at greening the

After seeing our objectives and our work’s positive effects, the

schoolyard in the coming weeks.

borough has expressed hope that our program continues.

Habitations Nicolas-Viel is another partner in the area that we

In accordance with the objectives of the Ahuntsic-Cartierville

had the chance to meet. This is a non-profit organization that

borough’s strategic plan for sustainable development, the borough

owns two affordable housing buildings, along with a third building

mayor states:

that will be opening in the Saint-Benoît area at some point in the next few years. Board members have expressed much enthusiasm for Notre voisinage, putting us in touch with tenants interested in participating in the various projects. Habitations Nicolas-Viel remains an important partner for Solon, as the vacant land targeted for the site development project is located behind their building at Place Meilleur. The right of access to the site passes by the front of their building and remains a delicate subject.

Demand from residents This site development project is an example of some residents’

“The borough therefore fully supports the implementation of projects such as this one. By creating and strengthening social connections, they also strengthen the resilience of the area where they are carried out. Over the past few years, Solon has demonstrated its ability to lead such projects. For that reason, our borough has entered into various partnerships with this organization.” - Émilie Thuillier, Ahuntsic-Cartierville borough mayor

desire to keep Notre voisinage going. It relates to a piece of land that resident R., the janitor for several buildings on Terrasse Fleury, showed us. He would like to develop a gardening project:

180

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

II. WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THIS NEW PARTICIPATORY PLATFORM AND ECOSYSTEM CAN FULLY BE INTEGRATED INTO THE LOCAL CONTEXT OF SERVICES, BUSINESSES AND OTHER ACTIVITIES? First, as stated in section Feasibility.VI., there is an ecosystem of complementary partners worth further developing (see the second

a result of these circumstances, the team was unable to properly assess and adjust to certain situations, for example concerning engagement and workload.

The withdrawal of our production partner, La Pépinière: This led to us requiring more time than expected to design, produce, purchase and deliver the kits.

observation) and a real willingness to do so. The borough is also interested in becoming more involved (see the third observation). These various stated intentions for future collaboration are a promising sign for the program’s ability to integrate into the borough’s local context of services, businesses and other activities

A team collaborating at a distance: Not only were we unable to meet with citizens, we also were not able to meet with each other in person.

(see also previous paragraph Viability and demand.I.). In addition, the program has the capacity to respond to residents’ expressed or activities; see section Value creation.I.). As such, we have noted

Adapting to the new virtual turnkey project format:

that our program is truly complementary to other existing projects

It was a rich but challenging learning experience within the

(see section Value creation.III.).

pandemic context.

III. WHAT CHALLENGES HAVE YOU ENCOUNTERED WHEN INTEGRATING THIS MODEL INTO YOUR ORGANIZATION AND LOCAL CONTEXT?

Management and governance:

needs, which are not currently being addressed (in terms of services

Our takeaway from this experience is that there is a need to better define team roles and responsibilities (including decision-making) in advance. It would help us to clarify ambiguities, reduce silo working and integrate additional members into the co-design meetings with Participatory Canada.

We encountered several challenges while attempting to integrate this program model into our organization.

A team focused on the project only part of the time:

Having the assessment tools in hand at the start of the design process: We only received the assessment tools a few months into the design phase. We found that an adjustment period is required before

All the coordination and engagement team members worked an

you can get used to and understand these tools. Being trained in

average of one to two days a week on program development. This

the use of the assessment tools at the start of the project would

placed a significant amount of stress and pressure on the team,

have allowed the team to better integrate them into the project’s

given the pandemic and the compressed timeframe. Having at least

management and development.

one full-time coordinator and possibly another full-time employee focused on engagement is highly recommended.

A compressed timeframe combined with team members’ very busy schedule: COVID-19 required a redoubling of efforts to make the program work. Given the various commitments to other projects within the organization, the team found itself facing a compressed timeframe to complete work on all its projects, including Notre voisinage. As

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

37 PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

181

IV. WHAT DOES THIS TELL YOU ABOUT THE POTENTIAL VIABILITY OF A LARGER-SCALE VERSION OF THIS MODEL IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD OR CITY? A portion of the sign-ups and participants in the various projects came from outside the selected area. We agreed to include this group of participants for the sake of inclusion and to broaden our area of operation. Our objective is also to create connections between the main area (the Terrasse Fleury–Place Meilleur–Saint-Benoît Park triangle) and the surrounding ones. Some participants themselves mentioned the importance of expanding access to the project to other areas.

“I don’t have any additional ideas to add at this point, except opening up additional “Neighbourhoods” to other areas as well so a greater number of people can benefit.” For other opportunities related to scaling, see this section I. as well as section VI. in part Feasibility.

182

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

ADAPTING AND LEARNING The resources (people, tools, workshops) provided by Participatory Canada and the McConnell Foundation were critical to the project’s success. During our development phase, the working sessions with Aggie, Rahela and Keren were extremely important to setting up the project and moving it forward. In addition, the City Team community meetings allowed us to share insights and challenges and learn from our experiences in other areas. Lastly, the assessment and monitoring tools as well as the centralized data collection system helped us to better gather information and record our interactions, challenges and acquired insights.

These are the Notre voisinage team’s acquired insights:

CREATE | INITIATE

STOP | ELIMINATE

Promote reuse (project)

Kit delivery

Further focus involvement on the ecological transition in

The purchase of new and polluting equipment

addition to the social element

Being too scattered among various individuals with

Consolidate the project calendar

insufficiently clear roles

Give a voice to the residents

Using small projects rather than large ones as a gateway

Learn from other projects (in other cities)

Implementing the project under a compressed timeframe

Clarify roles, responsibilities and how we work together

Staff working on the project on a part-time basis

Clarify the project’s intentions from the start Plan to assess concurrently with design and development

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

39 PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

183

MAINTAIN | PROTECT

AMPLIFY | MAGNIFY

The variety of proposals (team/citizens)

Scale up

Concrete action/implementation (team)

Solidify relationships with local partners to more firmly root

Tolerance/capacity for discussion (team/citizens) The ability to deliver (team)

ourselves in the milieu and better allocate activities and efforts Strengthen participation through new citizen proposals in

The ability to adjust (team)

conjunction with the core of the project

Strong capacity for engagement (team)

Motivate and push involvement to the next level

Knowledge transfer (team/citizens)

Strengthen our understanding of the local space

The good neighbourliness theme: facilitating encounters and

Amplify and improve the projects’ inclusion and diversity

strengthening connections (team/citizens) Incentive to participate (team)

Involve citizens in kit/project designs and develop a more substantial design process Longer schedule/timeframe: better anticipate engagement, allow four months for preparation

REDUCE | DECREASE Decrease the time devoted to partners to every two weeks (instead of weekly) Information sessions (parcel out the project) Avoid having everyone handling the same decisions, clarify ambiguities, reduce silos and consultations

184

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

Project SWOT analysis: STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

Exceptional ability to engage citizens

Rigid decision-making process

Establishment of relationships of trust with participants

Unsynchronized team member schedules

Highly adaptable and open

Insufficient knowledge of the area due to the pandemic

Creativity and innovation

Lack of time and human resources: a team that is already

Resilience and flexibility Solidarity and mutual aid within the team Ability to bring partners together Numerous insights relating to project/kit design Skilful facilitation among the community of participants Insights regarding assessments and implementation of

committed full-time to other projects Stressful and exhausting process Lack of a third place/gathering space Unclear and overloaded timeframe Low engagement rate among Terrasse Fleury residents: We expanded the territory, resulting in fewer people being targeted

monitoring tools

OPPORTUNITIES Potential to develop partnerships with organizations and the borough: to be clarified and strengthened Momentum to continue developing the project and consider its medium- and long- term impacts A pool of motivated citizens not to be squandered: develop

THREATS A vulnerable area with a weak sense of belonging Solon’s lack of a physical presence COVID reduces interaction among neighbours Exhausted community organizations (HLM, CANA)

proposals likely to inspire enduring commitment

Several people skeptical of our timing

Synergies with other Solon projects: connect them to Our

Loss of momentum (i.e. the need to envision long-term

Neighbourhood

projects)

Potential to connect Our Neighbourhood to Solon’s flagship

Lack of a strategy for empowering participants and making

project, Mobilité de Quartier

projects sustainable

Option to expand the Transition lab into Ahuntsic via selected medium- and long-term projects Funding opportunities in 2021 Potential to set up an governance system, e.g. a committee, in the area Establishment of a third place

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

41 PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

185

186

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD - ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

187

Every One Every Day: Our neighbourhood project pilot phase report

188

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

EVERY ONE EVERY DAY: TORONTO

Our Neighbourhood Project

Pilot Phase Report

March 2020-March 2021 1 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

189

Table of Contents

Our Introduction

Our Neighbourhood…

Our Neighbourhood Project

Our Neighbourhood By the Numbers

Our Theory of Change

10 Our Program Participation 11

Our Participants

12 Our Neighbourhood says... 13 Our Successes 15 Our Challenges 16 Our Learnings 17

Our Future: Case for Feasibility

18 Our Next Steps

2 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project

190

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Our Introduction

In January 2020, the Centre for Social Innovation Institute (CSII) began its journey with Participatory Canada, a new initiative created to adapt and prototype the Participatory City approach in Canada. Toronto, selected along with Montreal and Halifax, was one of three cities to explore new ways of building community infrastructure and strengthening neighbourhood ecosystems. Calling our undertaking, “Every One Every Day: Toronto (EOED:TO)”, this project falls within CSII’s Community Wealth building work. It is part of a larger City of Torontoled strategy CSI is participating in, designed to identify opportunities for building and strengthening community infrastructure in Regent Park, and ultimately in communities across Toronto. The purpose of the EOED:TO pilot project was to: »

test the feasibility and appetite for a larger-scale participatory project design - such as a storefront and maker space, in the Regent Park community;

learn how to adapt the Participatory City, UK, model to the local Regent Park community context; and

share insights about adapting the UK model to the Canadian context, by taking part in a community of practice between the Canadian Participatory City pilot project hosts from Toronto, Montreal and Halifax.

This report describes the EOED:TO Our Neighbourhood Project - the wins, the challenges, the learnings, and next steps.

3 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

191

Our Neighbourhood… Our Timeline Toronto’s increasing income inequality is being exacerbated by the financialization of housing, precarious work, a shifting economy and underfunded social programs and services. These socio-economic inequalities are starkly evident in the social housing neighbourhood of Regent Park. Regent Park (RP) is approximately halfway through a 20 year revitalization project, initiated by Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC), the largest social housing provider in Canada. The redevelopment has transitioned the neighbourhood from low income into mixed-income strata, shifting the social and economic fabric of the community and surfacing challenges around the integration of residents who live in subsidized versus market value housing. Despite some economic advances for low and middle income earners in the RP, there are increasing social tensions, and continued barriers to economic mobility. These challenges have been exacerbated by the changing reality brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Jan 16 2020

CSI accepted as one of the Canadian Participatory Cities Pilot Cities

March 1 2020

Study trip to London cancelled due to Covid

May 6

Commence Co-design Process

May 20

Confirmed Every One Every Day: Toronto as the local brand identity

Aug 10

Begin Every One Every Day Kit design

Aug 24

Our Neighbourhood Project created

Sept 15

Program Newspaper developed

Oct 5

Every One Every Day: TO Our Neighbourhood Project Phase 1 Launch First 5 registrations

Oct 6

18 registrants

Oct 20

Booklet Distribution

Oct 20 - 31

20 new registrations

Nov 3

First Workshops launched

Nov 9

8 workshops hosted in ONE WEEK!

Dec 10

Final Phase 1 workshop

Feb 1

Launch of Our Neighbourhood Project Phase 2: Starter kits

4 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project

192

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Photo Credit: Murwan Khogali

Located in Toronto’s downtown easterly edge, Regent Park comprises 70 acres of mostly housing - high rise mixed strata in the new development, and low rise social housing in the old areas. There is a large park in the centre of the footprint, a large athletic ground, an ice rink, a swimming pool, and a community centre. There is one junior school in the footprint, multiple service agencies, and a handful of commercial units including a grocery store. CSI has had a “home” in Regent Park for the last 8 year, operating a launch pad, community hub and coworking space for social mission driven businesses. More recently, we have partnered with the community to build social capital and community wealth infrastructure as an active contributor to the City of Toronto’s Social Development Plan. CSI is centrally located in the community, in an accessible shared community space called the Daniels Spectrum Building. The opportunity to pilot Every One Every Day: Toronto in Regent Park was a natural fit given our history, relationships, and understanding of the community.

I didn’t know when I moved to Regent Park that I would FALL IN LOVE with this community. It’s diverse, sometimes disparate, it’s broad in its socioeconomic and cultural representation - AND it is a vital and INTENTIONAL community. Working, living and volunteering in RP has allowed me to meet some of the most amazing human beings - I would LOVE to be a part of a broader initiative which would support, scaffold and immerse me further into a place I already have so much heart investment in.” - EOED Participant

5 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

193

Our Neighbourhood Project The Our Neighbourhood Project was the Covid pivot-iteration of the Every One Every Day: Toronto Participatory Cities model. The intention was to introduce and build inclusive participation by providing many different entry points for residents to participate, and opportunities to build the social ecosystem. In order to facilitate this, we designed a series of kits, to be introduced in 2 phases, to help people take action on projects at home and in their community. Here’s how the project workshops and kits were described to the community in the Project booklet:

Phase 1

Phase 2

Our Neighbourhood Workshops - perfect for individuals or single households, for folks who want to start small and still contribute to their neighbourhood. These workshops will give you everything you need to complete a fun project at home with workshops held online or in-person in the neighbourhood.

Our Neighbourhood Project Starter Kits - there are 12 starter kits to choose from, so you can start working on projects with your neighbours for your community! Or if you want to team up with your colleagues, neighbours or classmates...

In Phase 1 (October - December 2020), we ran project workshops based on 6 themes over the span of 6 weeks. The workshops were titled as neighbourhood actions: Our Neighbourhood plus a verb to help the residents of Regent Park see themselves in the participatory process of these workshops and kits.

1. Our Neighbourhood Paints: 3 weeks of art workshops online. Each participant produced a hexagonal tile that can be added to a community mural. Partnership with Art Heart, a local art agency.

4. Our Neighbourhood Cooks: Neighbours participated in 4 separate batch cooking sessions: Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, and Fun snacks. In Partnership with Paintbox Bistro, a local employment social enterprise

2. Our Neighbourhood Grows: Participants learned the basics of hydroponic food growing right at home. Partnership with Justvertical, local green tech social enterprise.

5. Our Neighbourhood Plants: A community tree planting project, raising indigenous species from seed to tree. With guided local tree walks to identify local species. In partnership with Green Thumbs Growing Kids, a local garden education organization

3. Our Neighbourhood Explores: A guided deep dive into thoughts feeling and values around community, social enterprise and participatory action. In partnership with WOSEN - the Women of Ontario Social Entrepreneurship Network.

6. Our Neighbourhood Learns: Peer to peer skills and hobbies sessions, taught by local residents.

The workshops were well received by the community, with over 100 participants taking part in 30 workshop sessions in 6 weeks.

6 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project

194

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Our Neighbourhood Grows and Our Neighbourhood Paints had the highest number of participants. Our Neighbourhood Explores fostered some deep rich connection between participants. Our Neighbourhood Plants really helped people to feel connected to their community - and was the only workshop we were able to do live, given the pandemic.

This is the first thing I have ever planted! I’m so excited to nurture it, and watch it grow, so I can give it back to the community. I learned so much walking around the park and getting to know the species and history of the trees. I want to be part of that. Like a legacy. It feels good to know I am contributing” - Our Neighbourhood Plants participant We were surprised by the low turnout for Our Neighbourhood Cooks, and Our Neighbourhood Learns, as we thought that these subject areas would be of interest to the community, and hypothesized that the peer-to-peer nature would draw more people out. Phase two had 12 project starter kits planned:

1. Our Neighbourhood Celebrates a winter lobby party

2. Our Neighbourhood Feasts a community potluck

3. Our Neighbourhood Pollinates build beehives and plant pollinator gardens

7. Our Neighbourhood Composts reducing waste, and keeping our soil healthy

8. Our Neighbourhood Recycles find ways to reuse our community plastic waste

9. Our Neighbourhood Shares

4. Our Neighbourhood Plays

open access community activity boxes

swap things with your neighbours, to reduce waste, and get the things you need

5. Our Neighbourhood Reads

10. Our Neighbourhood Swaps

children’s stories and activity programming

6. Our Neighbourhood Blooms

beautifying our community with bulbs and blooms

organize a cloth swap. It’s fun, creative and money saving

11. Our Neighbourhood Stories

collect and share stories of our vibrant neighbourhood

12. Our Neighbourhood Farms

chickens! Right here in Regent Park

7 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

195

Given that the planning process happened in August 2020, we had optimistically predicted that we would be in a position to welcome the community back into spaces by winter 2021, but by January, we had to once again adapt the program. The team went through a process of adaptation and redesign of the project starter kits. A decision was made to postpone a number of the project starter kits in the interest of preserving the magic and excitement of roll out until a time that it was safe to gather, and carry out the kits as intended. Wanting to ensure that there were still options for residents to continue to engage in the EOED:TO pilot, we adapted 4 project starter kits to be run safely with persistent Covid protocols. In February 2021 we launched 4 project starter kits that we were comfortable adapting with proper safety precautions: Our Neighbourhood Pollinates, Our Neighbourhood Blooms, Our Neighbourhood Stories, and our Neighbourhood Reads. We have more than 30 residents engaged in these project starter kits, and the groups have decided to amalgamate to create more comprehensive projects: Our Neighbourhood Blooms and Butterflies including both blooming and pollinator gardens, and Our Neighbourhood Stories will both gather the stories of local residents, and histories of Regent Park, and showcase Canadian authors in the neighbourhood.

By the numbers

1000+

104

130

booklets distributed

total Kit offerings

workshop participants

8 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project

196

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

total registrants Phase 1

workshop offerings

Project Starter Kits (planned)

total registrants Phase 2

workshop sessions

Project Starter Kits (offered)

Our Theory of Change A joyful, connected community whose members are thriving as a result of benefiting from the social, political and economic aspects of the community. The creation of a participatory ecosystem supports this goal by enhancing RP residents’ autonomy, agency and social capital.

Ultimate Goal

Desired Outcomes

Assumptions

Activities

Deliverables

To get a baseline understanding of the Regent Park community

To test the efficacy and effect of participatory principals in the neighbourhood using the PC model

Residents support this goal and outcomes

The grassroots social bonds we’re cultivating / enhancing will be long lasting and adapt to various other kinds of challenges

We are allowing the “community” to choose what they want to change.

Our Neighbourhood kits and workshops that foster social capital

Develop and implement developmental evaluation to prompt continual dialogue, reflexivity, learning and responsiveness to community needs

Asset mapping and story mapping on Esri to present rich data in a visually compelling way that becomes a living community owned asset and project legacy

PAR with residents to survey broader community that builds research capacity and grounds research in community wisdom

Our Neighbourhood kits and work shops. Marketing materials, website, and evaluative tools for capturing narratives, feedback and participatory data.

DE Framework and guidebook containing instruments. Information resources. Data feeds into strategy for moving beyond prototype.

Asset and story map on Esri. Community license. Training for community practitioner

Survey and analysis. Data feeds into map.

9 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

197

Our Program Participation How Many sessions offered

How Many cohorts

Our Neighbourhood Plants

Our neighbourhood Paints

Our Neighbourhood Explores

Our Neighbourhood Learns

n/a

Our Neighbourhood grows

Our Neighbourhood Cooks

n/a

Our Neighbourhood Blooms & Butterflies

n/a

Our Neighbourhood Stories

n/a

Our Neighbourhood Reads

n/a

108

82%

18%

73%

24%

70%

30%

Totals Percentages

198

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

How Many How Many participants Females (total)

How Many Males

#of Adults

# of children

# of seniors # of Market #of TCHC Value residents residents

Our Participants With 142 residents signing up for the project, and over 100 people engaging in workshops and projects, we believe this was a successful piloting of the Every One Every Day: Toronto Our Neighbourhood project. The general age of participants was 25-45 - especially young professionals, with a small group of 60+ from one of the retirement residents in the community. There were only 3 children, from one family, that all signed up to do Our Neighbourhood Paints together. There were more “Market” residents (70%) enrolled in the program, than TCHC residents (30%), which was surprising, as generally for neighbourhood initiatives there is a higher percentage of TCHC residents. Through the registration process, many of the market value residents confessed to feeling cut off from their neighbourhood, and a desire to be more engaged and connected. Many pointed to Covid as a reason for wanting to invest the time in building neighbourhood relationships.

