Building Healthy Communities in Waterloo Region
Final Report: May, 2003
From the Ground Up is an extension of two Waterloo region initiatives: Stories From the Front and the Brown Bag Lunch Series. Both of these events were organized by the Waterloo Region Healthy Communities Coalition, (formerly the Good Ideas Group) as a way for individuals working to improve the health of Waterloo region to share their ideas, successes and challenges. From the Ground Up is part of this worldwide Healthy Communities movement. Healthy Communities advocates promote a view of health that is broader than traditional health services. They emphasize the importance of balancing the economic, environmental, and social aspects of communities. A healthy community includes a sense of belonging, clean air and water, feeling safe in our neighbourhoods, green spaces, adequate and affordable housing, a satisfying job and decent wages. All community sectors play a vital role in the health of Waterloo region.
In May, 2002, over 80 people participated in the first annual From the Ground Up Forum. The two-day event enjoyed the support of many area municipalities, businesses, community agencies and individuals and received overwhelmingly positive feedback. A Final Report detailing the discussions and activities of that Forum is available at www.waterlooregion.org/healthy. Building on the success of last year’s Forum, From the Ground Up 2003 explored ways in which local businesses, governments, community agencies, and individuals can work together to build a healthier community. The two main goals of the Forum were to:
As a means of achieving our goal to increase participant capacity, FGU included a Pre-Forum Facilitation Training event. This workshop provided participants with the opportunity to build on their existing skills and learn new techniques of group and meeting facilitation. Those who attended this workshop were invited to lead discussion groups at the FGU Forum.
Complete details regarding this year’s Forum program and agenda may be found in section 6 of this report.
The following Committee members have contributed to the success of the From the Ground Up 2003 planning process:
Additional financial and in-kind support has come from:
For a complete breakdown of in-kind and financial support, please see Appendix A: Final Budget.
The Pre-Forum Facilitation Training was held on Saturday, April 12th, 2003 at the Allan Reuter Centre in Cambridge, ON. The identified goal of the facilitation training was to increase individual skills in meeting and group facilitation. These skills can then be applied to individual and agency work towards building healthy communities. It was our hope that at least 25 individuals would attend this event. Although we did not meet this goal, the 15 participants in attendance were engaged and enthusiastic throughout the day.
The training was led by Valerie Gennings, an animator with the Ontario Healthy Communities Coalition. Valerie has years of experience facilitating groups and training others to do so. She designed a format for the workshop which met the needs of individuals with all levels of facilitation experience.
There was an opportunity for individuals who participated in the training to volunteer as facilitators of From the Ground Up Forum discussion groups. Prior to the training, several participants indicated that they would not be comfortable facilitating a discussion group at the Forum. After the training, several of these same individuals expressed that they would volunteer to facilitate. This is one indicator that the training did achieve its goal of “capacity building” and individual skill development. Six of the 15 facilitation training participants volunteered as facilitators of the Forum.
Please refer to Appendices E and F for a copy of facilitation training handouts and the training evaluation form.
| 6:30pm | Registration | |
| 7:00 | Welcome by Master of Ceremonies | Valerie Gennings |
| 7:10 | Opening Remarks from Chair | Edwin Laryea |
| 7:15 | Intro to Healthy Communities Concept | Marc Xuereb |
| 7:30 | Panel Discussion | moderated by Beth Dempster |
| 8:15 | Open Discussion – Response to Panel | moderated by Beth Dempster |
| 9:00 | *Facilitated Intros of Forum Participants | |
| 9:15 | Social Networking Opportunity |
*Note: Due to the extended length of the Panel Discussion and the perceived “low energy” of participants, the Facilitated Introduction component of Friday night’s agenda was postponed until Saturday morning. For details, refer to the following overview of event activities.
Approximately 50 people were in attendance on Friday, May 2nd as From the Ground Up 2003 got underway. The evening began with a warm welcome from Master of Ceremonies, Valerie Gennings and FGU Chair, Edwin Laryea. Marc Xuereb of the Healthy Communities and Policy Program at the Region of Waterloo Public Health Department, introduced participants to several ideas and concepts integral to the Healthy Communities philosophy. He also presented several approaches that guide the policy advocacy activities of both individuals and organizations. Marc’s comments and personal experience provided the groundwork for the panel discussion which followed.
