CFICE partners indicated a strong interest in learning about how to more meaningfully embed decolonized and traditional Indigenous methodologies, non-conventional methodologies for research, community development and practices, and policy development into community-campus partnerships. They are committed to inclusive practices that not only incorporate established academic ethics standards, but that also build ethical spaces (see reference to Dr. Willie Ermine鈥檚 work on this theme) to encourage authentic and culturally-safe opportunities for collaboration. This approach disrupts colonial methodologies and encourages novel methods of engagement, learning, and knowing within CCE work.

Below is a 2-pager outlining CFICE’s commitment to Truth and Reconciliation as well as resources others can review to learn more information about how to build truth and reconciliation into their community-campus engagement efforts.

Click on the image below to open a PDF version of the document, or CLICK HERE to access the FRENCH version.

In this lively podcast, CFICE team members Kristina Reed, Kawsar Mohamed, and Nicole Bedford have a frank conversation about the challenges and rewards of being open to sharing, listening, and working together to make workplaces more accessible to all.

Access a PDF version of the podcast transcript here.

The MJCSL is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal with faculty and administrator readers all over the world. It publishes articles on research, theory, pedagogy, and other issues pertinent to (a) curriculum-based service-learning, (b) campus-community partnerships, (c) scholarship of engagement, and (d) scholarship on engagement.

COMMUNITY FIRST: IMPACTS OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Community-campus engagement (CCE) has become a powerful tool for teaching and research on university and college campuses around the world. Community-based organizations have also recognized the value of partnering with faculty, students, and campus staff as a way to increase capacity, broaden reach, and accomplish goals. Acknowledging the opportunities and challenges of partnership-based work, researchers and community-based practitioners have called for 鈥�肠辞尘尘耻苍颈迟测-蹿颈谤蝉迟鈥� approaches that focus on generating meaningful impacts for community-based partners through collaboration (Andr茅e et al., 2014; Butcher et al., 2011; Cronley et al. 2015; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000). This call was inspired by the Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE) research project based at 杏吧原创 University in Ottawa (/communityfirst/). CFICE, a partnership among academics and community groups across Canada established in 2012, is a collaborative action research project that aims to better understand the ways that community-campus partnerships can be designed and implemented to maximize the value for communities and community-based organizations.

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

For this special section, we seek research, pedagogy, and other articles that explore community first approaches to community-engaged research, teaching, and practice work, and how they can have greater community impact. We especially welcome articles that include and/or incorporate the perspectives and voices of non-academic partners. The editors invite abstracts for articles and rigorous case studies from academics, educators, and researchers that: (a) report research studies focused on community outcomes/impacts, (b) report on, comment on, and/or imagine a variety of ways of defining and measuring community impacts and valuation of CCE; (c) propose new approaches to research, teaching, and practice (in relation to historical and contemporary models, methods, processes, and ethos) intended to share power, resources, and control in CCE partnerships; (d) offer critical insights into the role of CCE and social movements as well as community-based (e.g., 鈥榗ollective impact鈥�) processes; (e) provide perspectives on CCE cases that offer guidance to student, faculty, administrative staff, and community partners; or (f) explore innovative university, community, and funder policies and frameworks designed to encourage impactful CCE research, teaching, and practice.

We are particularly interested in contributions that build on the foundations of social justice and ecological sustainability and bring creativity, imagination, and experimentation. Articles should also be rooted in embodied, experiential modes of making, thinking, learning, and doing; oriented toward current and future cultural and social conditions; and concerned with ways that these can be integrated into developing modes of research, teaching, and practice.

The first step in the submission process is to submit a one-page abstract/pr茅cis by January 18, 2019听that adequately conveys the focus/plan for the article and includes the author(s)鈥� contact information, including email address. Invitations to submit an article will be made by email in early January, with invited articles due April 30, 2019.

Please consult general MJCSL submission guidelines at

Submissions and questions about the special issue may be directed to Charles Z. Levkoe (clevkoe@lakeheadu.ca) and Nadine Changfoot (nadinechangfoot@trentu.ca).

Reviewing recent past issues of the MJCSL to see the kinds of articles published in this journal will better position the prospective article submitter to receive a favorable reply to their abstract submission.

Thank you.