11 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

199

Our Neighbourhood says... Why I signed up… I was feeling blue and thought it would help me mentally to get involved in something.” I think this is a great way to meet with neighbours in a safe setting. I don’t have to feel pressured because of finances to register in my own community (yay for free programs) and I feel having a variety of interesting topics helps me find forms of connecting with individuals through those similar topics. It’s also super relevant to exploring my interests and hobbies at my own leisurely pace. I can balance my busy schedule to still get involved with topics I enjoy learning more about.”

I’d like to get to know folks in the neighbourhood and contribute to a community feeling here! I’ve just moved into the neighborhood myself.”

As a youth who has grown up in the Regent Park community, seeing this opportunity to make positive changes to the community is something I would really like to do.”

I am very keen to be active in Regent Park and to meet my neighbours. I love the idea of these projects.”

Why is this important to me...

I’m new to the city, but the pandemic has made me realise how important local communities are - and how their importance will only continue to grow. Strengthening those bonds, especially in Regent Park where there is a mix of community housing and new build condos feels important to continue to bring people together and erase any divisions.”

12 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project

200

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Our Successes Over the pilot phase year, the EOED: TO team focused on building the success of the Our Neighbourhood project, and embedding participatory practice and principles into the project design for the Regent Park Community. The team has actively: »

developed and delivered activity kits and workshops;

completed community-based research with Regent Park community members to better understand how these activities might respond to and leverage their specific needs and strengths;

evaluated project processes; and

begun the process of mapping community assets and developing a neighbourhood tool to help the community organize their data (land use, services offered, recreational activities, local points of interest, sites of EOED:TO projects like pollinator gardens).

Regent Park is a rich community with multiple service agencies, and a strong network of community serving grassroots groups. Integrating the current local ecosystem into the pilot was an important part of the local adaptation process. We developed partnerships with Green Thumbs Growing Kids, Art Heart, the Women of Ontario Social Entrepreneurship Network (WOSEN), the Regent Park Catering Collective, and Paintbox Bistro. There was a lot of energy behind doing something different, coordinated and collaborative, at a neighbourhood level. The support and engagement from local partners points to evidence that this kind of platform and programming is a welcome shift to a new way of doing things, and that it can be integrated in the local context.

13 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

201

Feedback from participants I really had a wonderful time through the course of the project and am looking forward to continuing this journey with the bigger workshops we have starting in 2021. This was a difficult year for a lot of us, and this project really helped us connect and safely interact with each other in-person whenever possible.”

As someone who doesn’t paint, I was a little nervous joining the first [our neighbourhood paints] session but they made me feel so welcome. In the subsequent weeks, I always looked forward to the session and the 3 weeks flew by way too fast. I’m definitely excited to see what other community projects will be organized!”

I’d like to get to know folks in the neighbourhood and contribute to a community feeling here! I’ve just moved into the neighborhood myself.”

14 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project

202

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

I truly enjoyed these workshops! The instructor was knowledgeable and talented and took the time to explain, encouraging each of us and helping when we asked. It was a nice break from feeling alone and isolated and gave me inspiration to create something I have not felt for a long while!”

I really love the unique and fun projects, with an environmental focus, building a space to meet and collaborate with community members who are like minded while making our neighbourhood better for all.”

It was fun to join an activity that wasn’t work related.”

Our Challenges Without a doubt, Covid-19 proved to be our single greatest challenge. So many of these programs and the very design of this platform required that folks be able to share space. The global context informed by the pandemic was our single greatest challenge and it really can not be overstated how much the global pandemic affected the roll out of this project, from planning, marketing to delivery. At the time of project launch, community members were still figuring out their relationship to the new digital world and how to navigate it. By the end of the project, nearly a year into the pandemic, there was very distinct Zoom fatigue. The Participatory Cities model encourages the creation of a platform - the blocks and tools for residents to build and shape their community using their own ideas, skills and social ecosystem. Given the realities of Covid and needing to pivot online with limited opportunities for more direct engagement, The Every One Every Day: Toronto Our Neighbourhood project, though still highly participatory, pivoted to more of a ‘traditional’ program, where the parameters were set and participants were guided through. To address this reality, the team sought to create a wide variety of experiences to begin to explore where the energy and interest lay. It’s also fair to say that online participation, even with instructors and kits, tends to encourage passive rather than active engagement, which undermines the participatory guidelines. The UK model encourages deep participatory engagement, and though that was the ideal, given the Covid considerations, it became more important to focus on rolling out activities, testing ideas and building community partnerships, than participatory program design and platform building Moreover, creating such a platform takes time, is relational and highly responsive. Through roll out, we were able to introduce the community to new things (like hydroponics!) and connect neighbours to each other in new ways. This style of programming, with embedded participatory principles and ideas, lays the groundwork for the development of a more comprehensive and ongoing participatory support platform in the Regent Park community.

Some other Covid-specific challenges we noted: »

Access to technology: Not everyone in Regent Park has access to the internet, or access to multiple computers. If a family member was using the family computer for work or school, other members were unable to participate.

Promotion: Due to Covid, we were unable to distribute the booklets doorto-door throughout the neighbourhood. Because many folks were not leaving their houses, it was challenging to promote the program to a wider audience. Much of the promotion was done online, which limited participants to those with internet access. There was also the absence of community events and informal community gatherings that typically offer opportunities for word of mouth spread.

Zoom Fatigue: Many of the workshop offerings were online, some folks in the community reported screen fatigue, and that adding extra screen time at the end of their work day was too much for them.

Health and Safety: For the in-person sessions, there were some folks, like senior residents, that were under strict no contact protocols and were not able to join in. Also, rolling lockdowns and a lack of clarity around health and safety protocols and progressions, made it challenging to concretely plan different stages of roll out.

Staffing: With a limited staff team it was difficult to grow the project and engage more people, particularly when staff resources were often consumed by simply navigating and pivoting our planning in response to the incredible changes and uncertainties brought about by Covid.

Accessibility: Because it was online/limited resources, all workshops and project meetings were conducted in English, and so individuals requiring translation could not participate.

15 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

203

Our Learnings From concept, to design, to launch and implementation, this project required considerable effort, but the level of community engagement and feedback provides a strong case for continuing the work. Based on our experience, EOED:TO would have wide success if we adjusted a few of the levers: wider distribution of project materials, inperson and online offerings, translated sessions, door-to-door engagement in all high-rise buildings, and consistent, and ongoing offerings. Adapting the Participatory City Foundation model to a local context was an area of deep learning for the EOED:TO team, informed by the following insights and observations from our pilot phase: »

The Market Value residents in RP are looking for ways to get involved in the community (which is promising and understandable, given they are relatively new to the neighbourhood)

The TCHC residents have a lack of access to technology and technology skills making it hard for them to participate online

Language barriers are present, and should be factored in to any next project

Local groups and agencies are strong partners, and adds considerably to the value of the experience and strength of the platform

Having a glossy program booklet with materials included showed residents that this was a different way of doing things, which caught people’s attention. Having well designed and executed program collateral is a key to the success of the project.

The City is looking at a larger roll out of community wealth and community infrastructure. Embedding the PC model in that work (as community infrastructure) is strategically advantageous to gaining City support. However, more data around engagement and impact, is required for greater municipal involvement.

Building the right team. Having the right skills among staff who are able to connect with community and have excellent facilitation skills is imperative to the success of the platform.

As noted, the online process does not allow for the full realization of the participatory principals

Engagement between the Participatory Canada pilot cities was incredibly helpful to share thoughts and ideas, and to validate the process of learning and development. Greater cross-location collaboration would provide greater program success

16 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project

204

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Our Future: Case for Feasibility I really had a wonderful time through the course of the project and am looking forward to continuing this journey with the bigger workshops we have starting in 2021. This was a difficult year for a lot of us, and this project really helped us connect and safely interact with each other in-person whenever possible.” - EOED:TO participant Despite the myriad Covid-related challenges affecting the implementation of this pilot project, we see the value of continuing this work throughout and beyond Covid: through, because people need the support and connection; and beyond, because it is time to change the way community programming is done. We’ve only scratched the surface of what’s possible. CSII will continue to embed the participatory program approach through our Community Wealth work, and with the new Community Living Room as the physical home. With over 120 unique participants in this pilot program, there is an appetite for non-traditional engagement. Every One Every Day: Toronto offered a unique and new pathway to community engagement. The Our Neighbourhood project was a great way to introduce the project team, and the Participatory concept, for a more fulsome roll out when “pandemically possible”. Some of the feedback we received is that we should run more programming like this, more frequently and more reliably, so that residents can plan to participate.

Would love to see more of these inperson once Covid’s “over” - I would have really loved to actually meet the other members in the chat, and to have the time to get to know them individually. I also work from 9-5 so would appreciate some offerings in the evenings.”

There is an appetite for low-barriered, fun, communityinvolved offerings. The Our Neighbourhood Project, and Every One Every Day: TO has an identity in the neighbourhood, and the community is eager to see what comes next.

I learned how important it is to converse and connect with people. In a world where we often do our own thing, being able to reach out, start a conversation, compliment, and receive acts of kindness is so crucial. I feel these neighbourhood projects push individuals to collaborate without restricting ourselves.” - EOED:TO participant With solid enrollment, fair participation in workshops, strong partnerships, and strong positive feedback, we are confident that there is a potential for the viability of this model in Regent Park. This roll out need not wait till after Covid-19 has passed. Rather, there is a massive opportunity to have participatory platforms be integrated as part of the pandemic recovery strategy. The Every One Every Day: Toronto participatory platform can offer a way for residents to help “build it back better”.

- EOED:TO participant

17 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

205

Our Next Steps 1.

CSII will continue to support the groups that have formed around the Our Neighbourhood Blooms and Butterflies, and Our Neighbourhood Stories. These are ongoing projects, with dedicated participants, and continue to build the community infrastructure and social ecosystem through the pandemic.

CSII will open the CSI Community Living Room in Regent Park (Covid dependent). This will be a ground floor space that will be dedicated to community wealth building, and a home for future Every One Every Day: Toronto Initiatives. It will be a meeting place for residents and friends to gather in an open access space to connect, dream, and build neighbourhood solutions together. Most importantly, it will provide the opportunity to connect residents, strengthen social capital, and build community infrastructure at the neighbourhood level.

CSII will continue to seek opportunities for partnership and funding to realise the Every One Every Day: Toronto project as an integrated system of community engagement and social ecosystem development as an integral part of our approach to building community wealth.

CSII will continue to participate in a community of practice with the other Participatory Canada city teams to continue to adapt the model to the Canadian context, while elevating the local programming.

Photo Credit: Waleed Khogali

18 | EOED Toronto’s Our Neighbourhood Project

206

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

207

6. PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

208

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

209

Acknowledgements This report is the culmination of the three strategic sessions held during December 2020 and January 2021, combined with additional interviews and discussions with potential partners and interested groups, and secondary research. The work was a collective effort between the following collaborating organizations: MaRS Discovery District, the Maison de l’innovation sociale (MIS), Percolab Coop, and Participatory Canada.

Authors Roadmap Report Team Alex Ryan Chris Makris Mélanie Bisson Patrick Dubé Sasha Sud Sue Talusan

Design by Paul Messer Don McNair With support from:

Participatory Canada McConnell Foundation Jayne Engle Keren Tang

Participatory City Foundation Tessy Britton Nat Defriend This work is shared by Participatory Canada under a Creative Commons Licence, with the exception of the photographs which can only be shared with permissions.

Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International This creative commons licence means: • You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made. • You may not use the material for commercial purposes. • If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same licence.

210

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Executive Summary To culminate a year of experiential learning and research, Participatory Canada wanted to understand demand and conditions for scaling the Participatory City approach in Canada. As part of this exploration, Participatory Canada commissioned a series of three strategy sessions in late 2020 and early 2021, to align around scaling demand and possibilities, learning architecture, and financing for the approach. The 10 year vision for Participatory Canada was developed at Wasan Island in 2019. Participatory City Foundation, working in partnership with the McConnell Foundation, began seeding an intention and creating a plan to develop, learn and explore feasibility of prototypes during a social research & development phase in three Canadian cities, Halifax, Montreal, and Toronto. The live prototypes were designed to maximise learning opportunities

and share knowledge and practices between the three cities. This was completed with an aim to test local responses to participation culture and to assess the emerging opportunities for building participatory social infrastructure in these neighborhoods long term. After one year of research, the vision is still compelling and viable, even with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Information gathered from participants in the strategic sessions, through interviews, and from supporting research was used to develop this Participatory Canada Roadmap, which outlines potential pathways to help grow the vision for a scaled initiative in Canada.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

211

Essential Components for Scale The Roadmap utilizes a systemic and futures based approach to growing and scaling, to manage decision making and balance risks around uncertainties and externalities that might emerge over the next ten years. To ensure success, Participatory Canada should grow within each local community across the six essential components for scaling participatory systems in new places, including vision, context, learning architecture, school, resources and evidence. Three additional factors should also be considered that apply to each component and could amplify the success or failure of the approach in Canada. They include coordination, relationships and partnerships, and communication and storytelling. These factors will contribute to building practical participation ecosystems and also in sharing the learnings across the Participatory Canada network of cities.

Vision Each city has its own vision and ambition manifesting into programs and activities within their communities. The vision for Participatory Canada must be co-developed with the Participatory City Foundation, and the participating Canadian cities to articulate the adapted vision for the Canadian expansion of the Participatory City approach. For example, developing a vision that is flexible and embodies reconciliation and anti-racism approaches will advance local agendas while building on participatory approaches.

Context Local conditions, including political, social and economic factors, can strongly influence the development of practical participation ecosystems. Financial implications take effect on a per city basis in costs for social infrastructure and core assets needed to establish the spaces for Participatory Canada, such as community storefronts, warehouse, and learning campuses. Additionally, social factors can vary across communities which impact the types of programs that should be activated at the forefront to validate the Participatory City approach; teams should aim for high impact and low risk projects.

Learning Architecture Participatory Canada should focus on developing and making available curriculum and learning programs to educate partners and interested groups in the Participatory City approach. In later phases, focus should be on developing expertise and capabilities for individuals to create programs and facilitate systems change. Experiential learning and immersive experiences are preferred and believed to give the greatest impact to develop skills and knowledge of the Participatory City approach. However, with the continuing pandemic and considering geographic scaling across Canada, Participatory Canada should facilitate online and digital learning to support the growth of the program as travel and inperson interactions may be hindered in the short to medium term.

212

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

School The school creates an essential hub for the Participatory City approach. It is a place to connect the growing set of deep learning campuses, share learnings and adaptations of the approach, and create skills for city teams and communities. The initial deep city implementation should act as the main Canadian learning campus of the Here&Now school to be a hub and entry point for other Canadian cities to connect into and explore the Participatory City approach. Additionally, the school should be utilized as a core piece of the measurement functions to support data collection and impact measurement. Creating supporting evidence will be critical to build future financing opportunities for Participatory Canada and its cities.

Resources The first cohort of cities joining Participatory Canada will need a robust team to quickly establish local social infrastructure, programs and learning models. Accompanying the team, financial resources will need to be supported by the national team as well as local governments and organizations. Over time, people and financial resources will need to be coordinated across the scaling phases of Participatory Canada.

Evidence Each city that joins Participatory Canada will contribute evidence and data to collectively better understand the impacts the programs create in each community and in Canada. Measurement and collection of data and stories will be crucial in developing financial sustainability through strong business cases for practical participation ecosystems within cities.

Coordination, Relationships & Communication The three supporting functions of coordination, relationships and communication contribute to the effective development of the six essential components of scaling. Strong organization and coordination of resources and communication across teams, cities, and global programming will support the growth and evolution of the Participatory City approach. Moreover, Participatory Canada and cities will need to develop relationships with community organizations, local governments and funders to build long term sustainability and trust in practical participation ecosystems and social infrastructures. Evidence, shared experiences and learning curriculum will formulate the basis of communication assets to support the case for the Participatory City approach. Effective development of relationships, communication assets, and coordination across the six essential components for scaling will create efficiencies in knowledge sharing, utilization of resources, and deeper relationships with advocates, funders and communities.

Figure - Ten year roadmap for Participatory Canada

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

213

Scaling over Time As Participatory Canada builds its foundation of the essential components for growing and scaling, a phased approach is recommended to develop additional elements around growing people capabilities, identifying and mobilizing sustainable financing sources, and strategically scaling across geographies using a strong network and relationship approach. Although each time period showcases a particular area of focus, each element should be continually developed over the next ten years to successfully scale practical participation ecosystems in Canada.

Near Term (0-3 years): People Within the short term, a focus on building the necessary teams to effectively establish the social infrastructure, learning architecture, and impact measurement approaches in the first cohort of cities. Engaging the community and key stakeholders (city and funders) to build momentum around the program and its ambitions will be crucial in priming Participatory Canada for success. The focus on people was viewed as critical to build the capacity and expertise necessary to mobilize the community through events, Participatory City programs (eg. Every One Every Day, Tomorrow Today Street kits) and to create measurement and outcomes frameworks.

Medium Term (3-5 years): Sustainable FInancing In this phase, the first cohort of cities will mature and enable the sharing of key learnings, frameworks and approaches to support subsequent cohorts. With their deployment of Participatory systems, a focus on finding and enabling sustainable financing to support ongoing city funding and additional cities to onboard into Participatory Canada. Cities can leverage the stories and data emerging from each city implementation to support the case for public funding and/or additional private or philanthropic outcomes based financing methods to support continued growth of social impact.

Assumptions, Constraints and Future Considerations Participatory Canada should use a futures lens and systemic solutions to consider possible externalities and uncertainties. This will ensure that the growth of Participatory Canada remains flexible and adaptable to any possible pathway over the next ten years to effectively grow and scale the Participatory City approach. City and national implementation teams will need to consider other aspects of scaling besides the size and depth of a city implementation, such as building depth of practitioner knowledge. Adding the Participatory City approach to existing community participatory practices could amplify effects, leading to faster and stronger creation of social and systemic infrastructure for long term systems change and community resilience, while partnerships could drive towards collective impact. New city implementations should leap-frog each previous implementation to make use of learning and infrastructure, while existing cities should leverage new learning to keep ideas fresh and momentum moving forward. Mechanisms to transition from short term to long term partnerships and funding should be developed and tested, balanced with the increasing reality of limited funding availability in cities to build infrastructure. The ongoing pandemic may require a shift in the type of participatory programs and accompanying infrastructure that is needed in communities and they should be developed and evaluated over time, shifting as the needs in communities change. Through the development of evidence, demonstration of impact, and rich storytelling, Participatory Canada should aim to be a leader in establishing, embedding, and financing participatory social infrastructure in Canada over the next decade, and beyond.

Long Term (5-10 years): Building Networks During the convening sessions, ambitious goals were conveyed to embed and establish the Participatory City approach in at least 50 cities or communities across Canada by 2030. Clear demand and the appropriate conditions of deep networks, strong evidence and validation, and the built expertise and capacity across mature cities to support the Participatory Canada platform into new cities will be needed to achieve the ambition. Supporting the initial cohorts of cities will prime Participatory Canada to leverage their capacity to support other regional cities to adopt participatory practices, akin to a ripple, radiating outwards to new cities.