The title of the panel discussion, “How can we work together to build a healthy Waterloo Region?”, reflected one of the Forum’s objectives; to demonstrate the interconnectedness of all community sectors and the value of working together to achieve common goals. Three panelists brought their unique perspectives to the panel discussion and open discussion which followed. They were:
The FGU Steering Committee had generated several questions meant to spark the thoughts and ideas of both panelists and participants. They included:
The comments of each panelist inspired some thought-provoking discussion and debate among participants. Through first-hand examples of their own policy advocacy work, they were able to provide insight into their own policy priorities as well as provide space for suggestions and change.
Valerie concluded the evening’s events with an overview of what to expect on the following day. She encouraged everyone to think about the ideas that had been presented that night as well as to consider several questions meant to spark ideas and discussion for the following day. These questions can be found as part of Appendix C in the Participant Booklet. She reminded participants that there would be an opportunity to add discussion topics to the list of options presented the next day. Participants were welcomed to share announcements or information on an announcement board located at the front of the room. Personal comments, feelings or emotions about the forum could be expressed in any variety of creative ways on a large sheet of craft paper posted on a wall at the back of the room. Several individuals took advantage of both of these vehicles through which to share their thoughts and ideas. Valerie closed the evening with a thank you to all participants and invited them to stay to enjoy healthy vegetarian snacks and beverages provided by Muses Café. This provided a great opportunity for people to begin to network with others and make connections for the future.
| 8:30am | Registration & Breakfast | |
| 9:00 | Welcome and Introduction of Keynote | Valerie Gennings |
| 9:15 | Keynote speaker – Wayne Roberts | Wayne Roberts |
| 9:45 | Open Discussion - Response to Keynote | Valerie Gennings |
| 10:15 | Break | |
| 10:30 | Discussion Groups | |
| 12:15pm | LUNCH | |
| 1:15 | Re-convene & Report Back from a.m. Discussion Groups | Valerie Gennings |
| 1:45 | Discussion Groups | |
| 3:30 | Break | |
| 3:45 | Report Back from Discussion Groups | Valerie Gennings |
| 4:15 | Closing | Jessica Ward |
Participants were greeted with breakfast on Saturday morning. The breakfast, lunch and snacks for the entire Forum were all provided by Muses Café. They offered vegetarian, vegan and gluten free options, all of which were delicious. Events got underway with an ice-breaker activity facilitated by Valerie Gennings. Each participant completed a question card which appeared as follows:
Participants were encouraged to share their cards with others and then display them on a large sheet of paper which had been posted in one corner of the room. The paper illustrated a large diagram of the three community sectors: economy, environment, and community. Individuals could post their cards wherever they saw themselves to fit within the diagram. This could be within one particular sector, at the intersections of sectors, or outside of the healthy community diagram. Positions on the diagram could be changed throughout the day. This display allowed participants to learn more about each other’s interests, skills, and priorities, as well as think about their own places within their communities. For examples of some of the comments shared by participants during this activity, please refer to Appendix H.
Jackie McMillan introduced herself and two other Health Care Practitioners, Gaelle Sprout, and Ania Wozniak, who had volunteered their knowledge and skills to forum participants. Throughout the day, Jackie, Gaelle and Ania provided Yoga instruction, Reiki, Reflexology, Craniosacral therapy and Trager work to many lucky Forum participants.
Valerie noted how fortunate she was to be able to introduce the FGU keynote speaker, Wayne Roberts. Wayne is a columnist for NOW Magazine, and has written several books which inspire individual efforts towards building healthy communities. In 2002, he received the Silver Award from Environment Canada and Canadian Geographic for his contributions to sustainable living. He has devoted his energy to proving that what is good for the environment is also good for jobs and ordinary people. He co-founded the Coalition for a Green Recovery, and is now project coordinator for the city of Toronto Food Policy Council. Wayne drew on his vast experience as he provided participants with concrete opportunities for healthy change. The following are some highlights from his address:
There is no longer just one superpower in the world: since the debate over Iraq, there are now two: the US, and world public opinion. Look at the range of issues people in this room are working on -- peace, local food, labelling GM foods -- we have the support of 85% of the public on these things. It's time to start acting like a superpower.