Charles Z. Levkoe
Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Food Systems
Assistant Professor, Health Sciences
Lakehead University

Nadine Changfoot
Associate Professor
Department of Political Studies
Trent University

Karen Schwartz
Associate Professor
Interim Associate Vice President (Research and International)
杏吧原创 University

Peter Andr茅e
Associate Professor and Associate Chair
Department of Political Science
杏吧原创 University

In partnership with:

Neeraja Aravamudan, Mary Jo Callan, Cecilia Morales, and Nick Tobier
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning听Editorial Team

Edward Ginsberg Center at the University of Michigan

References

Andr茅e, P., Chapman, D., Hawkins, L., Kneen, C., Muehlberger, C., Nelson, C., et al. (2014). Building effective relationships for community-engaged scholarship in Canadian Food Studies. Canadian Food Studies / La Revue Canadienne Des 脡tudes Sur L’alimentation, 1(1), 27-27.

Butcher, J., Bezzina, M., & Moran, W. (2011). Transformational partnerships: A new agenda for higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 36(1), 29-40.

Cronley, C., Madden, E., & Davis, J.B. (2015). Making service-learning partnerships work: Listening and responding to community partners. Journal of Community Practice, 23(2), 274-289.

Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2000). Community-centered service learning: Moving from doing for to doing with. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 767-780.

This article shares some of the knowledge gained in Phase I of CFICE through on-the-ground research projects in the food sector. Check out the abstract below, or .

Abstract

This article is situated within nascent debates on the role of academics within food sovereignty movements. Drawing on insights from a collective autoethnography, we report on our experiences conducting three food sovereignty research projects in different contexts and at different scales. We suggest that that the principles and practices of food sovereignty translate into a food sovereignty research praxis. This consists of three pillars focusing on people (humanizing research relationships), power (equalizing power relations) and change (pursuing transformative orientations). This article discusses these pillars and analyzes the extent to which we were able to embody them within our projects.

Tessa Nasca records focus group feedback as part of their work with ANC.

Many grad students enter their Master鈥檚 degree or PhD with the hopes of helping their community. Community-campus engagement (CCE) is one way students can maximize the community benefits of their research. CCE work requires a significant time commitment, and it can be difficult to balance one’s research interests with the needs of the community. But this type of research can be extremely rewarding and give a completely unique perspective to the community issues at hand.

CFICE spoke to Tessa Nasca who completed an MA thesis in community-campus engagement to get some tips on how to do a CCE-related thesis.

Choosing to first enter grad school, and then selecting a research topic isn鈥檛 necessarily the only order in which to do things. For Tessa Nasca, Trent MA Sustainability graduate, it was the community organization that called first. Nasca took a different route to their master鈥檚 research. Rather than starting as a student and choosing a project, Nasca found an initiative that was looking for a student.

Nasca worked with the Stewart Street Active Neighbourhoods Project, in Peterborough. Nasca was able to work with this participatory planning project, whose goals are to engage members of the community who are traditionally marginalized and excluded from planning processes of this nature. Their role was to help plan and implement the project, but also to allow for a participatory evaluation of the project, and this is what led to a thesis. Nasca鈥檚 graduate work offered a direct line to their future career, and they now work as a project manager for the Active Neighbourhoods Project at the Toronto Centre for Active Transportation.

Community-minded graduate students鈥� goals are often to support community-based projects that they are passionate about while at the same time attaining a degree and building a career. However, Nasca warns that doing a CCE based thesis might not be for everyone. It definitely takes a certain type of student to be able to undertake this work. It鈥檚 important that students ensure they are needed by the community. Working with a community project can require a significant amount of time and training, and students want to make sure they can work independently enough without requiring a personal on-the-job supervisor.

(From left to right) Tessa Nasca, Katie Caddigan, Nadine Changfoot, and Jason Hartwick meet to discuss the ANC Peterborough Project.

Speaking of jobs, pursuing a degree that involves CCE work is an extremely time-intensive process and students might find themselves putting in similar amounts of time that would be required for a full-time job. With respect to time, Nasca said, 鈥淏e prepared to put in more time than a lot of your peers,鈥� at least at the Master鈥檚 level.

Students need to be prepared for the time investment that proper community-campus engagement demands. In order for the project to be mutually beneficial, students need to invest in creating meaningful relationships with the community partners. The effort towards building close relationships and maintaining a community-first perspective with the research can lead to rewarding results.

According to Nasca, , the local coordinating organization behind Peterborough鈥檚 Active Neighbourhoods Project work, was 鈥渁ble to apply some of the evaluation results [from their master鈥檚 thesis] when seeking additional funding to scale-up the Active Neighbourhoods project approach. GreenUP was successful in acquiring a three year Ontario Trillium Foundation grant to scale up the project approach that we piloted and evaluated.鈥� Funders tend to be attracted to the evidence-based approaches, and student research can help build this base of evidence to demonstrate the efficacy of a particular project approach.