Through the development of evidence, demonstration of impact, and rich storytelling, Participatory Canada should aim to be a leader in establishing, embedding, and financing participatory social infrastructure in Canada over the next decade, and beyond. 214

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

215

Table of Contents 218 Introduction 218 History of Participatory City 222 Ambition and Vision for the Participatory City Approach 224 Purpose of the Scaling Scenarios Roadmap

225 Framing the Roadmap 226 Scaling Approaches 227 Components for Scaling Participatory Systems 228 Funding Approaches 231 Systemic Approaches for an Uncertain Future

234 Navigating the Pathways of Growth and Scale 235 Growing the Essential Elements 236 236 237 240 241 244 246

Vision Context Learning Architecture School Resources Evidence Coordination, Relationships, and Communications

247 Scaling over Three Time Horizons 247 The Near Term (0-3 years): People 249 The Medium Term (3-5 years): Sustainable Financing 250 The Long Term (5-10 years): Building Networks

251 Assumptions, Constraints and Future Considerations 252 Understanding Emerging Demand

253 Conclusion 255 Appendices 255 Appendix A: Summary of Strategic Sessions 255 Convening Session 1: Scaling 255 Convening Session 2: Learning 255 Convening Session 3: Financing

256 Appendix B: Financial Considerations

216

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Introduction Many cities around the globe are faced with systemic challenges, such as growing inequality, unemployment, poverty, homelessness, inadequate healthcare, domestic violence, and racism, where individuals are often quite isolated from each other. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing systemic challenges in ways that have not been experienced before1. A number of progressive governments and like-minded organizations are viewing this as an opportunity for a reset – to build forward better. Canada is no exception. In its fall 2020 economic statement2, it committed to spend up to $100 billion over the next three years, including on investments that will serve as a down payment for “transformative initiatives”3. There is a unique opportunity at this moment in time to explore how a national Participatory Canada scaling strategy could be one of those transformative initiatives. Participatory social infrastructure empowers people to be co-producers of transitions in their communities. Federal programs such as the Canada Healthy Communities Initiative4 signal a recognition of the need to invest in participatory social infrastructure as part of the COVID-19 recovery. Creating this new form of infrastructure will be crucial to building forward better from COVID-19, bridging social capital and cohesion, and strengthening civic legitimacy, collective agency, and resilience. Similarly, this work could be linked to transformative platforms and narratives like the EmergencE Room5, a collaborative environment for emergent initiatives that nurture deep, structural transition. This could enable participatory social infrastructure to foster a culture of participation and provide the necessary foundation to grow radically inclusive, cohesive, resilient, and vibrant communities. There is a rich history to the Participatory City movement originating in the UK, led by the Participatory City Foundation. During 2019 and 2020, Participatory City became international by establishing social research and development (Social R&D) sandboxes in Montreal, Halifax, and Toronto with Participatory Canada. This work was supported by the J.W. McConnell and Participatory City Foundations, with support from the Government of Canada (Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) Investment Readiness Program6) and with coalitions of local partners.

History of Participatory City Participatory City UK Participatory City has completed its fourth year of the ‘Every One Every Day’ initiative which is grounded in eleven years of research and deep engagement with ‘participation culture’ from new types of peer-to-peer initiatives that are inspired from around the world. The Participatory City approach brings residents of Barking and Dagenham, a borough in London, together to build practical everyday projects that create friendships, and healthy, sustainable, thriving communities. By making better use of spaces, resources, skills and knowledge, the Participatory City approach enables connected and supported collections of activities to effect change. It aims to be the first large scale, inclusive, practical participatory ecosystem. The Participatory City approach relies on a support platform as a collection of coordinated and shared infrastructure and a participatory ecosystem that is a collection of many and varied practical projects and businesses (see Figure 1). After evaluating the outcomes from year two of Every One Every Day, it was found that practical participation cultivates individual agency. The collective effects of many smaller actions and participation are needed to generate collective impact. The year 2 learnings7 from Participatory City, UK also demonstrate that if some or all of the following conditions can be met in a place, the Participatory City approach can drive towards positive and sustained community impact: • High evidence of need, • Sufficient population density for peer-to-peer networks and network effects, • A determination to find new ways of co-producing outcomes, • A willingness to take risks on the part of funders, officials and politicians, • Possible experience of having tried other approaches without success, • A local champion or team willing to make the local case and co-ordinate decision-making, and • An understanding and appreciation of the possible benefits of participatory culture.

European Commission (September 9, 2020) “Strategic Foresight Report - Charting the Course towards a more resilient Europe” https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/strategic-planning/strategicforesight/2020-strategic-foresight-report_en 2 Department of Finance Canada (2020) “Fall Economic Statement 2020, Supporting Canadian and Fighting COVID-19,” https://www.budget.gc.ca/fes-eea/2020/home-accueil-en.html 3 Department of Finance Canada (2020) “Fall Economic Statement 2020, Building Back Better” https://www.budget.gc.ca/fes-eea/2020/themes/building-back-better-rebatir-mieux-en.html 4 Government of Canada through Infrastructure Canada with Community Foundations of Canada (2021) “Canadian Healthy Communities Initiative” https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/chci-iccs/indexeng.html 5 To learn more, please visit https://emergenceroom.net/ 6 Employment and Social Development Canada (2019), “Investment Readiness Program” https:// www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/social-innovation-social-finance/ investment-readiness.html 1

218

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Participatory City Foundation, (2019), “Tools to Act” http://www.participatorycity.org/tools-to-act

Inclusivity design principles

Figure 1 - Participatory City Two System Model

Make it easy for many people to participate regularly in practice projects that fit with their daily everyday lives.

Participatory City Two-system Model Participatory Ecosystem A collection of many and varied practical projects and businesses

Low time and commitment No or low cost Simple and straightforward Many opportunities with wide variety Nearby and accessible Opportunities from beginner to expert Promote directly and effectively Introduce and accompany Tangible benefits to people Attracting talents not targeting needs Fostering inclusive culture 100% open – no stigma Build projects with everyone Welcome children

Essential Living Co-operatives Clothing Food

Tomorrow Today Streets

Home

Platform co-op

Mini-platforms & mini eco-systems

Services

Organizational Member network

Co-creation Design Process Co-creation design principles Essential Universal Inclusive Open Source Simple Circular Co-created Affordable Regenerative

Essential Living Lab Trained support team Operations & Logistics

Support platform design principles Warehouse makerspace & network of shop spaces

Support Platform

A collection of co-ordinated shared infrastructure

Make it easy for many people to participate regularly in practice projects that fit with their daily everyday lives. A system of practical support Supports collections of projects Works quickly to prototype Reduces and shares personal risk Co-design and /or Co-creation Many people as co-builders Many organizations collaborate PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

219

EVERY ONE EVERY DAY Began as a five-year initiative, formed out of a partnership between Participatory City and Barking and Dagenham Council, and it is the largest participatory project of its kind in the country. Enabling the community to work together in tackling disadvantage, inequality, loneliness and isolation in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham.

PRACTICAL PARTICIPATORY ECOSYSTEM A Practical participatory ecosystem develops organically, is unpredictable in form, and is rooted in the shifting of interrelationships of many diverse and distinct parts (multiple residents joining and leaving, and projects emerging, thriving, replicating and stopping at a constant basis). Residents work on practical, everyday projects that are useful for them. This is often referred to as the “Participatory City approach.”

HERE&NOW SCHOOL Is the new school of participatory systems and designs established by Participatory City Foundation bringing together all the research, knowledge and learning.

SOCIAL (OR CIVIC) INFRASTRUCTURE The publicly-accessible amenities, systems, physical places, spaces, platforms, services and organizations that shape how people interact, and which can support collective life.

These underlying community conditions could extend to implementing the Participatory City approach in other cities. The positive possibilities of the program have driven interest to test the approach, to build a global, connected learning architecture and school, and start by scaling impact in Canada. Figure 2 demonstrates the current global interest in establishing different cities as part of the Here&Now School of Participatory Systems and Design.

Participatory Canada The McConnell Foundation and others in Canada started to take notice of the success of the UK Participatory City experiments. In 2019, Participatory City UK, working in partnership with the McConnell Foundation, began conversations with partners in three Canadian cities, Halifax, Montreal, and Toronto, seeding an intention and creating a plan to develop, learn and explore feasibility of prototypes during a Social R&D phase. Throughout 2020 and early 2021, challenges emerged in implementation and learning due to the global COVID-19 pandemic resulting in significant changes to planning. Firstly, the opportunity to visit Barking and Dagenham to learn through an arranged Study Trip became impossible. Secondly, COVID-19 encouraged the teams to consider designing and developing small live prototypes instead of larger, in-person activities. This made the feasibility testing more real, with the potential to start creating impact in these neighbourhoods during this phase of development. The live prototypes were designed to maximise learning opportunities and to share knowledge and practices between the three cities. This was completed with an aim to test local responses to participation culture and to assess the emerging opportunities for building this type of participatory social infrastructure in these neighborhoods long term. The city teams worked closely through digital means to create these prototypes during this exploration phase in the three Participatory Canada cities, with a longer term goal of building each city into a learning hub to effectively scale the Participatory City approach in Canada. Each city has brought a unique structure and perspective to the Participatory Canada initiative. Halifax is leveraging the platform to conduct meaningful reconciliation through participation, Montreal is building strong relationships with local governments and alignment with the Participatory City approach, and Toronto is using their deep networks and physical space for community experiments.

220

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Figure 2 - Potential global learning campuses for the Participatory City approach at the Here&Now School of Participation Systems and Design

HERE&NOW School of participatory systems and design GLOBAL

H&N H&N Edmonton Campus

H&N H&N Montreal Campus

H&N

Halifax Campus

Glasgow Campus

H&N Kirkcaldy Campus

H&N B&D Campus

Toronto Campus

H&N Sydney Campus

H&N Auckland Campus

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

221

Ambition and Vision for the Participatory City Approach Participatory City is continually growing and evolving its ethos. It is a system that is organic and deeply collaborative, creating something greater than the sum of the individual parts. Relationships of participants and organizations are higher order and go beyond partnership agreements. Each city iteration helps the Participatory City approach cascade its development and learning, scaffolding knowledge and infrastructure. Essentially, it gets better and can grow faster each time; new implementations can leapfrog ahead as more infrastructure elements are developed. The path forward for the Participatory City approach is very different from traditional models of scaling that only focus on replication and adaptation. This approach is intrinsically adaptive in the way it has been designed. It is building a transdisciplinary field of practice that requires deep collaboration and a unique way of thinking and working together. The complex nature of these new projects and systems that co-create and grow participation culture requires continual iteration, reflection and development,

making this work highly additive in nature. The elements of the Participatory City approach have been and will continue to be co-created by all, making them accessible and available through open source sharing through Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International. Everyone becomes custodians of the Participatory City approach. Its work and learning, helping it to be bigger, better, richer, and more knowledge infused each time it gets developed in a new place (see Figure 3). When a new city embarks on their Participatory City journey, they join a network of other cities who are building and layering on the existing progress of the Participatory City approach. This includes the structures, methods, models and strategies needed to co-create the support infrastructures and participatory ecosystems. The richness of each city’s local culture, ideas and experiences combine with them in a completely new and adaptive way. Ultimately, Participatory City aims to work with partner cities to develop a growing portfolio of participatory approaches and knowledge (see Figure 7 below for the Top Six Essential Components for Scaling Systems in New Places). Cities will be able to spend time on projects in deep collaboration, developing systems of support, curriculum and architectures of learning.

Figure 3 - Cascading and scaffolding the development, learning, knowledge and infrastructure of the Participatory City approach

222

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Figure 4 - Convening Session 1, discussing the 10 year vision of the Participatory City approach in Canada

Working with Participatory City Foundation in the UK, the emerging global School Here&Now, and the Social R&D phase in Canada, Participatory Canada will co-create a strategy and implementation pathway that focuses on developing a learning, knowledge and capacity building model, and fosters deep working and learning partnerships needed to make this ambition aim possible. Two models that were considered and rejected because they were not a good fit to achieve the ambition included a “topdown organisation to deliver formulaic and imported participation systems across multiple cities’’, and a “franchise model with tight controls and limited adaptation capabilities’’. Due to the adaptive design nature of the Participatory City approach, it will continue to build forward with local Canadian communities in ways that are context appropriate. It is currently envisaged that each city could build local partnerships, such as for funding and investment, and Participatory Canada would support achieving the desired impacts through a connected network of cities in Canada to ensure a high level of quality and integrity to the approach. Participatory Canada will be central to knowledge building and codifying emerging testing and insights across the Learning Campuses in each city. They will support residents, neighborhoods, communities and cities to connect and fuse these with their local networks, and deep community knowledge and understanding, through the ongoing co-design, embedding, and developmental evaluation processes.

CO-DESIGN

A method of collectively surfacing initial ideas and applying shared knowledge in design thinking, whether it is a project, a session, a task, or a solution to a problem.

The 10 year vision in Canada, developed at Wasan Island in 2019, is still compelling and viable, even more so following the experiences and learning over the last year through COVID-19 (see Figure 4). Participatory Canada infrastructure could respond to the needs of communities by providing a platform to amplify efforts and remove barriers to practical collaboration and by deeply embedding learning and evaluation. At a neighbourhood level, developing in-person, participatory culture and experiences will create the opportunity for Canadian communities to recover from COVID-19 while focusing on the essential aspects of life that will help to build resilience to future crises. The potential pathways to achieve this ambition are explored in this roadmap.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

223

Purpose of the Scaling Scenarios Roadmap As part of the Social R&D process, Participatory Canada wanted to understand demand in the field and conditions for scaling the Participatory City approach in Canada. As part of this exploration, Participatory Canada commissioned a series of strategy sessions in late 2020 and early 2021, to align around scaling demand and possibilities (Dec. 10, 2020), learning architecture (Jan. 15, 2021), and financing (Jan. 28, 2021). (Refer to Appendix A for materials from those sessions, including a list of session participants). The outputs from the sessions were used to develop a Participatory Canada Roadmap and related scenarios. This report is the culmination of those sessions, accompanied by the initial reflections of the Participatory Canada Team on the direction of potential future strategy and building of a scaled initiative in Canada. The Participatory Canada Roadmap is meant to be used as a key data point in decision making and next steps by the Participatory Canada Team, along with current and potential partners. It is meant to provide context and support around sequencing and strategic decisions on resources, such as when and how to deliver programs and onboard support for new cities. It is not meant to be a complete or definitive model for the future development and implementation of Participatory Canada. This report reflects a possible direction for further development and implementation of the Participatory City approach in Canada and incorporates multiple perspectives, factors and suggestions from the wider partnership, city leads, and interested groups from the three sessions and through individual interviews. It identifies key themes, gaps, constraints, assumptions, implications, and opportunities that will need to be considered over the 1, 5 and 10 year path of scaling implementation. The Participatory Canada Roadmap puts forward choices to help frame the path and direction of Participatory Canada. The Participatory Canada Roadmap connects to other streams of work being completed, such as the Developmental Evaluation on the experiences of the three city experiments and the core Participatory Canada Team. These inputs culminate in the larger Participatory Canada foundational document, the Social R&D Report (see Figure 5). In a connected way, these other documents and learning elements (such as the Theory of Change and learning sprints) will form the broader picture of strategic recommendations and operational planning to be undertaken by the Participatory Canada Team through discussion, and insights. While the current prototypes in Halifax, Montreal, and Toronto in Canada have some programming that is operational, they will need to fully launch their programs to understand more deeply how this approach works and to envisage the potential impact and outcomes of local participation. These include building the relationships to people living in those neighbourhoods, and how these relate to organizations and governments, as well as the learning platforms. Through these prototypes the aim has been to create the initial evidence base and support for developing long term practical participation ecosystems.

224

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Social R&D Report

City Experiences

Roadmap development Reﬂections

Finances

Montreal Toronto

Halifax

City Experiences

Scaling

Workshops

Core team Learning

Figure 5 - How the Participatory Canada Roadmap connects to other Participatory Canada outputs

Framing the Roadmap The Participatory Canada Roadmap puts forward choices to help frame the possible path and direction of Participatory Canada. It is meant to provide context and support around sequencing and strategic decisions on resources, such as considerations for when and how to develop people and capacity, financing approaches and methods, and how to support cities. The Participatory Canada Roadmap must consider different elements of scaffolding the pathway from the present to reach the ten year vision that address assumptions, risks and opportunities in growing and scaling the Participatory City approach. These elements include: • Considering common approaches to scaling social innovation and how they need to adapt for the Participatory City approach in Canada, • Leveraging the essential components of large scale participation systems identified in the UK so they can be held as the core in Canada, • Sourcing and utilizing funding that is stage appropriate to support growth and scaling from early stage startup and evidence gathering, to longer term growth and impact development, • Adjusting to the uncertainties and externalities presented by an ever changing, uncertain future, as the Participatory City approach grows and scales to reach its vision, and • Being flexible to pivot around new information and challenging assumptions so the roadmap followed is non linear and supports systemic ecosystem development.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

225

Scaling Approaches Since the Participatory City approach is highly adaptive in nature and focuses on developing a learning, knowledge and capacity building model through fostering deep working and learning partnerships, how to grow and scale the approach needed to be considered carefully. Through the three strategy sessions, the Participatory Canada core team, city leads, and current and potential partners considered the strategic choices around common social innovation scaling approaches (see Figure 6), framed around opportunities to best enable successful growth and scaling in Canada that fit with the Participatory City approach. They explored aspects of how far to:8 • Scale out by adapting the Participatory City approach in additional communities and cities, and growing the deep learning relationships and networks between cities, not through replication,

• Scale deep by deeply embedding the Participatory City approach in places and local culture, growing the deep learning relationships with people and communities, while ensuring flexibility and adaptation to different and relevant contexts and circumstances. Overall, contributors were explicit about wanting to avoid a cookie cutter, franchised model that felt imposed on communities and was perceived as ‘top down’ decision making. Growing and scaling the Participatory City approach in Canada in a sensitive and responsive way will depend on many factors, including being conscious of when it is appropriate to scale deep, up or out. Building networks and partnerships systemically and with purpose, while seeking new resources and financial models, will support effective growth, balanced through the ongoing commitment to deep learning and research with communities.

• Scale up by changing larger systems and policies and informing regime change, such as defining social infrastructure for our times, and communicating to shift the broader cultural landscape for practical participation ecosystems, and •

J.W. McConnell Family Foundation, (October, 2015), “Scaling Out, Scaling Up, Scaling Deep: Advanced Systemic Social Innovation and the Learning Processes to Support It”

226

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Figure 6 - Common social innovation scaling approaches

Components for Scaling Participatory Systems To effectively scale large practical participation ecosystems through the Participatory City approach, six essential components need to be in place (see Figure 7). They include vision, context, learning architecture, school, resources, and evidence. These elements cover the components of local conditions and dynamics, and the necessary infrastructure at the city and national levels. Additionally, three cross cutting dynamics and activities have been identified as vital to successful growth and development. These include building strong relationships and networks of learning and support, coordination and pulling together of all the components, and building the Participatory City narrative through communication and storytelling. 1.

Vision: Each city has a vision of its future. These are often visibly led and communicated by government and institutions, but they are also expressed by people on how they would like to live, work, and play together. A strong and cohesive vision is needed at all levels to develop bold initiatives through this approach. Context: Local conditions can strongly influence the possibility of developing practical participation ecosystems in cities. Political will and leadership, including underlying dynamics, the social, economic and environmental imperatives and needs of a city, and cultural and social factors all combine to influence the desirability, viability and probability that a systemic innovation of this scale will develop in a local context. Learning Architecture: Materials in different formats and curriculum enable the development and implementation of local participation ecosystems. Learning resources are designed to support the progression towards an in-depth understanding of the Participatory City approach. From frameworks to practical skills, over time they build the necessary capacity for co-creating these new systems directly with the people living in the neighbourhoods of cities. The curriculum enables the progression of learning by starting with awareness of the Participatory City approach, growing and deepening the understanding, and ultimately gathering the necessary support, networks and resources to implement the initiatives. The learning architecture currently spans from online workshop courses for city leaders, to immersive experiential courses for practitioners, to resident peer-to-peer learning academies, and to masters courses. School: The Here&Now School of Participatory Systems and Design has a national learning and development focus. It includes Learning Campuses that are the deep Participatory City implementations that act as demonstration sites for building the large scale practical participation ecosystems. Both the global, national and city level elements of the school support the learning infrastructure for building these systems and change capacity in any city. The more locally this knowledge is embedded and accessed, the stronger and quicker the approach will be established. The Here&Now School helps diffuse the knowledge and practices of the Participatory City approach through the network of Learning Campuses and strong partnerships developed with each city. The network

Partnerships & Relationships

School

Vision

Learning Coordination Architecture

Resources

Context

Evidence

Communication & Storytelling

Figure 7 - Top six essential components for scaling the Participatory City approach contributes and creates spaces for new communities, partners, and individuals to build capacity and knowledge while sharing the emerging field of practice with others. 5.