Governments faced with crises like 9-11 or SARS react with downstream solutions like increased security or quarantines. These take attention away from upstream solutions like addressing the causes of violence or the environmental causes of disease.
Governments are always years behind the population in social change. There are hundreds of ways people can contribute to policy change, and different people will be most comfortable with different roles. Some, like me, like the political fray, but others prefer to just live the change themselves, or influence in more subtle ways. We need to recognize and make room for all means of contributing to healthy public policy.
Governments pulled out of all kinds of traditional social obligations in the 1990s, and have left civil society doing the “heavy lifting” of feeding, clothing, and healing people. Social organizations are overwhelmed by these new responsibilities and need to take up policy advocacy so that they can steer governments back into taking responsibility for the heavy lifting.
The biggest invisible power in society is design -- the problem usually isn't greedy individuals, but a system which pays people more to do things that harm the public good than it does for things that contribute to it. For example, if you want to compost, you gotta go buy one yourself. If you want to throw it into the landfill, the City comes and picks it up for free.
Following Wayne’s keynote address, an open discussion enabled participants to further explore some of Wayne’s ideas as well as share some of their own stories and experiences. Many individuals continued these conversations throughout the break that followed and then into the discussion groups.
Based on feedback from participant registration forms, six themes were identified as potential discussion group topics. They were: Fundraising, Decision Making & Consensus Building, Business & Community Partnerships, Art to Build Community, Diversity & Making Membership more Accessible, and Capacity Building & Skill Development. Participants were also given the opportunity on Friday night and Saturday morning to identify additional topics of interest to them. Based on this feedback, “Environmental Issues” was added to the topic list. Each of the discussion topics was introduced. Participants selected the topics that most interested them and if certain discussion groups attracted few participants, members had the opportunity to either remain in these small groups, or join other groups which interested them. This “vote with your feet” approach seemed to provide participants with the opportunity and flexibility to explore healthy communities issues that truly interested and inspired them.
After all group selection was complete, four discussion groups remained: Decision Making & Consensus Building, Business & Community Partnerships, Diversity & Making Membership more Accessible, and Environmental Issues. Ten trained facilitators had met that morning to discuss their roles and plans for the day. This included a review of the 7 questions that were provided to participants on Friday night as a way of sparking thoughts and ideas for Saturday’s discussions. Eight of the ten facilitators ended up co-facilitating the four discussion groups.
Most individuals remained in the same discussion group for both the morning and afternoon session. Following each session, representatives from each group reported back some very interesting and thought provoking ideas. It appeared that each group was able to explore their topics in depth and provide each other with some unique and valuable perspectives. Furthermore, many individuals commented that beneficial connections had been made with other group members that would be continued in the future. A brief summary of each group discussion follows.
This group discussed several challenges which they had encountered when trying to build partnerships between community and business sectors. These included:
They also recognized several elements of successful partnerships which include:
This group began with an exercise in decision making and consensus building. They decided that they should determine, as a group, whether or not they would report back to the larger group with a summary of their discussion. They defined the concept of “consensus” and felt it included:
The group then decided that they would participate in the report-back activity and they continued to discuss several challenges to reaching consensus such as:
Participants discussed several aspects of facilitation and described the facilitator as, “a guide by your side, not a sage on a stage.”
This group first defined diversity as follows:
Some of the barriers to achieving diversity were explored. They included:
Some of the solutions presented for overcoming these barriers include:
This group chose to discuss their own environmental concerns in a very open-discussion format. Below is a list of just some of the topics which came up throughout their discussion.
The group suggested several barriers to achieving positive environmental change as well as possible solutions. Barriers included:
Ways of addressing these concerns included:
The day’s events concluded with a much deserved thank you to all participants and to all those who had worked to make the event possible. Valerie led the group in a circle activity which provided closure to the Forum and reinforced many of the connections that had been made over the weekend.
Participants were invited to display information about their work and activities. The following agencies and individuals provided displays for the Forum.
Participant feedback was requested following both the Pre-Forum Facilitation Training and the From the Ground Up Forum. Copies of the evaluation forms that were distributed may be found as Appendix F of this report.