If you鈥檙e considering doing a thesis that involves CCE, remember that the community comes first. Make sure you are passionate about the project, and that they are passionate about you. If you鈥檙e willing to put in the work, a CCE thesis can give you a direct path to an awesome career, and will allow you to help your community along the way!

Being ‘community first’ means engaging and involving community partners at all stages of the partnership, even the application process. When the CFICE team was putting together its SSHRC application several years ago, the application process presented one of the first opportunities to put the 鈥榗ommunity first鈥� ethos into action.

With so many partners involved in CFICE, (at least a dozen universities and 60+ community-based organizations), finding a project design, structure, and common goals across the project posed a challenge, but over the course of the six years of this project, CFICE leaders have learned to put community first through practice.

CFICE spoke to its current Principal Investigator, Peter Andr茅e, and one of the community partners from the Poverty Reduction Hub, Liz Weaver of Tamarack Institute in Waterloo, to gain their insight into how best to formulate a SSHRC partnership grant application while respectfully involving your community-based organization (CBO) partners.

Sharing ideas at the Ottawa CCE Regional Roundtable.

Start with existing relationships

Before you can think about submitting a SSHRC partnership grant application, you need to know who your partners will be. In CFICE鈥檚 case, most community partnerships arose out of pre-existing relationships and networks. CFICE鈥檚 original Principal Investigator (PI) Ted Jackson approached the Tamarack Institute, for instance, because he already had a relationship with them from his work in the community development sector.

CFICE Principal Investigator, Peter Andree.

Peter Andr茅e, the current PI for CFICE, was originally involved in the project as the academic co-lead for the Community Food Security hub. Through his academic research on food security, Andr茅e had an established network of contacts in that field, and it was through this network that he recruited to be a part of CFICE. Andr茅e said in an interview that connecting with partners in the early stages of the project 鈥渨as a bit of an organic process鈥� involving the lead academics and the Canadian Alliance for Community Service Learning (CACSL) drawing on their networks.

While you might begin with relationships you鈥檝e already built, that does not mean that those you first approach will necessarily be the right fit. 鈥淭he question then becomes how much you can ask of [the community partner],鈥� Andr茅e says. 鈥淚t鈥檚 often about your networks, but then don鈥檛 take that relationship for granted…really try and figure out if this is going to be of value [for them] or not.鈥�

Community partners are often asked to write letters of support in the context of a partnership grant application, but Andr茅e says this isn鈥檛 something you want to ask them for right away. 鈥淩ather, you first have to have a conversation about what would be in this for you, and what would be in this for me, and how can we make sure that your time is valued and how can this be reciprocal?鈥� he says.

Those initial conversations, of which there might be several, are the key to hashing out things like the responsibilities involved in the project and the potential benefits for each partner. If it鈥檚 a SSHRC partnership grant you鈥檙e applying for, don鈥檛 forget that the project is a research project at the end of the day.

鈥淲hile it can serve other ends for community organizations, it ultimately needs to be this knowledge generation, synthesis project, so if that is not of interest to them, then you have to have those conversations early on鈥� in order to determine if the partnership will be a good fit, says Andr茅e.

Consult partners from the get-go

Liz Weaver, the Co-CEO of the community-based organization the , was a community co-lead in CFICE鈥檚 Poverty Reduction hub in Phase I of the project. She says CFICE helped the folks at the Tamarack Institute feel respected and included in the application process by involving them in the initial design of the project.

鈥淚 think what was really important was the whole notion of community-first,鈥� Weaver told CFICE in a recent interview. For CFICE, 鈥渃ommunity-first鈥� means fostering equitable partnerships to co-create knowledge that can then be applied to benefit the community context.

鈥淚 felt I was informed at every stage of how the process was moving forward鈥here were lots of emails back and forth with community partners about where the proposal was at,鈥� Weaver said. Then, when the CFICE project got to the interview stage of the SSHRC proposal, community partners were invited to be a part of that process as well.

As a community partner outside of the academic sphere, Weaver said the SSHRC application itself can be a bit 鈥渄aunting,鈥� but that 鈥渢he people at 杏吧原创 [University] were quite helpful in terms of navigating [that].鈥�

Exchanging as much information as possible and providing assistance with the application process when needed can make your CBO feel included and involved without feeling overwhelmed.