Resources: People capital and financial resources are critical for ensuring the right levels of expertise and teams are in place to co-create the Participatory City approach and develop the practical participation ecosystems within each city. These also form the platform of social infrastructures needed, including networks, spaces and projects.

Evidence: Every city that joins the Participatory City network contributes evidence and research towards the feasibility, inclusivity, value creation, systemic integration and adaptability of the Participatory City approach. Measurement, and the collection of evidence to demonstrate impact, is vital for growing the approach in Canada. Strong evaluation results will encourage public and private investment to create the foundation for the long term financial sustainability of Participatory City.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

227

The cross cutting activities and dynamics that are needed to support each essential component include: A. Coordination: Acting as the organising function for this model, coordination activities pull all six essential components together into strong and cohesive initiatives and infrastructures. A high level of coordination needs to be strongly established to effectively execute on the city initiatives; this builds on the existence of the six, deeply interdependent essential components. B.

Relationships and Partnerships: Establishing relationships and partnerships creates opportunities and deep collaboration within the practical participatory ecosystem. Across the six essential components, this enables the Participatory City approach to bring together the right people and organizations to form the capacity and support that a city implementation requires.

Communication and Storytelling: Spreading the word and bringing the Participatory City approach to life through creative and enticing stories is essential to building a large network of contributing partners and growing the elements of the ecosystem. It is a vital function that enables co-creation of the approach (where people see themselves in the stories) and growth of the emerging field of learning and practice in the Here&Now School.

Balancing the pace and scale of integration and development of each essential component in a city will support the successful growth of practical participation ecosystems through the Participatory City approach.

Funding Approaches To identify the appropriate funding to support the growth and scaling of the Participatory City approach in Canada and its essential components, there is a need to consider the strategic choices around two dimensions of Participatory Canada: the systemic and transformational nature of the Participatory Canada vision, and the direction for initiative leadership. For example, the overall projected costs will need to consider which strategies, tactics and learning architectures of the Participatory City approach will be built and to what degree, (such as Tomorrow Today Streets, Every One Every Day, a learning campus), and who will be responsible for driving and sustaining the effort (such as a nationally-led core team for overall strategy, partnership building, research and learning, systems development, and for city-led teams who develop the work according to local context and build local partnerships, systems change visions, data collection and outcomes measurement, research and learning that connects with other nodes, etc.).

Tomorrow Today Streets

A project from Every One Every Day and IKEA’s Live Lagom Programme. Tomorrow Today Streets gives local neighbours, families and friends the opportunity to start exciting projects right on their own streets. It offers 24 Kits to help residents start projects that are practical and help stay connected.

Systems change

It’s collaborative planning, designing in success and failure and space to co-design lots of little projects as well as work on larger ones. This is an opportunity to create a circular economy. Coexisting together and connecting with other ecosystems while putting residents at the center of the system allows for self directed involvement through a diverse range of project ideas and participation opportunities.

Funding for the Social R&D pilots in Canada was primarily provided by the J.W. McConnell Foundation and support from the Government of Canada (ESDC Investment Readiness Program9), with $100K grants given to each city to establish Social R&D projects on embedding participation within their communities. Significant matched funding and in-kind contributions were secured by local pilot partnerships. The initial Social R&D pilots have led to substantive conversations and interest in each city in continuing or expanding the participatory systems moving forward. To support the demand for growth and scaling of the Participatory City approach, financing Participatory Canada will likely require cross-sectoral and hybrid partnerships with governments (e.g. federal, provincial, municipal, and Indigenous), foundations, private sector partners, and other investors at different scales (such as neighborhood, community, region, country, and internationally) where collaboration is required to help deliver change from the ground up, and connect in with a global network. Within Canada, there are many established financing tools available that could be used to fund the Participatory City approach, helping to shift Canada towards a more inclusive and participatory society. Financing tools can be understood through a spectrum. Refer to Figure 8 for this visualization: start on the left

228

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

9 Employment and Social Development Canada (2019), “Investment Readiness Program” https:// www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/social-innovation-social-finance/ investment-readiness.html

Traditional grants

Recoverable grants

Blended finance (incl. Venture Philanthropy)

Social impact bonds (Outcomesbased finance)

Community bonds

Ideal for: Programs that are harder to monetize Testing new interventions Smaller capital requirements

Community loan funds

Private debt / equity

Ideal for: Programs that are easier to monetize Scaled-up interventions Larger capital requirements

Philanthropy Governments, Agencies Not-for-profit Organizations For-profit organizations, Investors Figure 8 - The financing landscape in Canada

outcomes are achieved. Examples of Social Impact Bonds include the Heart and Stroke CHPI SIB16 and Saskatchewan’s Sweet Dreams SIB.17

with smaller catalytic funding and move to the right with larger, scaled funding with a revenue or cost benefit.

• Community Bonds & Loan Funds, and Private Debt/Equity: Community bonds are similar to traditional bonds, except they always generate a social or environmental return in addition to a financial return, and are generally open to nonaccredited investors. Community loan funds lend to local nonprofits or social enterprises and accept higher risk and offer more generous repayment terms than conventional lenders. Finally, there are impact-focused private debt or equity funds that function similarly to community loan funds except they target a specific social or environmental topic while often operating across a broader geographical footprint. As these tools require the lenders to be repaid (either by the lendee or via a resale of equity), they require reliable, growing revenue streams.

• Grants: Provide critical initial capital to fund initiatives without a strong record of revenues and proven outcomes. Additionally, grants are typically dispersed in smaller denominations and aim to provide catalytic funding for exploratory work, or particular initiatives. Examples of grants and organizations providing funding include the Federation of Canadian Municipalities10, Community Foundations of Canada11, and other foundations. • Blended financing tools: Tools that leverage public or philanthropic capital to mobilize additional private sector investment towards a social or environmental objective. Often used in development contexts, blended finance typically sees public or philanthropic capital absorb risk through guarantees or grants to improve the risk/return profile and catalyze private sector investment that otherwise wouldn’t have flowed to a project. Another form of blended finance, venture philanthropy, channels philanthropic capital towards high-impact ventures, alongside strategic and operational advice, and other non-financial support.

Examples of these financing mechanisms include the CSI Community Bond18, Social Enterprise Fund19, and Nesta’s Arts & Culture Impact Fund20.

Examples of organizations and foundations utilizing blended finance include Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation12, Omidyar Network, and Shell Foundation. Major venture philanthropy funds include the Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation,13 PRIME Coalition14, and JDRF T1D Fund15. • Social Impact Bonds (SIB): Designed as an outcomes based financial instrument for investors to fund social services, these bonds earn repayment of capital and, often, a return (paid by an outcomes funder like the government) if Federation of Canadian Municipalities, “Funding Opportunities” https://fcm.ca/en/funding Community Foundations of Canada, “Current Initiatives”, https://communityfoundations.ca/ current-initiatives/ 12 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, “Strategic Investments”, https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ about/how-we-work/strategic-investments 13 Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation, “Our Model”, https://www.drkfoundation.org/about/ourmodel/ 14 PRIME Coalition “What is Prime”, https://primecoalition.org/what-is-prime/ 15 JDRF TID Fund “Investment Strategy”, https://t1dfund.org/investment-strategy/ 10 11

Heart & Stroke, “Innovative program tackles blood pressure risk”, https://www.heartandstroke. ca/activate/chpi Innovation Saskatchewan, (September 3, 2019) “The Sweet Dreams Initiative”, https:// innovationsask.ca/news/the-sweet-dreams-initiative 18 Centre for Social Innovation, “Invest in your community”, https://communitybonds.ca/invest-inyour-community 19 Social Enterprise Fund, https://socialenterprisefund.ca/ 20 Nesta, “Arts & Culture Impact Fund”, https://www.nesta.org.uk/project/arts-culture-impact-fund/ 16

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

229

The Need for Transition Financing Cities, communities and residents looking to transition their neighborhoods to a just, sustainable, and participatory future require a financing and wealth approach that holds a long term view to successfully scale the Participatory City approach in Canada. While the financing mechanisms described in Funding Approaches might act as one set of mechanisms to finance the Participatory City approach, to have meaningful, scaled systems change in Canada, this work would additionally benefit from Transition Financing21. This type of financing enables capital holders and investors to redirect very large amounts of capital towards novel portfolios of assets with accompanying infrastructure around people capacity, data and innovation at macro and micro levels. This is a new way to scale transformation through systems change while identifying and aligning with actors’ priorities, risk profiles and envisioned outcomes, in this case relating to Participatory Social Infrastructure. Transition Financing can balance the high pace of government spending as a result of COVID-19, both in managing the pandemic response and jump-starting the economy. The capital, policy and infrastructure solutions needed both for COVID-19 recovery and to make progress on the larger issues of growing inequality, unemployment, poverty, homelessness, inadequate healthcare, domestic violence, and racism, can be financed through a portfolio of long-wealth assets instead of isolated, medium term infrastructure projects. A new class of public-private capital can be further leveraged through co-investments by residents using community wealth mechanisms. This could lead to the creation of co-funded, participatory social infrastructure crucial to building forward better from COVID-19, bridging social capital and cohesion, and strengthening civic legitimacy and resilience.

The capital, policy and infrastructure solutions needed both for COVID-19 recovery and to make progress on the larger issues of growing inequality, unemployment, poverty, homelessness, inadequate healthcare, domestic violence, and racism, can be financed through a portfolio of long-wealth assets instead of isolated, medium term infrastructure projects.

First, Second, and Third blog article published by Dark Matter Labs, December 31, 2020

230

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Systemic Approaches for an Uncertain Future While developing the six essential components of the Participatory City approach and identifying appropriate funding over a ten year time horizon can help build towards success in growing and scaling practical participation ecosystems in Canada, the future is unwritten and constantly evolving. Strategic foresight can help us understand the potential future environments in which the Participatory City approach could flourish or fail. As new trends and developments emerge across society, they can become the drivers of change that could significantly affect the creation of participatory social infrastructure. While our understanding of the potential impact of those changes might be more clear in a near term time frame of a few years, it is less clear as the time horizon is lengthened. More possibilities for different futures emerge22. In considering a ten year time horizon for scaling Participatory Canada, combined with a strong vision and ambition for scaling held by the team for the Participatory City approach, a path forward could include taking action to influence developments that increase the chances of the desired future coming true. Balancing the monitoring of weak signals to identify possible changes at an early stage23, while remaining flexible for the emergence of different futures, will help ensure the success and sustainability of Participatory Canada.

Considering the Pandemic In addition to adapting to and planning for key trends, Canadian cities interested in the Participatory City approach will also need to pay special attention to the continuing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic while considering its long-term implications to Participatory programming and governance. Canadians have seen acceleration in specific trends leading to shifts in the areas of health, economy, society, the environment, and governance, areas which are all connected at the impact level as outcomes of practical participation ecosystems. Some key areas of consideration that might directly affect the Participatory City approach and drive adaptations to it include27: • Pandemic persistence - Without a clear timeline for how long it will take to ‘go back to normal’, such as developing virus immunity, managing mutations, deploying vaccines and providing treatment, the ways Canadians interact safely indoors and outside will dramatically need to change. The Participatory City approach will need to adapt to deliver meaningful interactions and impact while maintaining safety for participants. With a high likelihood of future pandemics, a resilient and effective Participatory City approach is necessary. • Long-term physical distancing and mental health - Core to the Participatory City approach is fostering in-person interactions to build community resilience and connections, including alleviating loneliness and trauma. Programming teams and participants will need to assess the level of risk they are willing to accept and the benefits they could receive by attending in-person programs balanced against the different types of connections and experiences possible through online programming.

Participatory Canada can understand the possible futures of cities and communities, and implications for the Participatory City approach, by leveraging the work completed by organizations that practice strategic foresight globally and in Canada. For example, Future Cities Canada explores ways to build the capacity of cities, aiming to make them future-focused, equitable, regenerative, and prosperous for the next 50 years24. Partnering with this type of organization can help surface insights about the future while also contributing to its creation25.

• Economy - If people remain affected by unemployment, and asset and job loss, the Participatory City approach might be able to offer a way to share community wealth, and provide opportunities for working, learning and training that wouldn’t exist in the traditional job market. The need for a new approach is highly necessary as inequalities and cross-generational tensions continue. For example, considerations should balance the needs of people with no or low incomes, single parents with need of child care, isolated and vulnerable individuals who need a connection, and youth who need to develop a livelihood.

Globally, as we move towards 2030, many cities and regions are struggling with how to adapt to megatrends around individuals, the physical environment, and the global economy while improving the quality of life and moving towards more inclusive and just societies. For example, how does a Canadian city adjust to a population with higher life expectancies, while the youth population needs access to jobs. This connects to the rising use of enabling technologies and digitization, and capital flows within and between communities, shifting the type of work people can do, the learning and training people need, and how people can participate in government and public decision making. Different social and physical infrastructure will be needed as part of delivering public services, building climate resilient natural and built environments, while reducing stress on natural resources from population and economic growth26. Since many people will reside in cities by 2030, the Participatory City approach could be one way to facilitate the path to sustainable living.

Jacobsen, B., Hirvensalo, I. (May 7, 2019), “What is Strategic Foresight?”, https://www. futuresplatform.com/blog/what-strategic-foresight Prescient, “Introduction to Strategic Foresight” (retrieved May 5, 2021), https://prescient2050. com/strategic-foresight-tools/ 24 Jessica Thornton, J. Future Cities Canada (January 16, 2020), “Planning for the Cities We Want: Strategic Foresight to create our preferred futures”, https://futurecitiescanada.ca/stories/planningfor-the-cities-we-want-the-case-for-strategic-foresight-in-cities/ 25 To learn more about Future Cities programming, see https://futurecitiescanada.ca/programs/ 26 KPMG International (2014) “Future State 2030: The GLobal Megatrends Shaping Governments”, https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2014/02/future-state-2030-v3.pdf

• Digitization - The demand for and participation in online platforms for all aspects of life has significantly accelerated alongside mandated physical distancing and lockdown orders by the government. While the Participatory City approach thrives on in-person activities and experiential learning, it will need to shift and adapt to leverage effective practices for community building and participatory engagement to help ensure the safety, inclusivity, and accessibility of programming. Disparities in access to resilient technology should be considered as potential limiters to achieving key social outcomes, for example for health, education, and access to employment.

Policy Horizons Canada (March 5, 2021) “Foresight on COVID-19: Possible Shifts and Implications”, https://horizons.gc.ca/en/2021/03/05/foresight-on-covid-19-possible-shifts-and-implications/

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

231

Linear vs Systemic Roadmaps Linear Roadmaps Decision

... assume certainty in terms of all milestones, decision points, and the destination.

Decision Decision

Decision

GOAL

Decision Decision

1 -2 years

3 -5 years

5-10 years

Systemic Roadmaps ... recognize the existence of uncertainty, and consider opportunities (through experimentation) that enable agility in decision-making towards the impact.

3rd Order Consequence ?

2nd Order Consequence

2nd Order Consequence ?

5-10 years

1st Order Consequence

3-5 years 1-2 years

3rd Order Consequence

Decision 1st Order Consequence

2nd Order Consequence

Figure 9 - Systemic versus linear roadmaps

232

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

impact over 10 years

2nd Order Consequence ? 1st Order Consequence ?

2nd Order Consequence ?

3rd Order Consequence ?

Systemic Planning The Participatory City approach aims to develop practical participation ecosystems in communities and cities. By its nature it is inherently designed to create systems change in complex environments. This means that a linear roadmap would not be appropriate to grow and scale the systemic approach in Canada, since systemic change requires systemic solutions28 (see Figure 9). With the many possible alternative futures that exist, Participatory Canada should consider using a futures thinking and systemic approach to implementing and following the Roadmap over time. Using a futures wheel29 is one approach to making decisions and considering possible paths forward that could help Participatory Canada think through first, second, and third order consequences to enable it to get to its desired outcomes. Similarly, a systemic roadmap could enable Participatory Canada to manage uncertainty and risk, and develop paths to systemic financing as the future becomes more clear. For planning how a Participatory City approach might fit within a COVID-19 future, a systemic roadmap could help the team adjust to a future with ongoing episodic flare-ups, or to a future with long term disruptions and continued acceleration of negative economic, social, and environmental issues, or to a future that looks very different and becomes the new normal.

28 Dominic Hofstetter, “Innovating in Complexity” Part 1 (July 7, 2019), Part 2 (July 26, 2019), and Part 3 (August 23, 2019). 29 MindTools, “The Futures Wheel: Identifying Consequences of Change” https://www.mindtools. com/pages/article/futures-wheel.htm

This work is also emergent and connects to other key areas of change required to transition to a flourishing future. The attributes of the Participatory City approach, including a clear, shared vision, the foundation of experimentation to learn and adapt in each place, coupled with learning architecture to return learning to the system make it likely that Participatory Canada could achieve emergent results at scale. Other successful emergent initiatives have also used approaches that leverage community engagement, participatory practices, and highly developed network and relationship strategies30. Participatory Canada should leverage emergence strategies to amplify the transformational effect of empowering citizens to be co-producers of transitions in their communities through the creation and adoption of participatory social infrastructure.

30 Fourth Quadrant Partners, “A whole Greater Than Its Parts: Exploring the Role of Emergence in Complex Social Change”, http://www.4qpartners.com/emergence.html

Figure 10 - Ten year roadmap for Participatory Canada

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

233

Navigating the Pathways of Growth and Scale Participatory City is an inspiring initiative with the great promise of impact through creating more inclusive and participatory communities and culture within cities. The pathway to scaling and growing the Participatory City approach in Canada will need to both grow the essential components, and scale towards its ambition over the next ten years (see Figure 10). The direction of growth and scaling of Participatory Canada will be dependent on balancing the approaches to scaling social innovations, determining the appropriate funding strategies and partners, and being flexible towards future externalities and systemic possibilities that emerge as implementation occurs across Canada. Through the three convening sessions, there were many points of alignment between the participants and the principles of Participatory City. These elements of consensus serve as initial design principles to help guide the development of the Participatory City approach in the first deep city implementation and in subsequent cities. Over time, the essential elements will grow with the approach. Additionally, three factors will also scale over time: connections to people, sustainable financing, and building networks. Navigating the growing and scaling pathway means making key choices about the context and support for sequencing and strategic decisions on resources, such as considerations for when and how to develop people and capacity, financing approaches and methods, and how to support cities. Working through the roadmap also means considering the different elements for scaffolding the pathway from the present to reach the ten year vision by addressing assumptions, gaps, risks and opportunities in growing and scaling the Participatory City approach within communities. The Participatory Canada Roadmap puts forward choices to help frame the path and direction of Participatory Canada that need to be considered for growing and scaling over 1, 5 and 10 years of implementation.

234

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Growing the Essential COMPONENTS Over the next decade, the six essential components and their three cross cutting activities and dynamics will need to grow and scale as the base for Participatory Canada. Starting with initial ‘national’ support needed from the city teams, over time, support from the more mature cities using the Participatory City approach may transition as communities build capacity for the approach within cities across Canada. Establishing formalized structures and nurturing relationships with the main learning campus will enable new cities and communities to join and utilize the Participatory City approach to create more cities with practical participatory ecosystems. Establishing a national platform that connects Canada directly to Participatory City UK and to grassroots city programs will aid in building the foundational Participatory City principles and infrastructures within Canada. A key scenario being considered by Participatory Canada is to have a primary focus over the first one to three years to successfully build a learning campus in an initial city, and build capabilities and provide support in up to an additional nine cities. All would be part of the learning and research community of the Participatory City global network, through the ‘Here&Now’ school. This scenario was informed by participants in the three strategy sessions who collectively expressed the need for Participatory Canada to go deep within a city to demonstrate the impact, learning capacities and resources required for growing and scaling the program here in Canada.