All participants were asked to complete evaluation forms at the end of the day. Out of 15 participants, 14 completed and returned the form. Overall, feedback from the Facilitation training was very positive. As was noted earlier in this report, it was our hope that at least 25 individuals would attend this event. Although we did not meet this goal, the 15 participants in attendance were engaged and enthusiastic throughout the day.
Using a three point scale, participants ranked the event’s success at achieving two specific goals. The following Figures 1 and 2 represent these responses.
Did the content of the training deal with the areas of concern for you?
| 65% | Yes, definitely |
| 14% | Moderately |
| 21% | Not at all |
Did the process used in the training help you achieve your learning goals?
| 65% | Yes, definitely |
| 21% | Moderately |
| 14% | Not at all |
Participants were also asked to provide feedback regarding the impact of the training on their confidence to facilitate a group, aspects of the training that were particularly useful to them, and any suggested changes that may be made.
Responses regarding participant confidence included:
Participants appreciated the following:
Participants also made some very valuable suggestions to keep in mind for future trainings.
Participants were asked how they had heard about the training. The majority of respondents had found out about it via e-mail. Others had heard about it through Brochures, University of Waterloo, Wilmot Healthy Communities Coalition, and other community agencies.
Of the approximately 50 individuals who attended the From the Ground Up Forum, 16 evaluations were completed and returned. Those evaluations, however, provided very positive feedback about the day as well as some constructive suggestions for next year.
Respondents heard about the Forum in the following ways:
The following table illustrates the distribution of participant rankings of several Forum components:
| 3+ | 3 Excel. | 2.5 | 2 Good | 1.5 | 1 Poor | N/A | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participant Booklet | 9 | 5 | 2 | ||||
| Pace of Agenda (timing, breaks, etc.) | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Friday Panel Disc. | 4 | 8 | 4 | ||||
| Keynote Speaker | 3 | 12 | 1 | ||||
| Skill of Facilitators | 9 | 1 | 6 | ||||
| Health Practitioners | 9 | 1 | 6 | ||||
| Location | 14 | 2 | |||||
| Meeting Spaces | 12 | 1 | 3 | ||||
| Food | 16 | ||||||
| Cost | 11 | 4 | 1 | ||||
| Overall Atmosphere | 12 | 4 |
Participants were asked to identify whether the Forum was successful in achieving several goals. Responses and comments are summarized below.
The Forum increased my sense of identification with Healthy Communities Principles, and of the commonality of interests between sectors in my community.
“I found the diversity of perspectives (which) existed in the forum helped me to touch base with reality.”
“(I) decided to become involved with Healthy Communities.”
“I know what they are, but I have no sense of how the two things are related.”
The Forum increased my understanding of, and skills in building, healthy public policy.
“Wayne Roberts (was) superb. Bring him back to a bigger audience.”
“Wayne was very informative.”
“Theory and Action are two different areas. Practical and Applied.”
The Forum provided me opportunities to make new cooperative and supportive connections (mutual support, one on one connections, share resources, etc).
“I feel reenergized.”
“(A) great place to network with like-minded individuals.”
“I connected with some people & will continue communicating.”
“This is what the forum provided for me and would bring me back. I met others in the community who are interested in select areas, which I also have an interest in.”
The Forum helped me identify already existing networks for future support and collaboration.
“More individuals to work with as opposed to organizations or networks.”
General comments from participants included:
What did you like best about this Forum?
What could have been improved?
Participants were asked three questions regarding their knowledge and interest in the Pre-Forum Facilitation Training:
Were you aware of the Facilitation Training?
Did you participate in the Facilitation Training?
Would you be interested in participating in such a training in 2004?
The following summarizes the success of the Forum in meeting its established goals and objectives. Bolded text identifies how each indicator of success has been addressed.
Increase the capacity of those involved in Healthy Communities and related activities in Waterloo Region to address the social, environmental, and economic determinants of health
Increase the profile of the Healthy Communities approach in Waterloo Region
% of Forum participants self-identifying with each sector
63% of respondents self-identified as representatives of community groups and agencies, non-profits, activist groups, or environmental groups. These included: The Working Centre, IMPACT, WPIRG, Ebytown Food Co-op, Promote the Vote, and The People’s Car Co-op. 2 respondents identified with faith organizations and 1 respondent identified with the business/academic community. 38% of respondents did not indicate any particular sector or organization.