“Each community begins with R&D in one neighbourhood, and sequential scaling across a city, town, or community” While Participatory Canada builds the deep demonstration learning campus in partnership with one city initially, in the key scenario, the team would also support and build inter-city relationships, research, and evaluation. This would provide a national view with continuous learning and adaptation of the work as well as compound the outcomes being generated. Within the key scenario, the essential components (see Figure 7) signify the critical elements that need to be established for a functioning practical participatory ecosystem. They create the foundation to build the infrastructures for the Participatory City approach that lead to impact and social innovation in communities.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

235

Vision

Context

For Participatory Canada, the vision and ambition of the program is being co-developed with the current three prototype communities in Halifax, Montreal, and Toronto, to understand the unique benefits and opportunities appropriate for their contexts. Furthering the discussions from Wasan Island in 2019, the three strategic convening sessions validated the major themes for the vision and identified new elements that have emerged over the past year of experimentation. The vision for Participatory Canada should include the following elements:

Through the three strategic session discussions, participants identified the need to effectively respond to the demand emerging from many cities and communities in Canada. Further development and adaptation of the Participatory City approach is critical to establish a proven use case in Canada which will help unlock sustainable funding. Initially for the deep city implementation, Participatory Canada should carefully consider the conditions needed for success in order to have the proper support, achieve the desired impacts, and gain leadership and buy-in from various levels of government and community. This would help create the initial agency and clearing of “red-tape” for the community to build participatory practices. Additionally, local leadership (eg. public servants, community organizations) and experienced project designers will help catalyze the initiative to activate and engage the community.

• Respond to the needs of communities, and provide residents with the agency, ability, tools and network to jumpstart their own ideas and ventures. • Change the ways communities and cities function to enable a systemic culture of participation that residents and visitors recognize, and that builds social capital and community resilience. • Provide the means for communities to thrive and create resilience by fostering inclusive and meaningful interactions within communities and remove barriers to practical collaboration. • Create the use cases and evidence to help shape policy and advocate for systemic and policy change that is more responsive to the needs of communities and cities. • Provide training and reciprocal learning from the community to inform the Participatory City approach. Create new models for cities to interact and learn from one another.

“A strong bottom up Canadian wide narrative and shared strategy around equitable socio-ecological transition in urban settings” The ambition and vision of Participatory Canada needs to manifest from a bottom-up approach, that is enabled through the national team and the supporting network of global practitioners. In the early stages, in-person learning modes are preferred and welcomed to provide foundational principles to the designers and local practitioners. The initial, deep city implementation in Canada will require a substantial amount of time and training with the London-based team to immerse themselves in these principles and skills.

Strategic Considerations The Participatory Canada team will need to make strategic choices around the implementation of the vision in Canada, since every city has its own unique context. Consider creating flexibility within the program design, learning and measurement methods to allow for the exploration of new models, such as developing Indigenousled or co-led approaches that center reconciliation, and address systemic racism. Also consider embracing the unique challenges in each community as a means to advancing and developing the current set of Participatory City approaches.

236

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Participants in the convening sessions and in other discussions identified additional necessary conditions to ensure success for the Participatory City approach in a local context. • Demand for the approach exists from coalitions of community organizations, political leaders, and public servants. This manifests from an awareness of core challenges within communities with an innovative mindset to leverage new tools and models to address these challenges. • There are identified communities with great need. Underlying challenges and city motivations to address social challenges, like reconciliation and racism, should be considered a priority. For example, this could manifest in collaborating with city partners and amplifying programs in existing Neighborhoods Improvement Areas.31 • Connect with passionate community organizations, individuals, and accompanying talent pools to source multidisciplinary teams with designers, project, and program managers. • Local infrastructure exists to support the physical spaces necessary for deployment of programs like the Warehouse (Maker Space), Every One Every Day storefronts, and Tomorrow Today Streets starter kits.

Strategic Considerations Additional considerations need to be assessed while the Participatory Canada team strives for validation and success in the deep implementation as a means to promote and accelerate the adoption of the Participatory City approach in other places in Canada. The team will need to consider factors around local economics, global visibility of the program, and the immediacy of impact required. In particular, financial viability is an important quality to consider in each local context that stems from different economic factors in each region of Canada. For example, the growing inequity and affordability challenges within a city like Toronto could significantly impact the cost estimates put forward in this Roadmap versus smaller municipalities. Inversely, Toronto could provide opportunities to drive immediate impact and learning opportunities for communities facing challenges, because of high quality local talent, and the well connected global presence and network of a city of its size. These factors provide additional pressures, challenges and opportunities to consider when implementing the Participatory City approach in any community in Canada. 31 City of Toronto, (2014), “Neighborhood Improvement Area Profiles”, https://www.toronto.ca/citygovernment/data-research-maps/neighbourhoods-communities/nia-profiles/

Participatory Canada Learning Architecture Phases Development Knowledge

Early Interest & Discovery

1 WEBSITES General information about the approach with many links to articles, reports, films and opportunities to find out more.

REPORTS Development reports into specific areas of the work — or annual research and development reports.

DISCOVERY DAYS 1 day site visits to find out more about the approach. Includes introductory workshops, presentations with council & shop visits.

ARTICLES Articles and blogs describing work as the thinking develops.

CITY GOVERNMENT WEBINARS Introductory series of webinars for city leaders on co-creation & building new participation systems for transition.

Building Initiatives Capacity

IN-PERSON EVENTS Participation in live in person events keynotes, workshops etc.

ONLINE EVENTS Participation in online events keynotes, workshops etc.

ONLINE WORKSHOPS & LEARNING NETWORKS Online workshops connected to whole approach or system components e.g., Tomorrow Today Streets.

WORKSHOPS (D/W/M) Regularly scheduled workshops of different durations to enable individuals to explore the approach & practices in more detail.

PROJECT KITS Starter & tool kits designed to support the execution of projects & system components. Includes Open Making Society open source product library.

Figure 11 - Participatory Canada Learning Architecture

Learning Architecture The Participatory City learning architecture is a foundational element for communities and cities to embody and proliferate the values of the approach. Participants in the three convening sessions expressed a strong affinity towards experiential learning. Gaining knowledge through practical experience creates opportunities to build deep empathy for the Participatory City approach and values while enabling teams and communities to adapt the tools and services to their local contexts.

“If you can walk around in it, it makes a huge difference” Fundamental Principles Through the spectrum of learning architectures developed through the Participatory City approach, the following fundamental principles must be considered in the Canadian context to help build the necessary capacity for learning over the next decade.

• Make reciprocal learning experiences as essential between teams, communities, and cities. While a deep and thorough understanding of the Participatory City approach is needed from all involved to ensure alignment and added value of the model, there is also a need to deeply understand each specific context in which Participatory City will occur. A clear understanding held by Participatory Canada and all participants ensures the legitimacy of Participatory Canada for all. For example, this enables sharing and embracement of local participatory culture and experiences, including Indigenous culture and experience; existing initiatives and partnerships that could support and amplify the Participatory City approach; etc. • Prioritize immersive and distributed, peer-to-peer, human interaction focused learning mechanisms in the learning architecture. Preferred even in the early learning stages of the Participatory City approach, these methods were perceived as more valuable for building trust and relationships that are seen as critical for a successful kick-off, as opposed to using more data-driven learning mechanisms. Prioritizing in-person learning mechanisms will impact the resourcing and learning infrastructure required at both the city and national level, such as the school.

• Compliment inter-city learning architecture with intracity learning to increase the learning efficiency for all Participatory City practitioners. This inter-city learning architecture may also help inform the definition of a minimum viable system for Participatory Canada by distinguishing what is unique to each city versus what is universal across all cities. PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

237

Learning Architecture Phases

Reciprocal Learning Topics

Participatory City learning architecture (see Figure 11) takes a laddered approach to building knowledge and gaining the necessary skills and experiences that lead to the creation of practical participatory ecosystems. There are three phases of learning architecture development.

Additional learning topics were identified by participants in the three convening sessions that should be developed to add knowledge, capacity, and new perspectives to the Participatory City approach in Canada. They include how to:

• Early Interest and discovery: Tangible elements and communication pieces, such as websites, articles, reports, and in-person and online events, create awareness and an entry point into the Participatory City approach. • Development knowledge: Activities, such as city government webinars, discovery days, workshops, study trips and camps, and development workshops build knowledge and experiences in the ways the Participatory City approach can impact communities. • Building initiatives capacity: Mature phase activities, such as online workshops and learning networks, project kits, domain knowledge development, learning frameworks (system components), playbooks and webinars (system components), tutoring and development design, immersive core training in live projects, and live projects networks, further develop skills and expertise in the Participatory City approach. Participants in the three convening sessions expressed that trust needs to be established at the forefront to enable the Participatory City approach to take hold within our communities and give agency for the program. Creating and building trust is needed at the community level through the design of programs and impacts. It is also important to build legitimacy around the impacts and purpose, allowing for the development of the necessary relationships that drive funding opportunities, and social and economic license to operate within a city. Building trust can be enabled through the Participatory City learning architecture and by a focus on thoughtful communication and relationships between the participants and the layers of government engaged in the work. Additionally, even though participants preferred experiential learning, building trust through digital means needs a renewed focus given the effects of COVID-19 over the past year. Enhancing the digital offerings within the learning architecture by focusing on the quality of interactions, digital mediums and tools used, and the community of learning surrounding the learning modules can bridge the divide between in-person preferences and the constraints towards digital.

Role of Physical Infrastructure Core to the Participatory City approach is the prevalence of physical assets and spaces for the community to congregate and create value within their communities. The deployment and experimentation of Participatory City within early adopter cities will rely on the development of and access to these spaces in the heart of communities in which people live. Spaces, like the warehouse and shopfronts in Barking and Dagenham, provide the necessary opportunities for practical participatory ecosystems to take hold. Having these core pieces of infrastructure supported and made available by cities and governments creates sustainability for the Participatory City approach and provides anchor locations within the community. These investments into the community serve and support the social infrastructures that this approach is looking to cultivate. Strong relationships with cities and adjacent funders, such as foundations and non-profit developers, could serve as alternative means to finance these spaces.

238

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

• Embed Indigenous practices within Participatory City for the Canadian adaptation • Better engage residents in shops with maximum inclusivity in Participatory Canada communities • Share best practices for the set-up and management of community storefronts • Develop and utilize tools from local experiments in other Participatory Canada implementations • Share and evolve the business case for creating social infrastructure, like public makerspaces

Strategic Considerations The Participatory Canada team will need to consider how to best promote and develop the learning architecture in Canada so that it can support many different types and densities of communities. Communication and ecosystem activation will need a common language. Consider how to leverage the school, learning approaches, and external communication tools to bridge the language gaps that exist. This will allow Participatory Canada to build strong and consistent narratives to bring others along in this space. There is also a market challenge of developing new metrics and non-economic indicators that measure the impacts that a practical participatory ecosystem looks to achieve. Consider how to build the capacity and expertise for measurement through the learning architecture in Canada to enable new forms of outcomes based financing with the ability to validate and measure success. This would help Participatory Canada to build stronger business cases for communities and cities.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

239

School The school creates an essential hub for the Participatory City approach. It is a place to connect the growing set of deep learning campuses, share learnings and adaptations of the approach, and create skills for city teams and communities. The initial deep city implementation should act as the main Canadian learning campus of the Here&Now school to be a hub and entry point for other Canadian cities to connect into and discover the Participatory City approach. Cities would be able to leverage the resources and expertise from the campus as they become more mature Participatory Canada cities. The school forms a core piece of the learning architecture of Participatory Canada to create a space for new cities and communities to leverage knowledge and apply it to their local context - building capacity for systems change.

Strategic Considerations There are many considerations for how the school can be most effective in building the necessary skills and knowledge base within Canada. The Participatory Canada team should consider and adapt over time the optimal structure and functions of the school within Canada so that it is of value to communities and is in harmony with the efforts of the global Here&Now school. These functions require varying skills sets and resources to implement, and also require management and coordination of relationships with Participatory City UK, other global learning campuses, and at the community level. Participatory Canada should consider how to implement, grow, and scale the following functions of the school: • As a first touchpoint into the Participatory City approach for new communities • As a way to coordinate learnings across cities and teams • As an aggregator of outcomes and impact measurement

“A full scale participation model serving as a school for communities across Canada” The initial deep learning campus in Canada should provide a local connection into the global Participatory City learning platform. The connection to the Here&Now school could help facilitate new learnings and opportunities to co-build new initiatives with local teams and partners. Connecting into a larger network of experimentation could also provide benefits for the domestic and global community to adopt emerging practices. Testing would need to be conducted to better understand how the Canadian deep learning campus can leverage the Participatory City learning architecture while identifying how to best share the learnings back to the global platform and other participating cities in Canada. The initial three city prototypes in Halifax, Montreal, and Toronto can serve as the testing grounds for the potential variations of the adapted learning infrastructure and their connection to the school.

Partnerships and Relationships At the onset of growing the deep learning city implementation, strong relationships and dedicated resources will need to be established to ensure in-person learning occurs and relationships form. This will require the creation of collaborative partnerships between Participatory Canada and local governments to design and engage key individuals, building trust and localizing the Participatory City approach based on the current Canadian prototypes. The Participatory Canada team should consider how to engage with post-secondary institutions, academics, and experts (designers) since they will be necessary in building local capacity and establishing the Canadian Campus. Over time, engagement with these organizations and individuals will need to scale across Canada to support and connect to other learning campuses. Funding relationships with philanthropic and public sector partners will need to be established to catalyze early investments into the school and deep learning implementation.

240

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

• As field based sites for demonstration of social R&D practices • As a skills and knowledge ‘educator’ • As an ongoing learning and training place for cities and communities

Resources Adequate resources are needed to create the conditions necessary for successfully growing Participatory Canada for developing learning campuses (initially a deep demonstration in one place) and for supporting broader growth and scaling in other communities and cities over time. Both people and financial resources are required to provide the support for the on-theground efforts to create, measure, and demonstrate sustained impact of practical participatory ecosystems (see Figure 12).

People Capital The roles and responsibilities of city teams and a national team depend on the purpose and function of each entity. In the key scenario surfaced by participants in the three strategic sessions, the national team would function as the School to support the deep demonstration city implementation. The national team should be established at the onset to provide support and leadership to all participating cities and communities. Roles and responsibilities should be focused on several key areas to embed the current learnings of the Participatory City approach and to communicate the initiative to build relationships across the country. Participatory Canada would offer partnerships and collaboration, national level developmental evaluation, codification of learnings, and knowledge building. It would also take the lead in coordinating the construction of learning formats, curriculum and materials, and disseminating and diffusing the expertise, research, and know-how to other Canadian cities that adopt the Participatory City approach. Support from the national team in the early stages of the deep implementation city should help amplify relationship building, connections to the global platform, and coordination of financing for the prototypes. Overall, the national team should be responsible for fostering relationships to build and finance the infrastructures needed for the development and implementation of the approach as the network of partner cities and neighbourhoods grows over time. Each city would require a local team to help steward the learnings of the Participatory City approach and to adapt the approach to their local context and communities. City teams should initially focus on building practical participatory ecosystems through on the ground programs and connections to the Participatory Canada city network. City teams in the early stages should be composed of experts in the field of community program development, delivery, and design, to be able to support and execute complex initiatives. After approximately two years of successfully growing the participation systems locally, a city should become a Deep Learning Campus, with the expertise and programming to develop and implement immersive experiential courses that could be used and experienced by new city teams. Overall, the city teams should leverage the skills of designers, project and program managers, storytellers, and collaborators to establish and build towards the local vision, establish and nurture relationships, and support community initiatives that develop the practical participation ecosystems within their local communities.

D eep Implementation City Medium Implementation City Support Team

Light Implementation City

D eep Implementation City

Light Implementation City

D eep Implementation City D eep Implementation City

Support Team

Figure 12 - Supporting the growth of Participatory Canada

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

241

Figure 13 - Estimated costs associated with an example of one cohort of cities at different levels of implementation depth of the Participatory City approach over five years

Participatory Canada should develop financial estimates and assumptions for initially supporting one deep and four medium city implementations with the intention of supporting a further 5 small implementation cities by year 3. As they mature, cities might run a full deep demonstration Every One Every Day program at scale within a city, reaching a population of 220,000.

242

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Financial Estimates Participatory Canada should develop financial estimates and assumptions for initially supporting one deep and four medium city implementations with the intention of supporting a further 5 small implementation cities by year 3. Early stage prototype implementations for a city, lasting from three to twelve months, could have cost ranges of $125,000 to $650,000 for a team, platform components and shop locations. The financial projections accompanying this section reference the Barking and Dagenham, UK use case, which may inflate costing projections due to a mature social and participatory infrastructure built to this point. In years 0-3, Participatory Canada may scale up or down the number of shopfronts and maker spaces as well as the size of the learning campus support for each of the deep, medium and small implementations. Early portfolios of prototypes across neighbourhoods, or even cities, should be explored to test system components and how they interact with inter and intra-city learning and global knowledge sharing and mobilization. As cities mature in embedding the Participatory City approach, costs could increase to around $2.6 million per year to run a full deep demonstration Every One Every Day program at scale within a city, reaching a population of 220,000. This estimate accounts for 5 shop fronts at maturity, with the system proliferating across various neighborhoods within the city. Small to Medium sized implementations would target to have 2 and 3 shop fronts at maturity to engage up to 120,000 individuals. Each city implementation would have funding to support learning architecture in their local contexts. Figure 13 describes the estimated costs associated with an example set of cities at different levels of implementation depth of the Participatory City approach in one cohort of cities that join Participatory Canada at the same time - one deep implementation city; four medium scale implementation cities; and five small implementation cities. The financial estimates in the example do not reflect the addition of costs from other cohorts of cities joining each subsequent year. See Appendix B for financial notes and assumptions.

Financial Capital Early stage funding of Participatory Canada could target public granting opportunities for city prototype development and for establishing the learning and system components that would create the foundations for the deep learning campus. Near term options for funding explored through the strategic sessions gravitated towards traditional funding and granting opportunities through public and philanthropic funds. The team should also focus on raising funds from provincial and federal governments, starting in the early stages, in particular drawing on social and civic infrastructure, and COVID-19 recovery budgets. Participatory Canada is also a good candidate for continued funding through the Investment Readiness Program32, to help build on the early city prototype work. As evaluation and measurement is in development in early stages, and it is more difficult to directly demonstrate impact, more complex methods related to outcomes based financing, like social impact bonds, community bonds, and other private capital, would not yet be appropriate.

The ambition from Participatory Canada, combined with perspectives shared by participants in the strategic sessions, indicated a preference to have municipal support and budget allocation geared towards practical participatory ecosystems, likeinvesting in Participatory Canada. Later stages of funding could start to leverage outcomes based financing methods to supplement city funds, which would be based on outcomes achieved in early stages, with the anticipation of demonstrating deeper and more impactful outcomes after ten years. Medium to long term options should be more defined, with attributable and traceable outcomes and impact measurement to build business cases with predictable returns on investment. Additionally, funding from social impact bonds, community bonds or other financing with an impact lens could apply in the long term to finance the physical assets and infrastructure for growing and scaling Participatory Canada. Participants of the three strategic sessions stressed that Participatory Canada should work towards fulfilling the ambition of the programming being sustainably financed and embedded long-term into municipal balance sheets, similar to how library systems are funded as free, community resources. Outcomes and impact measurement will be critical in demonstrating the viability and effectiveness of the practical participatory ecosystems over time. Specifically at the city level, aligning with desired neighborhood and city impact objectives, and at the national level, aligning with large community infrastructure impact objectives.

Strategic Considerations In defining the total people and financial costs for growing and scaling Participatory Canada, the team should consider the degree of funding and operational support provided by the National team. There is great benefit in providing national support and resources to develop a robust team and programming to increase the chances of success for the deep implementation city and overall validation of the Participatory City approach in Canada. The team should consider how much funding and support is required and can be provided from the national level, both people and financial resources, as new cities join the Participatory Canada network. This consideration will need to balance the nurturing of the overall program in Canada through growth and scaling, while creating capacity within and between cities and with decreasing reliance on the National team for ongoing sustainability over time. This could be achieved through building capacity in cohorts of new cities and enabling knowledge and skills transfers to future cohorts from established partner cities.

32 Employment and Social Development Canada (2019), “Investment Readiness Program”, https:// www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/social-innovation-social-finance/ investment-readiness.html

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

243

Evidence Developing evidence of impact through evaluation is highly important for Participatory Canada to consider both in the early stages of implementation and ongoing over time. Demonstrating impact in the broad context of Canadian cities will be essential to prove the viability and effectiveness of systems change through practical participatory ecosystems. At a local level this will be reflected in the need to demonstrate the success of the learning architecture and how the Participatory City approach is deployed and adapted in each local context. To date, a developmental evaluation approach has been used to continuously learn and iterate through the three city prototypes in Halifax, Montreal, and Toronto. This has helped develop an understanding of the Participatory City processes, activities, and early impacts. Participants in the three strategic sessions indicated that this method of evaluation should continue to be relied upon in the deep implementation cities and when onboarding new cities in Canada. Evaluation will continue to generate information that leads to the refinement of Participatory Canada at the national level, and at the local community and city level through developing and documenting learnings for new cities to consider when initializing the Participatory City approach in their own communities.