Proactive efforts were taken to increase the exposure of the event to many diverse community sectors. Please refer to Appendix D for a listing of promotional and outreach activities.
# of sectors represented on planning committees
The majority of individuals on From the Ground Up planning committees represented community agencies and interest groups. These included: IMPACT, Civics Research Group, and the Social Planning Council – KW and the African Canadian & Caribbean Canadian Associations. There were no representatives of the business community on the planning committee, however, the Greater KW Chamber of Commerce, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, Leadership Waterloo and several other businesses assisted us in our outreach activities.
% of Forum participants from each municipality
N=65 (incl. registered people who did not attend)
Kitchener - 35% (N=23), Waterloo - 29% (19), Cambridge - 11% (7), Woolwich - 3% (2), Wilmot - 5% (3), other – 5% (3), unknown – 12% (8)
Overall, the discussion group facilitators reported very positive experiences within their groups. They appreciated the pairing of experienced with less experienced facilitators which gave them an opportunity to share responsibilities and skills. The discussion groups seemed to be small enough that many were able to “self-facilitate” without much intervention from the assigned facilitators. The following comments summarize comments made by From the Ground Up Volunteer Facilitators following the event.
Environmental Group:
Diversity Group:
Partnership Group:
Other comments:
Present: Stephanie Mancktelow, Jeff Beckner, Heike Mertins, Marc Xuereb, Edwin Laryea, Trudy Beaulne, Kevin Smith, Beth Dempster
Pace/timing:
Program Content:
Logistical:
Organizing Process:
Highlight:
Present: Edwin Laryea, Beth Dempster, Marc Xuereb, Jeff Beckner
Organizing Process:
Overall Success of Forum
Future of From the Ground Up
I came to the project of From the Ground Up as a Masters of Social Work student on placement at the Region of Waterloo Public Health Department. I recognized its potential as a fantastic learning opportunity and, as anticipated, the goals and objectives of FGU have encouraged me to reflect on several key aspects of community development work. First, and foremost, one goal of the forum was to increase public awareness of the community determinants of health and the healthy communities philosophy. From a policy perspective, FGU brought insight into systemic, structural forces which influence the health of our communities. Both of these elements of the forum have supported my own knowledge and understanding of “well-being” from the “person-in-environment” perspective.
In my own reflection on the successes and challenges faced throughout the From the Ground Up planning process, I have reviewed each of the established goals and objectives of the Forum. I will identify what I believe to be great successes of the Forum, as well as some of the challenges that I faced throughout the planning process.
Networking Opportunities! As is evident by many of the comments made by Forum participants, From the Ground Up provided participants with the opportunity to meet others who share the goal of building healthy communities. Many also commented that they were inspired by the work of others and that they appreciated the diverse perspectives and viewpoints offered by participants. Connections were made that will be carried into future work and efforts!
Energy and Discussion! It was clear during the report-backs from discussion groups that each group was able to really get into some interesting discussion and debate. The small size of each group made facilitation of the groups easy and allowed participants to freely share their thoughts and ideas. The positive energy of participants encouraged me, as a coordinator, and certainly contributed to my own sense of accomplishment. I feel confident that each forum participant gained something positive from the experience and will pass their energy on to others in their communities.
Capacity Building! I was very impressed by participant enthusiasm during the Pre-Forum Facilitation Training. The facilitation skills modeled by Valerie Gennings really provided participants with concrete tools for their own work. Several participants identified a new-found confidence in group facilitation which was demonstrated during the Forum itself.
Connections that were made during the Forum, as well as the awareness and skills generated in building healthy public policies also contributed a great deal to participants’ capacity to work towards healthy change in their communities.