“Need to build UNDERSTANDING of the system – how is it different?” Participatory Canada should use the Participatory City Outcomes Framework as a model to employ within Canada to measure and monitor the systemic benefits manifested through compound outcomes. It also supports the measurement of the overall impacts achieved via engagement and proliferation of participatory projects within communities33. Participants in the three strategic sessions strongly emphasized the need for reliable evidence and impact to be demonstrated initially through the deep implementation city to form the trust and agency needed to embed the Participatory City approach into our cities in Canada. Cities should use this approach in the short term to document the direct and immediate effects (e.g. participation and projects) while capturing the compound outcomes over the long term (e.g. mental wellbeing, and growing confidence and capabilities). This will not only give cities the deepening confidence to adopt the Participatory City approach, it will also provide much needed evidence to funders to provide funding support for sustainable implementation.

“Not the sum of the work but amplified outcomes of impact” Key factors, which can be identified for impact and value creation over time and that improve the wellbeing of individuals, families and neighbourhoods, were focused on during the strategic convening session discussions. Each factor should be tracked and reported on over time. For some factors it may be challenging to attribute causal relationships. However, proxies should be identified and used to generate sufficient information to demonstrate financial impacts which can be leveraged for outcomes based financing for funding programs or used as cost avoidance accounting for cities. The following factors are informed outcomes aggregated from the Participatory City UK Y2 Report and supplemented by conversations in the convening sessions. • Education: Provide spaces for collaboration, interaction and learning to benefit the sense of community while fostering the necessary skills to participate in the community and local economy. This can manifest into higher literacy rates, completion of secondary and post-secondary education, greater skills development, and the opportunity to assume meaningful employment. These benefits could translate into a reduction of costs for unemployment. • Work: Develop spaces and opportunities for individuals and neighbours to come together to create products and services for the local community. This provides income and a sense of belonging within the community. This directly translates into a reduction of costs for unemployment. • Health and wellbeing: Create the necessary programs and connections into the community to generate positive experiences such as feeling welcomed, included and accepted within a community. Additionally, the promotion of growing, preparing, and eating healthy, home-cooked food, while pursuing active lifestyles, provides outlets to have fun and focus on self and family health. These factors may contribute to the reduction and use of health services. • Crime: Create purpose and connection in the community to help reduce criminal and mischief activities. This can lead to a significant savings in detainment and policing costs for a city, and justice system costs for the province and country. • Caring: Ease the burden on families and provide meaningful work and a sense of belonging within the community by participating in programs that foster co-caring opportunities for children and elderly community members. This leads to stronger community connections and a reduced financial and time burden for families around care. At a higher level, this reduces the need for child and elderly care services.

Compound Outcomes The compound and amplified outcomes resulting from Participatory City programs and systems are the driver and value generation for communities and cities. Early indicators, such as participation and programs within a community, create deep impact and shifts in the way our communities function and how resilient they are long term to socioeconomic shocks.

Evidence of System and Social Change Through the strategic session consultations, proof of systems change and achievement of the ambitions of Participatory Canada can be identified by the following evidence being demonstrated within participating communities: • Development of micro and local economies that foster resilience in communities

Participatory City Foundation, (2020), “Tools to Act”, Page 30, http://www.participatorycity.org/ tools-to-act

244

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

• Reduction in racial tensions, Indigenous reconciliation realized from greater participation and inclusive programs through co-creation within communities.

• Positive social and civic asset value by virtue of flourishing communities, community engagement, and thriving local economics. • Demonstrating the tangible and intangible benefits to cities, resulting in buy-in from municipalities and investment from various levels of government.

Team and Relationships Developmental evaluators and measurement leads need to be established at the national level and within the city teams to support learning and iteration cycles, and create and adhere to the evaluation frameworks set out by Participatory Canada. These individuals should be in two-way communication with the global learning platform to facilitate knowledge transfer and oversight of the collective impacts across Participatory City. Within the early phases of the deep implementation city, Participatory Canada should provide guidance in teaching the frameworks developed in Barking and Dagenham while looking to make refinements for the local context. Creating and developing these communication channels will help support the business cases of Participatory Canada to grow deeply within and across cities. Developing clear communication channels and transparency of data will create trust within the system, across the global learning platform, city leaders, local organizations, and community members.

Strategic Considerations Participatory Canada will need to decide on the degree of centralization and embeddedness with respect to the national team supporting evaluation and measurement of city implementations in both the near and long term. A preference towards city led capture of data, with support from Participatory Canada, should be tested across the city implementations to assess its viability. Consistent frameworks and tools need to be available to local teams to help standardize the practice of measurement for both the development of the Participatory City approach in Canada as well as demonstrating the outcomes and impacts from the local activities. The degree of development of these tools by the national team or at the city level should also be considered and tested. Once outcomes are captured, they can be shared by the cities to the global platform to support collaboration and building of expertise across the full global community of Participatory City practitioners.

lle c Fa tive mi lie Imp s & ac Yo t In un di g ca Pe to o p rs le

CO 2

CO 1

CU RE & SE

COL LE INDIV CTIVE IDU EF AL S & FECT FA MI TO LIE S

S OOD RH

tors #7 t Indica mpac ent ive I m lect Environ

Collective Imp ac Mental & P t Indicat o hysic al He rs #1 alth

Col

HB IG NE

CO 3

15 Inclusivity principles

HO UR

Co Col lle le c

H IG

CO LL EC TI

CO -C RE A NE

IDUALS, TO INDIV ECT EFF OURHOODS B E H G V I TI NE EC ES, & LL LI CO AMI F

Coll ec Coh tive I esio mp n & act Ne Ind igh ica bo to ur rs lin # es 5 s

CO 4

e Impact Indicators #4 Collectiv Learning & Work

D TE

3 rs # ato dic rhood n I u t ac h b o mp ig e I & Ne v i g ct lle rnin Co Lea

#6 n ors tio at duc dic ro I n -p c t Co pa & Im on e cti iv ct ve A ti

W EL L

TIVE AGENCY COLLEC

Outcomes Framework V.2. 2019

CO - Compound Outcome

Figure 14 - Participatory City Outcomes Framework

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

245

Coordination, Relationships, and Communications The six essential components are all underpinned by three common elements of coordination, communication and relationships that will support the growth and scaling of practical participatory ecosystems and ultimately Participatory Canada. Learnings from the Canadian experiments as well as the deep knowledge of Barking and Dagenham will be crucial in identifying how these elements can be effectively utilized and organized at the onset of the deep implementation city and subsequent light, medium, and deep implementations. Most prominently, these elements form the foundations to assist the Participatory Canada implementations to succeed and grow through shared learnings and effective management of relationships and alignment of the six essential components for scaling participatory systems. These elements will also be key factors in the development of sustainable and viable local programming and economic conditions for Participatory Canada. Communications and relationships are critical for the growth of Participatory Canada to effectively tell the story of potential and realized impact generated within communities and to build interest, demand, and collaborative support for the approach across cities. Having sound management and talent to bring these elements together will also affect successful growth. Ultimately, the Participatory Canada team should consider how coordination, communication, and relationships will be affected and how they can support the growth and scaling of the Participatory City approach as they grow and scale across the six elements over the next ten years.

Figure 15 - Ten year roadmap for Participatory Canada

246

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Scaling over Three Time Horizons In addition to considering the six essential components and the three supporting elements of coordination, communication and relationships, Participatory Canada will also need to build and scaffold foundations around people, sustainable financing, and networks over the next ten years (see Figure 15). Through the next decade, the initial ‘national’ support needed from the city teams may transition to a different type of support for more mature cities as the model builds capacity within cities across Canada over time. Formalized structures and nurtured relationships with the global campus will allow new cities and communities to join and utilize the Participatory City approach to create more practical participatory ecosystems.

The Near Term (0-3 years): People The immediate and near term time horizon should focus on bringing together the right people, infrastructures and spaces for the initial cohort of cities. It is imperative to continue to leap-frog the learnings from the UK and Canadian experiments, focusing on the development of the outcomes measurement frameworks (to support future financing) and the vision and growth of Participatory Canada across the nation.

Establishing the first cohort of cities Of high importance is the development of the initial deep demonstration city and the accompanying Here&Now campus. This demonstration site will form a strong validation case for the Participatory City program in Canada. Critical to its success will be the team that is assembled to develop the participatory infrastructure, bring expertise and program knowledge, design and execute the programs, and lastly, to engage the community. Additionally, four cities with medium support from the national team will comprise the rest of the first cohort. They will begin to build capacity in their local contexts, preferably in diverse regions across Canada to increase Participatory Canada’s exposure across the nation. These cities will then provide the support and mentorship for another five small or light implementations to continue to build momentum for participatory systems in our Canadian cities.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

247

Considerations: •

Explore and identify a potential deep implementation city. Understanding required of local vision, context and expertise within each potential city to choose a deep implementation city site and additional smaller implementation cities.

•

Identify the minimum viable system to drive local impact, while contributing nationally and globally to the Participatory City approach.

Developing Outcomes Frameworks Specific outcomes and measurement frameworks will need to be established at the onset to capture necessary data to be used in general communication and in building business cases for additional funding. The data collected will allow the Participatory Canada team to better understand and attribute the impacts of the program to develop the case for future cost savings or returns on investment to engage potential funders. Whether financing comes later on from outcomes funders (private sector), philanthropists, or municipal budgets, the data collected will be an integral input to rally the support of these potential partners and funders.

Goals of this Phase Onboarding teams, potential partners and interested groups Establishing a national team with necessary expertise and vision to lead the development of Participatory Canada will be foundational to start developing the resources and bandwidth to focus on supporting city teams. Coalescing additional roles and responsibilities, such as program managers, coordinators, and evaluators, will help to develop core infrastructure and future focused capabilities. Developing capabilities like impact measurement, reporting standards, communication, and learning, will create the conditions necessary to start leap-frogging current participatory practices, while priming Participatory Canada for future financing and business case development. Furthermore, through strong narratives and partnerships, key potential partners like city officials and potential funders of Participatory Canada will need to be brought along the journey to have visibility into the impacts and evolution of the program. Interested groups will be engaged by building trust and being educated on the importance of transitioning towards practical participatory ecosystems.

Considerations: •

Define effective ways to onboard new colleagues into the Participatory City ecosystem that leverage digital tools and media due to the ongoing pandemic. Although experiential learning and in-person activities were the preferred methods noted by participants in the convening sessions and subsequent discussions, the realities of interacting with one another may be limited.

Community Engagement A strong focus should be placed directly on the communities participating in the first cohort of cities to effectively communicate, establish local leadership, and develop capacity for the Participatory City approach. Looking to best-practices from city experiments in the UK and Canada will help support the narratives and methods to effectively do so.

248

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Onboard five cities into Participatory Canada, supporting one deep demonstration city and four medium implementation cities. An additional five cities will be identified to be supported through a light exploration into Participatory Canada.

Develop the people resource capacity and expertise to facilitate the execution of the Participatory City approach in the local contexts of the ten cities.

Develop and test initial outcomes architecture to begin demonstrating the values and impacts of the Participatory City approach.

The Medium Term (3-5 years): Sustainable Financing Over the medium term, establishing sustainable financing methods should be emphasised to promote the scaling of practical participatory ecosystems in Canada. In this phase Participatory Canada should grow from the initial cohorts of cities, towards financing and establishing the next decade of cohorts. Outcomes measurement, data, and strong narratives from the city implementations will be critical inputs for the success of establishing sustainable financing.

Sustainable Financing As a lead city, the deep implementation site will be relied upon to provide strong evidence and data that establishes a strong business case for the Participatory City approach. Two major financing tools that would allow for sustained growth of Participatory Canada are outcomes based financing and municipal support by way of budgetary spending on the programs. Outcomes based financing would require demonstration of attribution of the desired outcomes that would be purchased by an outcomes funder. The infrastructure and methods for capturing and reporting on the impacts generated through the Participatory City approach will need to be quickly established and tested at the onset of the first cohort of cities in order to produce and collect the required data. Municipal budget spending would also require demonstration of impacts from the program to justify either a spend or a reallocation of funds to produce the desired community benefits and results from the Participatory City approach. Additionally, continuing to create and share the stories and narratives produced from the local initiatives could support the business cases and development of relationships with potential funders who need to see the impacts demonstrated through evidence.

Solidifying the deep demonstration site In this time frame, the Canadian Here&Now campus should be fully operational and sustainable, providing a hub of expertise for cities across Canada. This campus should be the main domestic point of interaction for all communities and cities currently utilizing, or keen to develop, practical participatory ecosystems.

Establishing second cohort of Cities This phase will look to support an additional four Canadian cities in using the Participatory City approach. Critical to their successful initiation will be the support from the first cohort of cities, through immersive experiences, learning and capacity building, and guidance. The Participatory Canada team should provide coordination support for the new cohort of cities. It should also leverage the first cohort of cities’ expertise in building the capacity for and embedding the Participatory City approach, programs, and learning architectures locally in their cities.

Goals of this Phase 1.

Support 4 additional cities by leveraging the first cohort’s lessons learned, expertise and guidance to leap-frog the cities into using the Participatory City approach.

Utilize the accessible outcomes architecture and demonstrate the values and impacts of the Participatory City approach to funders and potential partners.

Offer guidance and expertise at the Canadian Here&Now campus to help other cities develop the capacity for social systems change.

Considerations: •

Validate and test the types of funding methods and approaches used to best leverage the available resources, relationships, and factors within the local context. For example, a city implementation with strong political support may be able to leverage public funds to support ongoing sustainability of the Participatory City approach. While another city, without strong political support, may utilize the deep outcomes measurement framework to utilize outcomes based methods or community bond issuances.

•

Understand the motivations of funders to better align or position Participatory Canada as a useful tool for cities to employ. Consider that pandemic response and economic recovery efforts in the medium term may pose opportunities or challenges when targeting public funding.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

249

The Long Term (5-10 years): Building Networks By the ten year time frame, Participatory Canada should look to deepen relationships and networks that enable long term growth and scaling of the Participatory City approach. The ambition conveyed in the strategic convening sessions suggested that Participatory Canada should aim to support the Participatory City approach where there is clear demand and appropriate conditions in at least 50 Canadian cities or communities by 2030, all of which would support one another to develop the necessary programs, assets, and systems to achieve positive social outcomes. In the ten year time frame, impacts should be felt within the cities that have developed the practical participatory ecosystems, demonstrating clear community value and continuing to propel the growth of Participatory Canada.

Embed Participatory Canada across Five Regions in Canada As more cities are supported by the Participatory Canada platform beyond the initial two cohorts of cities, Participatory Canada should focus on exploring a geographic network structure as an option to provide more localized support for cities. This structure could help scale to additional cities by developing relationships and building capacity in new cities in a region while supporting the coordination and dissemination of learnings from other cities, regions or global experiments. Each region could focus on building lead cities to create a regional support network and demonstration of the Participatory City approach that could be adopted by neighbouring communities and cities.

Supporting Lead Cities Deep demonstration cities and more mature implementations should be supported by Participatory Canada in developing learning experiences for other cities. The local learning campuses and stories developed from their implementations of the Participatory City approach should be accessible for shared learning by Participatory Canada and the global learning platform. There may be resources (people capacity and funding) needed to further support the coordination for deeper collaboration and learning opportunities during this expansionary phase of Participatory Canada.

Long term financing and sustainability In this phase, Participatory Canada should also focus on sustaining existing financing and finding and establishing new, sustainable financing to support ongoing program delivery while catalyzing support for new cities. The national team can help facilitate and support the building of relationships, education for key potential partners and interested groups, and sharing program data to develop new business cases for support. With a mature Participatory Canada by 2030, various funding methods should be tested to see which best support cities and their networks across the phases of implementation, leading to the development of best practices around financing models.

250

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Assumptions, Constraints and Future Considerations Through the three strategic convening sessions, other discussions, and secondary research, many assumptions, constraints and future considerations surfaced that should be addressed by Participatory Canada over the next ten years to effectively grow and scale the Participatory City approach. Using a futures lens and systemic solutions to consider possible externalities and uncertainties will ensure that the growth of Participatory Canada remains flexible and adaptable to any possible pathway the Participatory Canada Roadmap might take during this decade.

A. Scale of Implementation: Deep (large) to small implementations Most of the Participatory Canada Roadmap describes the scale, or depth of implementation, as the quantity of programs within a given city. This includes the number of shopfronts, learning architecture elements in the school, and participation from cities across the programs. Participatory Canada should work to identify and measure other factors across the essential components for scaling (see Figure 7) that currently play a role in successfully embedding the core principles, expertise, and momentum towards practical participation ecosystems. For example, other essential components of deep scaling could include how deep the knowledge and experience of practitioners may be in a community and in a city overall.

B. City scaling through existing participatory practices Participants in the strategic sessions advised to create one deep city implementation to provide a successful use case that can build confidence for potential partners and funders in scaling the Participatory City approach to other eager cities. However, this pathway omits the potential to leverage a blossoming social sector that is emerging across Canada. A focus of Participatory Canada could be on supporting communities with existing participatory practices in place. Adding the Participatory City approach to existing practices could amplify the effects of existing programming, leading to faster and stronger creation of social and systemic infrastructure for long term systems change and community resilience. There are many organizations and large public agencies that can provide the connections, resources, and programs to scale quite rapidly across municipalities while enabling adaptation to each local context. Leveraging community networks could create opportunities for scaling the adoption of ‘products’ like the Tomorrow Today Street kits in 190+ municipalities across Canada. Participatory Canada should explore partnerships in cities with ongoing social R&D and practical participation infrastructure to see how, collectively, impact can be accelerated in those communities.

C. Leap-frogging (additive practices) Participatory Canada should ‘leap-frog’ support as much as possible for every new city implementation to build off existing learnings, architecture, and infrastructure rather than starting from scratch each time. This would enable quicker and more successful deployment and development of impacts for people, place, and planet compared to each previous city implementation. Building off other experiments and use cases predicates a high degree of learning and immersive experiences to fully understand the conditions for success and how they may apply to new contexts. This will have implications to how cities construct and educate their teams prior to, and during implementation, creating the necessary capacity to effectively implement these practical participatory ecosystems within their communities in highly adaptive ways.

D. Maintaining momentum for learning and collaboration across time As a relatively new initiative in Canada, the momentum and ‘stickiness’ of the sharing of new learnings and collaboration across teams will need to be proven over time. As the model matures, Participatory Canada and the city teams should consider how to redistribute the effort needed to continue to increase the approach’s effectiveness, draw on new learnings, and create best practices that can be used for leapfrogging. For example, types of learning architecture that favour in person engagement or intimate learning can keep energy high, but require dedicated resources and potentially higher costs to sustain. Programs for practitioners, such as communities of practice, utilize the interest and energy from participants and can bridge distance through digital mediums, but also require effort and coordination to curate and sustain relevant topics. Over time, these types of initiatives may succumb to lack of inertia and relevancy for participants and should be recognized as a potential risk to decreasing effectiveness of the approach in later phases of Participatory Canada growth and scaling.

E. What does sunsetting look like for partners and organizations? While there is an ambition to have funding for the Participatory City approach embedded into each city budget as part of ongoing support costs for social infrastructure, there is no clear pathway for how to shift it there. Participatory Canada will need to manage emerging tensions along this pathway from funding and early-stage partners on how their engagement in Participatory Canada sunsets and transitions to longer term partners and funders as the program builds capacity and grows in local communities over time.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

251

F. Pandemics The potential persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the potential for emerging future pandemics could cause ongoing socio-economic challenges that might impact how Participatory Canada grows and scales. In the near term, the team should focus on how to safely hold in-person and immersive experiences, as well as experiential learning, while making and testing alterations for programming using digital means. These adaptations will significantly impact how practitioners and new teams learn and experience leading examples in London, UK and at the Canadian deep demonstration campus. Furthermore, the socio-economic challenges emerging in communities may require a shift in the type of participatory programs and accompanying infrastructure that is needed in communities. This could transpire by shifting from persistent community challenges (eg. accessing and growing healthy food) to emergent challenges experienced through the pandemic (eg. creating an open making society to cultivate the local economy). These changes should be developed and evaluated over time, shifting as the needs in communities change.

G. Limited financial resources in cities In recent years, and exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, municipalities are facing increasing pressure to deliver more services with small budgets. They are constrained by tight financial positions due to a large focus on climate transition, high breadth and costs to deliver services within the city, and a looming gap in infrastructure spending from other levels of government. This reality may become more severe in the future given the challenges, and resulting spending from Canadian governments for recovery efforts related to COVID-19. Participatory Canada should consider what growth and scaling might look like with less reliance on city funding and embedding into city budgets. Sustainable funding with other long term funding partners should be explored, including considering how transition finance can be leveraged to create and embed participatory social infrastructure into communities over the next decade.

H. Demonstrating impact Participatory Canada ultimately will need to consider how to create and demonstrate and measure impact across communities and cities in the Canadian context as a key step to wide-spread growth and scaling in Canada. Measurement frameworks should be developed and tested with existing and potential partners and funders over time. These tools should ensure that intangible outcomes, like happiness and quality of friendships, can translate into large measurable impacts, like reduced use and spending in the healthcare and justice systems, that can be supported and funded in long term and sustainable ways. Demonstrating impact will be the key factor in successfully growing and scaling the Participatory City approach.

252

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Understanding Emerging Demand Participatory Canada has been demand-driven since its inception. It is not a ‘push model’ that is implemented in communities from a top-down perspective. Instead, it was created based on the demand from a number of municipalities and communities in the field to learn more about and test the feasibility of the Participatory City approach. It sparked interest for several years in many places in Canada, including Quebec. Over the past couple of years, with the emergence of Participatory Canada, a number of community leaders and organizations have been turning towards la MIS to explore the possibility of implementing this approach in their community to bring participatory work to the next level. In addition to the work that Solon has been developing and supporting in Ahuntsic-Cartierville in Montreal, a number of other communities and jurisdictions in the Greater Montreal region and elsewhere in Quebec have taken steps to build the Participatory City approach. Communities and organizations in other parts of Canada have also shown interest and reached out. This increase in interest and moving toward action deserves to be explored and analyzed further. Some questions that Participatory Canada should consider further as they work on growing and scaling the initiative include: • Why is there a burst of interest now? • What elements of the Participatory City approach are the most appealing to interested actors and potential partners? • Are these actors already involved in some of the numerous participatory initiatives in their community? If yes, how can the Participatory City approach be hybridized with these existing participatory initiatives to generate more impact? • What in the Participatory City approach is of most interest for potential funders? How can this help structure a Canadian narrative and ensure sustainable funding for Participatory Canada? Understanding this emerging demand more accurately could help strategically inform the building of Participatory Canada over the next ten years as it grows in different cities across Canada.

Using a futures lens and systemic solutions to consider possible externalities and uncertainties will ensure that the growth of Participatory Canada remains flexible and adaptable to any possible pathway the Participatory Canada Roadmap might take during this decade.

Conclusion The Participatory Canada Roadmap advises on the direction of potential future strategy through growth and scaling of the Participatory City approach in Canada. The Participatory Canada Team, along with current and potential partners, will use the information captured in the strategic convening sessions, accompanied by their initial reflections on the Roadmap, as key data points to inform sequencing and implementation for strategic planning that will occur in early 2021. The goal will be to use the Roadmap for the long term planning by the core team to inform the possible future directions for further development and implementation of the Participatory City approach in Canada. The Roadmap identified key themes, gaps, constraints, assumptions, implications, and opportunities that will need to be considered by the Participatory Canada team over the 1, 5 and 10 year path of growing and scaling implementation. They will need to consider how to ensure balanced growth over the next decade of the six essential components of vision, context, learning architecture, school, resources, and evidence in scaling practical participatory ecosystems while ensuring coordination, communication and relationships also grow proportionally and sufficiently to support the growing network of cities across Canada. Similarly, focusing on people in the near term, sustainable financing in the medium term, and networks in the long term will support scaffolding in the growth and scaling pathway. Through the three strategic convening sessions, many points of alignment were identified between the participants, city experiment teams, and the existing principles of the Participatory City approach to also support systemic growth and scaling. These elements of consensus should serve as initial design principles for Participatory Canada to be observed by the city and national teams while designing and supporting the deep implementation city and subsequent smaller and medium sized city implementations. In-person learning, balanced by digital alternatives, will be foundational to the development of Participatory Canada. In the early phases, the focus and attention to the capabilities and capacity for local experts to adapt the Participatory City approach for Canadian city implementations will be critical. While immersive

experiences will allow individuals and teams at the forefront of new city implementations to understand the intangible benefits of practical participation ecosystems, they will need to be balanced against the constraints of safety, to be overcome through modifications such as safe gatherings or digital programming to establish similar experiential learnings. The deep demonstration campus will be necessary for validation of the approach for potential partners, funders, and interested groups. Creating and proving success locally, combined with demonstrating the large impact of the approach (e.g. through poverty reduction, job creation, and decreased spending in health care) will help prove the model, ensuring sustainable financing and implementation for the long term. While the Roadmap puts forward choices to help frame the path and direction of Participatory Canada, to support the vision and ambition of the approach and to respond to the growing interest from cities, the national and city implementation teams will need to effectively leverage the thought leadership and knowledge from the experiences in Barking and Dagenham, and the early learning from the Participatory Canada city prototypes. Additionally, the efforts to grow and scale the approach will need to center evaluation, learning and continuous improvement while factoring in the unique challenges and vision for Participatory Canada. Over the near, medium and long term, the considerations and choices suggested for growing and scaling the essential components will need to be thought through, tested and evaluated to refine a domestic pathway for growing and scaling the Participatory City approach in Canada. Underlining these considerations are assumptions and gaps where the national and city teams will need to further explore and assess how they may impact the inclusion of the Participatory City approach within communities. The pathway for growing and scaling the Participatory City approach will hopefully be both exciting and systemic. Through the development and utilization of new impact measurement frameworks, Participatory Canada could become a leader in how to establish, embed, and finance participatory social infrastructure in Canada over the next decade, and beyond.

The pathway for growing and scaling the Participatory City approach will hopefully be both exciting and systemic. Through the development and utilization of new impact measurement frameworks, Participatory Canada could become a leader in how to establish, embed, and finance participatory social infrastructure in Canada over the next decade, and beyond.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

253

254

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Appendices Appendix A: Summary of Strategic Sessions Convening Session 1: Scaling The Scaling Scenarios session was the first session in a series of three strategic sessions that were used to develop the Participatory Canada Roadmap. The first session generated a shared understanding about what Participatory Canada aims to scale. Through the session, participants gained consensus on the desired ambition for Participatory Canada in a 10 year vision. Working backwards through time, key milestones surfaced for the 5 year and 1 year visions and their associated implementation components. Attendees Aggie Paulauskaite Alex Ryan Delyse Sylvester Greg Woolner Jayne Engle Jim Anderson Keren Tang Kia Kavoosi Mélanie Bisson

Nat Defriend Patrick Dubé Paul Messer Shannon Lutz Sophia Hortwitz Tessy Britton Tracey Robertson Virginie Zingraff Yanique Bird

Links • Briefing Note - http://shorturl.at/qzMQ7 • Briefing Slides developed by Participatory City Foundation http://shorturl.at/wxPSZ • Session Harvest - http://shorturl.at/hjAHS

Convening Session 2: Learning The second session looked to build a common understanding of the case for a national learning architecture for Participatory Canada. This would catalyze the work of Canadian cities interested in experimenting with the Participatory City approach to co-define a set of learning mechanisms in a Canadian learning architecture to help cities achieve their goals and impact over the next 3–5 years. This was framed through three learning dimensions: 1.

How could a Participatory Canada learning architecture help accelerate the design, experimentation and application of best possible Participatory City practices at the local level to generate impact in Canadian cities?

How could a Participatory Canada learning architecture help build legitimacy of the Participatory City approach, and accelerate and maximize the commitment of key potential partners in Canadian cities (i.e., government officials, community organizations, citizen collectives)?

How could a Participatory Canada learning architecture help create the conditions to sustainably scale the Participatory City in Canadian cities, beyond the three prototype cities in Canada?

Attendees Aggie Paulauskaite Aimee Gasparetto Alex Ryan Andrea Nemtin Chloé Dodinot Dale McFee Delyse Sylvester Denise Soueidan-O’Leary Enniyeah Okere Greg Woolner Indy Johar

Jayne Engle Keren Tang Louise Ellaway Marie-Josée Parent Maude Lapointe Nat Defriend Pam Glode Paul Messer Shona Fulcher Sue Talusan Wissam Yassine Yanique Bird

Links • Briefing Note - shorturl.at/fFJLQ • Briefing Slides developed by Participatory City Foundation http://shorturl.at/lmwT6 • Session Harvest - http://shorturl.at/tzAT5

Convening Session 3: Financing The purpose of the Financing Scenarios Session was to help identify the last set of information required to design the Participatory Canada Roadmap. Overall, the session aimed to generate possible pathways and tools to financing a scaled Participatory Canada, including: • Identifying funders and funding appropriate for financing Participatory Canada • Discussing how funders could get interested and commit to funding, and • Selecting which financial tools would be well suited to the implementation of Participatory Canada based on the outcomes, time horizons and scale of funding required. Through the session, participants worked with two Participatory Canada Scenarios around nationally led or city led implementation leadership over 1, 3-5 and 10 year time horizons to explore the financial impacts between the two.

Attendees Adam Jagelewski Alex Ryan Delyse Sylvester Denise Soueidan-O’Leary Greg Woolner Jayne Engle Jennifer Angel Keren Tang Kia Kavoosi Louise Ellaway Mélanie Bisson

Michelle Baldwin Micheal Lukowitz Mike Davis Nat Defriend Patrick Dubé Paul Messer Shannon Lutz Sophia Horwitz Tessy Britton Tracy Robertson

Links • Briefing Note - http://shorturl.at/zEGNP • Financing Pre-read Slides - http:// shorturl.at/itN37 • Session Summary - http:// shorturl.at/dwyKO PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

255

Appendix B: Financial Considerations Participatory Canada Financial Projections

Notes: 1.

These are examples for illustrative purposes, describing the deep (large), medium and small implementations reaching approximately 75,000 to 220,000 people in a mature state with social and participatory infrastructure in place. Cost estimates are based on historical spends from Barking and Dagenham, UK and Participatory Canada, extrapolated to a total of 10 cities.

Deep implementation city includes additional National Learning campus costs, while medium and small implementation take proportional costs for local learning architecture.

Phased in costing over 3 years from the first year of each city implementation. Costs are realized by 33% in year 1, 67% by year 2, and 100% by year 3.

• 1 Deep City Implementation: 5 shopfronts reaching 220,000 people

National team costs estimated at $1.2M as per Participatory Canada forecasting and historical spend, phased in over 3 years.

Approximate non-staff costs for elements of the deep implementation (from Barking and Dagenham use case); shopfronts 11%, warehouse 5%, Tomorrow Today Streets 5%, communications 5%.

• 4 Medium City Implementations: 3 shopfronts reaching 120,000 people • 5 Small City Implementations: 2 shopfronts reaching 75,000 people

256

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

Staffing costs as a percentage of total implementation cost and is scaled based on the amount of shopfronts (3 designers per shop); neighbourhood staffing 35%, school staffing 13%.

Overhead costs at ~10% as per historical spend

The following details represent the estimates prepared for and details surfaced during the three strategic convening sessions. The details of suggested personnel and team structures validates early thinking from the Participatory Canada team.

People Resource Considerations Deep Implementation City Team (at onset, minimum 6 full time staff with additional contract support as needed) Each city requires a local team to help steward and adapt the Participatory City approach to their local context in an effort to create more participatory and inclusive communities. Project teams, consisting of designers, storytellers, collaboration development, and program leaders, manage the local vision, establish relationships and support community initiatives. The following represent potential roles that would be beneficial to include in the initial deep implementation city team. • Fully trained designers per shop. It was noted in the Barking & Dagenham experiments that three designers are needed per shop to facilitate and create the programs. They are the ’do-ers’ and on-the-ground experts of Participatory City practices and tools to help build capacity within a community. The number of designers will scale alongside program development and within a city to ensure effectiveness. There will be approximately 13 designers in one fully developed deep demonstration city site based on live experiments in Canada and the UK. • Communications. The communications lead is responsible for the storytelling, design, and creative assets for the deep city implementation and programs. They serve a dual role of co-creating assets with residents to drive engagement at the community level while communicating and reporting upwards on the outcomes to Participatory Canada and the global learning platform.

• Operational team consisting of a program director and evaluator. This team is responsible for overall management and holds the various relationships with community members, organizations, the national support team, and the global platform. The program director manages the program within their communities. They closely communicate with various partners and develop deep relationships within a city to establish trust and agency for the programs being developed and implemented. The evaluator and learning specialist supports the learnings and documents outcomes from the programs. They have a close relationship with the domestic school, other evaluators, and global teams to continue to refine, learn, and develop evaluative measures for the Participatory City approach. Participatory Canada Core Team (at onset, minimum 4 full time staff with additional contract support) This team should be established at the onset to provide support and leadership to the participating cities and communities. The roles and responsibilities focus on several key areas to embed the learnings of the Participatory City approach, and communicate the initiative to build relationships across the country. • Lead Director. The lead director for the national team builds and strengthens relationships with the global school, city and community teams, and strategic and funding partners. They play a lead role in creating content, strategy, communications, research and learning. • Coordinator. The Coordinator manages the administrative, programming, communications, and reporting obligations for the national team. • Evaluator across cities. The evaluator creates a national scale evaluation framework and helps embed new evaluation methods and learning while supporting local processes to capture relevant data. • Supporting local partnerships and fundraising initiatives. This role helps connect and build cases for funding across municipalities and communities. They can be regionally based, and activate community partners and connect cities to relevant funding opportunities.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA ROADMAP

257

7. TAKEAWAYS & LOOKING AHEAD

258

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

259

Takeaways and Looking Ahead Based on the learnings and the foundations of the social R&D phase, many partners are interested in moving into a deeper building and scaling period. A growing number of communities, organizations, foundations and government agencies have expressed interest in helping create this participatory social infrastructure, which would involve building and strengthening a network of residents, partners and champions across the country.

Key take-aways from Social R&D The Approach Is Highly Adaptive The findings from year 1 of social R&D show that the Participatory City approach to building large scale participation is feasible, highly adaptive and desirable in a variety of Canadian contexts.

Inclusion is Cultural and Ongoing The findings in this report show that the Participatory City approach is engaging a wide range of residents in each neighbourhood and is building networks that bring together individuals and communities that have not been connected previously. A key finding is that inclusion is inherently cultural. As a result, the conditions for inclusion must be tailor-made to suit each context and be continually adapted and improved. While there are ideas and approaches to learn from, inclusion will always come from building and continually creating these conditions with communities.

Viable, But Not Without Challenges

What happened in Canada was not simply a replication of a model from the UK, but the improvement, development and adaptation of an approach to meet the realities and contexts of our communities.

There are early indications that the Participatory City approach is viable in many different contexts and is able to integrate into existing ecosystems of local programs, community assets, and businesses.

In Nova Scotia, Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax is Indigenous-led and centres reconciliation in its work. In Montreal, Notre voisinage is building solidarity among longstanding residents and newcomers to Canada, with projects that foster community-led ecological transition. In Toronto, Our Neighbourhood is strengthening social cohesion, especially between residents from different backgrounds who live in different kinds of housing.

Despite this, there were challenges that influenced the viability of implementation in each city, most notably the COVID-19 restrictions of 2020 and 2021. These restrictions uprooted an approach that is fundamentally centred on bringing people together.

Prototyping simultaneously in three new cities was challenging, but paid dividends in rich learning. Local teams developed and adapted the Participatory City approach in their unique contexts, continuously improving, evolving, and building on lessons learned.

Additionally, the time commitment required to adequately meet the needs of each project extended beyond the capacity of all three teams. The relatively small teams in each city served different roles and functions (ie. communications, evaluation, delivery, management, administration, and more). This proved especially challenging for prototypes with part-time project team members or team members split between different projects.

Growing Community and Institutional Demand

Value for Communities for Longer Term Outcomes

There is strong demand and interest in this approach from civic leaders, developers and community organizations as well as from municipal and provincial governments. There is institutional demand at two levels:

Through a range of qualitative and quantitative data collected, the three prototypes demonstrated that the Participatory City approach is capable of delivering value for residents and neighbourhoods.

In each city the prototypes created multiple opportunities for residents to participate, a necessary building block for repeat participation, and has been shown to lead to individual- and community-level outcomes.

There is a wider interest and buy-in for community building from private, public, and civil society sector leaders. In this first R&D phase, the prototypes have formed partnerships with existing community service providers and local businesses. There is growing interest from decision-makers in larger institutions such as provincial and municipal governments. In the three pilot cities, major decision-makers see value and are drawn to the potential for the Participatory City approach to affect population-level outcomes.

Conversations are underway in several other communities who want to adapt the Participatory City approach in the near future.

260

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

The participation activities vary from context to context and from city to city, yet the value created is similar across all three cities. Common themes that surfaced during R&D include: residents feeling more connected to their communities; sharing and learning skills and culture; and having a hand in shaping future programming.

Knowledge generated from prototypes, convenings and from conversations with partners during the social R&D phase highlighted essential components for growing the practical participatory ecosystem within each city and across the country. These components are:

Vision

The vision for Participatory Canada must be co-developed with the partners to align with the ambitions unique to each city and community.

Context

Local conditions strongly influence the development of practical participation systems. Financial implications affect costs for social infrastructure and core assets, while social factors impact the types of activities.

Learning architecture

Participatory Canada should focus on curriculum and learning programs ranging from experiential and immersion to digital experiences to build capabilities with partners for the Participatory City approach.

School

Full scale implementation of the approach in one city will act as both a deep demonstration learning campus in Canada and the school to connect a growing set of hubs, share learnings and adaptations of the approach, build skills for local teams and communities, and support data collection and impact measurement.

Resources

The Participatory Canada vision requires well-trained teams and resources coordinated across the scaling phases and at the national and local levels

Evidence

Robust research and measurement and collection of data and stories will be crucial in understanding outcomes, making improvements continually, and developing financial sustainability through strong business cases for practical participation ecosystems within cities.

Coordination, relationships, and communication

Strong coordination of resources and networks across local and global programming, continuous development of relationships with partners and advocates and a range of creative and unique communication assets are additional elements that will support the growth and evolution of the Participatory City approach.

As Participatory Canada builds its foundation of these essential components for growing and scaling practical participation ecosystems, we see that a phased approach will be important over the next one, five, and 10 year horizons. Each phase would focus on supporting and growing people’s capabilities, identifying and mobilizing sustainable financing sources, and strategically scaling across geographies using a strong network and relationship approach.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

261

Partnership: Did We Accomplish What We Set Out To Achieve? The Participatory Canada ecosystem is substantial. We’ve involved hundreds of people—from strategic, government and foundation partners to implementers, local organizations and residents on the ground who are rolling up their sleeves. Partnerships in Participatory Canada are structured in a trifecta, with each group bringing unique expertise, knowledge, networks and resources. The success of the initiative relied on the synergy between all three groups: 1.

Participatory City Foundation – Knowledge and expertise in practical participatory ecosystems, including sharing of resources such as design, templates, past evaluations and learnings as part of the Here&Now School as well as mentoring, coaching and strategic-level support and guidance.

McConnell Foundation – Resources and nationwide networks including funding to support the social R&D phase and mobilizing energy and inquiry through its extensive network in cities and communities across the country.

Local partners – In-depth knowledge and networks in communities. Lead organizations in each city—Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre in Kjipuktuk-Halifax; Solon collectif in Montréal, and Centre for Social Innovation in Toronto— were critical in implementing and adapting the Participatory City approach on the ground. They have strong relationships with strategic partners such as civil society, municipal governments, and the private sector, which allows them to navigate existing participatory culture and landscape, and mobilize resources and buy-in important for the long-term success of the work.