Recruitment to the Steering Committee: When I began my work with From the Ground Up in January, I was introduced to a group of nine individuals who made up the Steering Committee. Some of these individuals had begun the initial phases of planning for FGU 2003 in the spring and summer of 2002; others were just beginning their involvement with this process. It was suggested that recruitment of additional Steering committee members was necessary for the following reasons: to increase the representation of diverse communities and sectors, to allow for efficient working numbers in each of the subcommittees. With the support of several committee members, I began to contact agencies and individuals regarding their involvement in the FGU planning process, (multicultural community leaders, CORRIC, peer health workers, community nutrition workers). These efforts were not met with community enthusiasm and I would suggest several reasons for this.
The result of these barriers was a fairly small Steering Committee made up predominantly of representatives of local community agencies. There were no representatives of the business/economic community on the Steering Committee and few representatives of diverse cultural groups. This may certainly have influenced our success at designing an event which attracted diverse groups as well as promoting the event to these sectors.
Event Promotion & Outreach: The most significant challenge to promoting this event was the lack of structure to the event itself. The grass-roots approach to determining discussion groups and the concept of idea sharing among participants, rather than “expert” led workshops was a difficult concept to sell to many individuals. Several times, I worked to explain the philosophy which guided this approach. However, many of those I spoke with seemed to want a very clear idea of which discussion groups would be offered, as well as the level of experience of those who would be participating in the groups. It appears that whilst the “From the Ground Up” concept is very inviting and exciting for some, the unknown element prevents others from committing their time and energy. This was particularly evident, I think, by the lack of participation from members of the business sector. Despite significant efforts to reach this population, it may be that the unfamiliar structure of FGU does not meet their needs. The conflicts between needs and comfort levels of various groups, (non-profit, business, multicultural, etc.), need to be addressed in both the planning of the Forum’s format as well as its promotion in order to attract participants from diverse sectors.
Another key barrier in the promotion process was my lack of contacts and familiarity with our community. As a student, fairly new to the area, I have not had the opportunity to make many valuable contacts with “key players” in the community. Through my attempts at outreach, I soon learned that unless the “right” people were contacted, my efforts had little impact. I needed to be able to reach people who could be ambassadors for the project and I didn’t know who they were. Judging from the report of last year’s Forum, those who were involved in the coordination and promotion of the Forum demonstrated two characteristics crucial to successful promotion:
I certainly could see the value of this event, and I was excited by its potential to inspire others. However, I am new to the healthy communities philosophy. I have not had the opportunity to become involved in many community initiatives and, therefore, have not yet developed the passion which may be needed to motivate others. In response to this obstacle, I requested that members of the Steering Committee draw upon all of their contacts and resources to assist with our outreach efforts. The response from committee members was helpful, however, I fear that it may have come too late. In the future, I would recommend that clear and specific outreach initiatives be identified and allocated to all Steering Committee members at the very start of the project. In addition, I would recommend that outreach activities continue throughout the year in order to increase awareness of the Forum and healthy communities principles. This would depend, in part, on the efforts of the Waterloo Region Healthy Communities Coalition and the development of a far-reaching publicity campaign.
Administration: The challenge of balancing the immediate, administrative requirements of this project with long-term outreach planning was significant throughout the planning process. This issue was exacerbated by the small number of committee members available to serve on each subcommittee. As is outlined in section 4 of this report, each subcommittee was to be responsible for a wide variety of tasks ranging from promotions to logistics. Due to the lack of participation on various subcommittees, a great deal of these tasks fell to me to complete. I often designed and implemented activities on the advice of individual subcommittee representatives rather than merely providing support in the completion of tasks. Needless to say, this served to increase my workload considerably. I found that much of my work time was spent on the administrative and practical requirements of the Forum rather than the planning and implementation of recruitment and outreach activities. In the future, I would identify the need for further assistance with both the administrative and outreach components of this project very early in the planning process. Although it would take additional planning efforts, I would recommend re-structuring the subcommittee roles and responsibilities as soon as it becomes clear that the existing structure is neither realistic nor achievable.
Despite the challenges mentioned above, From the Ground Up has been a fabulous experience for me. It has provided me with the opportunity to apply many of the principles which are so important to social-work practice. I have been able to share skills with wonderful people and learn from the positive and constructive feedback of both committee members and Forum participants. I include my own experience of increased capacity, knowledge and skills as an indicator of the success of From the Ground Up 2003! Thank you