Just as co-design was a fundamental principle guiding how each team co-created the participatory platform with residents, it was and is the working principle underlying all the partnerships throughout the social R&D phase. As much as possible, and as appropriate, local teams and the national core team (made up of members from Participatory City Foundation and McConnell Foundation and COLAB for developmental evaluation) made decisions together. This fostered the co-creation, co-learning and co-development spirit essential to the Participatory City approach. As with any learning experience, things weren’t always perfect. Between the pandemic and the virtual nature of working together, communication and information-sharing were not always smooth. We were constantly adjusting and reminding one another of roles and responsibilities.

262

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Ultimately, we did achieve most of what was set out in our respective agreements: • Co-design, plan and launch the R&D prototypes in KjipuktukHalifax, Montreal and Toronto; • Work together with each city’s team to achieve success of prototypes through continuous developmental evaluation methods; • Evaluate impact through continuous qualitative and quantitative data collection, analysis and reporting; • Explore desirability of a large scale initiative to emerge from this prototyping phase, through engaging with government, funders, and national and local organizations across sectors; and • Build learning infrastructure as part of a community of practice and the global Here&Now School of Participatory Systems and Design.

These objectives relied on the contribution and input from all groups. Partnership work is complex, can be messy and requires time to develop relationships, trust, shared vision and understanding. The social R&D phase has laid the foundation to continue and improve upon these partnerships.

Co-design is a methodology to achieve common aims through conversations designed to surface, analyze and combine different factors and design elements and recombine these into a cohesive strategy and plan. The co-design process is important to ensure that all important factors are surfaced and considered, that tacit knowledge and judgement are valued and incorporated throughout, that logistical factors are considered and that continuous adjustments are made as local residents respond to participation invitations.

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

263

Why This Matters and What’s Next? During its first phase, Participatory Canada demonstrated potential to contribute to larger-scale improvements in our cities and communities by bridging across differences, centering reconciliation, and reducing social isolation. In its next phase, partners aim to further build this participatory social infrastructure where there is demand. Partners will build in ways that strengthen community resilience, social cohesion and capabilities for local creativity and innovation so that communities can continually learn, adapt and act collectively in their transition efforts, while growing relationships of trust, with reconciliation at the heart of it all. Broader societal trends which are gaining momentum and with potential relevance for community resilience include: 1) redefining infrastructure so that we build to meet the increasing challenges of this age; 2) strengthening collective capabilities so that we can think, learn and act together with wisdom; and 3) innovating financing in order to value what matters while building community wealth and a wellbeing economy. Each of these trends needs to be addressed and embedded at the local level so that communities and residents have the agency and tools to strengthen resilience.

Redefining infrastructure The notion of infrastructure is changing. The recently proposed federal budget reveals stronger emphasis on the importance of social and natural infrastructure to improve community wellbeing. To be fit for the future, civic infrastructure will need to be more adaptive to enable people living in proximity to mobilize and work together in times of crisis. Building this infrastructure requires strengthening social capital. Early evidence shows that Participatory Canada can provide an effective platform to do just this. Government funding is critical, and will reinforce the concept that social infrastructure such as Participatory Canada should be a fundamental public investment and public good accessible to everyone to help build community resilience.

Innovating financing The pandemic revealed that financing resilience in local communities is more rapid and responsive when decisions are made closer to the ground. The current model of governments determining how community recovery occurs is increasingly inadequate. To respond to future shocks and chronic problems, communities need better financing tools at their disposal beyond the traditional grants, loans and equity investments available. Newer social and community finance tools exist, such as impact bonds, impact investments, and outcomes-based financing, however they are not yet at the required scale, and a greater range of instruments for community wealth building is needed. In short, there is a need to innovate community resilience financing. While a number of community wealth labs and initiatives are underway, and new economy models such as circular, doughnut, and wellbeing economy frameworks are increasingly being applied at local levels, they have not yet attracted substantial investment from governments or philanthropy. We see tremendous opportunity to bring such frameworks and approaches to Participatory Canada, and to innovate impact and outcomes measurement tools that can redefine value when it comes to long-term community resilience. There are hopeful signs in the 2021 federal budget, which commits to building capabilities in the social purpose and social finance sector with the next iteration of the Investment Readiness Program of Employment and Social Development Canada, which also provided support for Participatory Canada in its social R&D phase. The three elements of redefining infrastructure, strengthening collective capabilities, and innovating financing are crucial to developing investment-ready ideas from a social R&D base. With all of these pieces in place, a robust and mutually reinforcing R&D system takes shape in each community. Rather than picking individual R&D concepts to develop in isolation, the Participatory City approach creates an open, fertile R&D ecosystem with the strongest and most investable ideas flourishing as a result. In this regard, we can learn a lot from what is happening in the UK, where expansion of Participatory City R&D into business incubators is supporting the growth of local collaboratives and cooperative business models.

Strengthening collective capabilities If communities are to transition to socially and economically equitable, net-zero carbon environments, they will need to strengthen collective capabilities to act together and to continually learn from other communities about what works. Learning opportunities for the participatory approaches in this report will expand as more communities in Canada and around the world adapt them to their contexts, improving them along the way. The Here&Now School will provide a learning architecture connecting the various Participatory Canada nodes and will connect with research partnerships and communities of practice, including globally. A critical contribution to the wider network is the early experience of centering reconciliation in Halifax, which involved a two-eyed seeing evaluation approach that embedded truth and reconciliation at all levels of the initiative.

264

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

There is lots of work ahead, and we know that no single organization, agency or government can make a lasting impact on its own. This report is not just a retrospective of what we have accomplished, but also an invitation to join us. Quite simply, we cannot do this alone. Help us build the inclusive, participatory, resilient communities needed for the future.

Moving forward, our intention is to join forces with others to support communities and cities who want to strengthen their participatory social infrastructure by building on the creativity of local communities and approaches in this report. In each case, mobilization would require bringing together a cross-sectoral consortium of residents, governments, community groups, researchers and others. In the near term, and in response to growing demand, partners aspire for Participatory Canada to provide a national platform of support for up to ten communities over the next two years, with particular emphasis on creating a deep demonstration learning campus in one city that would provide a training ground for other communities. During 2021, partners will co-create the next phase, including the legal and governance arrangements as well as the national level partnership.

In this moment of societal reckoning, communities have an opportunity to build forward together in ways that include everyone, improve the long term health of Mother Earth, and embed the seven sacred teachings of many Indigenous traditions. Let’s move forward together in love, respect, courage, honesty, wisdom, humility and truth. To learn more and explore partnerships, please get in touch! http://www.participatorycanada.ca

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

265

9. APPENDICES

266

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

267

Appendices

Appendix 1.

City Playbook - Summary

268

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Learning Playbook The Learning Playbook captures the lessons learned about adapting the Participatory City approach, and offers practical guidance on how to build participatory ecosystems in new places and contexts. The playbook aims to: • highlight essential components needed to develop a framework that supports a participatory platform at the neighbourhood level, while also considering an appreciative approach building upon the strengths and connections that exist in each place. • bring together various tangible learning materials into one comprehensive learning tool that can be referenced as a supportive guide to delivering this kind of approach. • work both on a practical level and a theoretical one, describing the reasoning behind certain methodologies and tools for building participatory, hands-on projects, and the need for engagement in a community at all levels. • focus on how teams can work together to embody the principles of participatory culture, guiding new potential teams across the world.

Background The Playbook is based upon the groundwork of the Every One Every Day initiative in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, and further augmented with the learning and insights from the prototypes in Toronto, Halifax and Montreal. This year of adapting the Participatory City approach in Canada has been an incredible learning opportunity, as the approach continues to be developed and improved with each iteration. The three Canadian teams’ reflections have significantly shaped the Learning Playbook and as they consider how best to support future neighbourhood teams launch their own social R&D testing of a participatory platform.

For more information, visit www.participatorycity.org

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

269

Appendix 2.

Additional Resources

Read Illustrated Guide to Participatory City

http://www.participatorycity.org/the-illustrated-guide

Made to Measure Year 1 Report http://www.participatorycity.org/made-to-measure Tools to Act Year 2 Report

http://www.participatorycity.org/tools-to-act

Videos The following videos can be found on Participatory Canada (www. participatorycanada.ca1) and Participatory City Foundation’s websites (www.participatorycity.org):

Participatory Canada:

https://vimeo.com/548126695

Participatory City:

http://www.participatorycity.org

Every One Every Day:

https://www.weareeveryone.org

Everyone’s Warehouse:

https://www.everyoneswarehouse.co

City newspapers Halifax https://bit.ly/3v05ka0 Montreal https://bit.ly/3oqVMSS Toronto https://bit.ly/3wbcFn6

http://www.participatorycanada.ca

270

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

271

Appendix 3.

Sample evaluation framework

The Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax evaluation framework, with principles rooted in Indigenous teachings, seeks to understand how the Participatory City approach advanced reconciliation, as well as the feasibility, inclusivity, value creation and viability of the prototype. It is important to note that it is a living document that will be updated as part of the developmental evaluation process.

i. Preamble to Evaluation framework ii. Every One Every Day KjipuktukHalifax Evaluation framework

272

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Preamble to Evaluation framework

The Every One. Every Day. Kjipuktuk/ Halifax project is being held on Mi’kma’ki, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq. P’jilasi ~ Bienvenue~Welcome

The 94 Calls to Action detailed in the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015) place a responsibility on governments, businesses, educational and religious institutions, health care professionals, civil society groups, and all Canadians to recognize the value of Indigenous worldviews and practices. To that end, this project was created using the Mi’kmaw teaching of Etuaptmumk, “Two-eyed Seeing”, introduced by Elder Albert Marshall of Eskasoni First Nation, in the district of Una’ma’ki. This teaching asks us to take the strengths of a colonized world and an Indigenous world, and, through both lenses, build greater capacity and success for all. This evaluation framework focuses on the four guiding research and development components introduced by Participatory Canada for the purpose of adaptation and learning on a national level. They are Feasibility, Inclusivity, Value Creation, and Viability. The purpose of the fifth, Advancement of Reconciliation, is to solidify and maintain our commitment to Reconciliation throughout every phase of the project and to educate all involved in the history, culture, and traditions of Indigenous Peoples and create awareness of the legacies of colonialism. In addition, an Evaluation Working Group, including experts and professionals with evaluation experience, has been organized for the purpose of assisting and advising the Evaluation Lead in her work. In the spirit of Reconciliation, the Participatory Canada research and development components have been translated into the Mi’kmaw language. This language expresses a soft and nurturing approach to evaluation that acknowledges our connectedness and respects our interdependence.

Feasibility:

Value Creation:

KETANTOQ ~ STRIVE TO OBTAIN

KSITE’TAQAN ~ SOMETHING CHERISHED

Inclusivity:

Viability:

TOQOLUKWEJIK ~ WORK TOGETHER

NIMJI’MUATL ~ SUPPORT, ENCOURAGE

Advancement of Reconciliation: NESTU’ET AQQ TETAPU’LATL ~ BECOME KNOWLEDGEABLE AND DO RIGHT BY

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

273

Every One Every Day Kjipuktuk-Halifax Evaluation framework

Evaluation Questions (What do we want to know?)

Indicators (How will we know?)

Data Sources (Who are the target groups for this question? What other data sources can we access?)

Instruments (How will we gather the data?)

Resources (Whose responsibility will it be to gather the data? What other resources will we need?)

Timelines (When will we gather the data?)

COMPONENT 1 KETANTOQ ~ STRIVE TO OBTAIN (FEASIBILITY)

Objective: What evidence is there that it is possible to inspire inclusive participation in this project at the neighbourhood level? How many North End residents participated in the project?

Number of North End residents involved in project

How did residents learn about the March program? If via newsletter, where/how did they acquire it?

No remaining newsletters at distribution locations.

What is the response from the neighbourhood/community to the project? What have participants heard from neighbours, community?

Hosts’ experiences in community following project

Do the participants/hosts feel inspired to participate in future co-created or community-led projects?

Participants’/Hosts’ interest in contributing/being involved with future community-led projects

What was successful, or challenging, in building support for this project?

EOED registration

Document review

Session notes (Observations)

Document review

Participants

On-site survey

Hosts

Follow-up online survey

Participants

On-site survey

Hosts Program Director

3-5 interviews Evaluation debrief

Program Designer

Evaluation debrief

Community Hub Coordinator

Evaluation debrief

Project Team’s experiences

Evaluation Lead Project Team

● Registration period Feb. 8th28th ● Session notes will be taken during each session. ● During the March program (Mar. 1st- Mar. 28th)

Evaluation Lead

● During the initial planning phase (Co-design/devel opment Oct. 15th – Jan. 3rd) and after March program is complete (March 28th) 1

How is the participation similar or different to other projects/sessions being run in the neighbourhood? What participants/hosts feel this project has to offer.

What was successful or challenging about the sessions?

Project Team and Hosts’ experiences during sessions

Were there unintended outcomes from the sessions? If yes, describe them.

Project Team and Hosts’ experiences during sessions

COMPONENT 2

TOQOLUKWEJIK

Hosts Participants

3-5 interviews 2-4 interviews

Hosts

Follow-up online survey

Session notes (Observations) Project Team Session notes (Observations) Project Team

~ WORK TOGETHER (INCLUSIVITY)

Document review Weekly check-ins Evaluation debrief Document review Weekly check-ins Evaluation debrief

Evaluation Lead Project Team

During and after March program (Mar. 1st- Mar. 28th)

Evaluation Lead Project Team

Objective: What evidence is there that it is possible to create an ecosystem of participatory projects with all residents of the neighbourhood? What is the demographic of the neighbourhood or community, and how do the participants of the program reflect that?

Participants feel their culture/community/demographic is well represented/reflected in the project

Does the project offer a safe space(s) for sharing and co-learning for all participants and hosts? If yes, in what ways? If no, why not?

Participants/hosts feel comfortable and welcome to share skills and knowledge and have conversations.

● Hosts’/Project Team’s experiences with accessibility Are the locations/space(s) for sessions accessible to throughout planning and delivery all participants/hosts? If no, where was accessibility phases. lacking? How could accessibility be improved? ● Participants’ experiences with accessibility during the March program. COMPONENT 3 KSITE’TAQAN ~ SOMETHING CHERISHED (VALUE CREATION)

Session notes (Observations) www.statcan.gc.ca Hosts Participants Hosts

Document review Online database research Follow-up online survey On-site survey 3-5 interviews

Participants

On-site survey

Project Team

Weekly check-ins

Evaluation Lead Project Team

During the initial planning phase (Co-design/develop ment Oct. 15th – Jan. 3rd) and after March program is complete (March 28th)

Objective: What is the evidence that this approach to building participation can create value for individual residents and neighbourhoods? How many North End residents participated in the sessions? Did participants take interest in the sessions?

Number of North End resident attended sessions What participants are saying about their experience during the session /body language/Did participants attend entire session

EOED registration

Document review

Session notes (Observations)

Document review

Evaluation Lead Project Team

During and after March program 2

274

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

Did these sessions build/support new relationships and connections?

Participants’/Hosts’ experience with new relationships and connections that were created/discovered during sessions

Did hosts feel confident in sharing their talents/abilities with others? If yes, would they like to host again? If no, why not?

Hosts’ experiences hosting the sessions.

Do participants feel their involvement was a co-learning experience? If yes, how? If no, why not?

Participants experiences during the sessions

To what extent do the hosts feel they are involved in this project?

Hosts’ experiences of involvement

●

What did it mean to participants/hosts to contribute to this project?

●

Participants’ experiences with the session(s)/project Hosts’ experiences with the session(s)/project

Session notes (Observations)

Document review

Hosts

3-5 Interviews

Participants

Hosts

Participants & Hosts

On-site survey

3-5 interviews

Evaluation Lead Project Team

During the initial planning phase (Co-design/develop ment Oct. 15th – Jan. 3rd) and after March program is complete (March 28th)

Session reflection exercise

Evaluation Lead Project Team

During March program (Mar.1st -28th)

On-site survey

Did the participants feel the sessions were beneficial for themselves/their community? If yes, how? If no, why not?

Participants’ experiences during the session

Participants

What new information or skill(s) did participants learn from the session?

Participants’ experiences during the session

Participants

2-4 Interviews

Evaluation Lead Project team

On-site survey

After March program is complete (March 28th)

What doors opened for hosts because of their involvement with this project?

Hosts’ experience following the March program

The overall mood in the session What is the overall response from the space participants/hosts to the sessions? ● Reactions from participants/hosts during sessions COMPONENT 4 NIMJI’MUATL ~ SUPPORT, ENCOURAGE (VIABILITY)

Hosts

Follow-up online survey

After March program is complete (March 28th)

●

Session notes (Observations)

Document review

Objective: To what extent is this program likely to be viable in the current context (economic, political, social, etc)? Decisions made by funders Media coverage

What is the evidence that there is political, social, and private support for this project to scale?

● Attitudes of local business/organizations towards contributing to the project ● Attitudes of local business/organizations towards working with North End residents (before/after March program)? ● Are there changes in the way local businesses/organizations relate/support/work with/for the North End community because of this project? If yes, what are they? If no, why not? ● Would local businesses/organizations involved in the project contribute/participate in similar future projects?

Funders

Meeting

Program Director

Nova Scotia, Halifax, North End community

Observations before, during, and after March program

Evaluation Lead Project Team

Program venues

Interview

Program Designer

After March program is complete (March 28th)

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

275

Is this project welcomed by existing community organizations and programs (other than those who were involved in the March program)? If yes, how? If no, why not? Are societal challenges (economic barriers, Covid-19 restrictions, etc.) addressed? If yes, how and to what extent? If no, why not? What are the unintended outcomes/impacts of the project?

● Social action: If residents are willing to work together to create/implement community initiatives in the future. ● Social action: What the North End community thinks of the project. What community organizations/businesses think of the project Project Team’s experience during the project

Project Team’s overall experience with the project

North End Community

Community organizations/businesses

Observations before, during, and after March program

Evaluation Lead Project Team

Observations before, during, and after March program

Locations that were used for program delivery

Interview

Project Team

Weekly check-ins

Project Team

Weekly check-ins

Project Team

Evaluation debrief

Program Designer Evaluation Lead Project Team After March program is complete (March 28th)

COMPONENT 5 NESTU’ET AQ TETAPU’LATL ~ BECOME KNOWLEDGEABLE AND DO RIGHT BY (ADVANCEMENT OF RECONCILIATION)

Objective: What evidence is there that this program contributed to the advancement of Reconciliation?

How does the planning and delivery of this project address reconciliation?

● The process/experience of creating the principles. ● The content of the principles ● Indigenous Peoples’ experiences with the project ● Examples of moments when principles were followed/were not followed.

Strategic Group meeting minutes Strategic Group

Reflection exercise

Hosts

Interviews

Project Team

Document review

● Evaluation Lead ● Strategic Group ● Project Team

Weekly check-ins

All phases: During the initial planning phase (Co-design/plannin g) Oct. 15th – Jan. 3rd, Planning (Jan. 4th- Feb.28th) and during after March program (March 1st- 28th)

Evaluation debrief

Does the Project Team/Strategic Group work together in a way that supports Reconciliation?

● To what extent were the principles followed? ● Examples of when principles were followed/not followed.

Strategic Group Strategic Group meeting minutes Project Team Project Team meeting minutes

How does the Project Team’s/Strategic Group’s/individual member’s actions and decision-making support Reconciliation?

● To what extent were the principles followed? ● Examples of when principles were followed/not followed.

Reflection exercise Document review Weekly check-ins Evaluation debrief Document review

Strategic Group

Reflection exercise

Strategic Group minutes

Document review

Project Team meeting minutes

Document review

Project Team

Weekly check-ins Evaluation debrief

● Evaluation Lead ● Strategic Group ● Project Team

All phases: During the initial planning phase (Co-design/plannin g) Oct. 15th – Jan. 3rd, Planning (Jan. 4th- Feb.28th) and during after March program (March 1st- 28th)

276

PARTICIPATORY CANADA Y1 SOCIAL R&D REPORT

277

Y1 Social Research & Development Report

Articles inside

Appendices

1. Learning Playbook - Summary

Conclusion

Navigating the Pathways of Growth and Scale

Welcome

Introduction

What Made Scaling Particularly Complex?

Key Finding 2 - Inclusivity

Introduction

Framing the Roadmap

Executive Sumary

Vision