Align shared goals

As part of those early conversations, ensuring that partners are on the same page as to the broader goals of the project, and what they hope to get out of the project for their individual organization or research, is an important step in ensuring that expectations are aligned.

鈥淪ome of what鈥檚 implicit in how we work needs to be made explicit, so that everybody understands the parameters that everybody鈥檚 working with,鈥� says Andr茅e. For instance, if an academic partner is looking to get tenure in the next five years, 鈥渢hat鈥檚 got to be on the table,鈥� Andr茅e says. 鈥淲hat do you need to get tenure? If that鈥檚 a certain number of publications, how does that fit in with what you鈥檙e planning to do with your community partners?鈥� Expectations that might seem like they are outside of the partnership, but that could influence one鈥檚 involvement in the project, need to be acknowledged.

Weaver said 鈥渢he group has to buy into the shared agenda鈥� of the research project, and thought maybe that was something that was lacking within CFICE鈥檚 Phase I. 鈥淚 think we circled around the shared agenda a lot, and then each of the hubs did their own thing,鈥� she said.

Both Weaver and Andr茅e identified the need to be in partnership with an organization as a whole, rather than just one person within that organization.

鈥淐hances are people who are still doing the work five years later are not the people who started, and so there needs to be an institutional commitment to the value of the work for that organization,鈥� Andr茅e says.

And, if you do have organizational or institutional support, and you have aligned goals and expectations, Weaver adds that something else to consider is your partners鈥� state of readiness. 鈥淚f you want [the project] to get off the ground quickly, then you want to have groups that have good relationships and people who make decisions relatively quickly,鈥� she said.

Negotiate power and governance

Over the course of CFICE, face-to-face meetings have been found to be integral to the success of partnership projects. These meetings allow honest and frank discussions to take place and can be helpful to address more difficult topics such as power imbalances. Weaver says the first face-to-face meeting for all CFICE partners did not happen until after the funding was secured and the logistics and structure of the project was already in place. She suggests that in hindsight, this might have been done differently, so that the main 鈥榟ub鈥� structure of the CFICE project could have been better communicated to community partners.

While Weaver said community partners might have been more involved in deciding the overall project structure, when it came to the individual hubs, 鈥渨e were able鈥攂oth community and academic鈥攖o make decisions fairly quickly with the design of that project.鈥� Weaver said the independence that was afforded to the hubs, in her case the Poverty Reduction hub, was helpful to the community partners and allowed them to have a driving voice behind the work.

Identifying areas where community partners will take the lead in terms of decision making and governance, and outlining areas that fall into the academic purview is important to ensure power dynamics are addressed and relationships are as equitable as possible.

For instance, within the SSHRC partnership grant, the PI, an academic, is ultimately responsible for budgeting and management of funds. That means that they will hold a certain degree of power and governance in the project. It is important to acknowledge this role and how it may impact the partnership in the context of these early conversations.

You’ve approached the partners, discussed governance and responsibilities, and now your team is ready to develop a realistic project budget and work plan. For funders like SSHRC, the key word is feasibility. This means they are looking for work plans and associated budgets that can actually be accomplished on time, and within the award amount available.

You鈥檒l need to think through the scope of your project in significant detail in order to produce the most viable budget and work plan possible. Here are some steps to follow that will help.

List your current personnel resources

Start your work and budget planning process by preparing a list of the personnel you know will be working on your project. This list will be based on the discussions you鈥檝e already had with project partners, and will entail thinking in more detail about how many hours each partner will realistically be able to contribute to the project (on average). If you win a SSHRC grant, these details will likely change as your project progresses, however, starting with this list will help give you a sense of the person-power you have available for completing tasks.

Here鈥檚 a sample breakdown from a CFICE working group:

Research Assistant (RA; Master鈥檚 level): 10 hours per week (consistent)

Community Co-lead: 5 hours per week (variable)

Academic Co-lead: 7 hours per week (variable)

Total: 22 hours per week

When you estimate the number of hours per week that your team will be able to spend on project work, you will get a much more accurate sense of how long it will take to complete the tasks associated with your project. For example, a literature review might take an undergraduate RA 30 hours to accomplish, whereas a Master鈥檚 RA might only take 20. Also, keep in mind the way that these hours play out in terms of weeks and months. For the literature review, it will take three full weeks for an RA to complete, even though it only takes 30 hours in total to complete.

Note: It鈥檚 always better to estimate that project partners will be able to spend less time on the project than more. It鈥檚 easier to put extra capacity to work than to find capacity where it doesn鈥檛 exist!

Clearly outline your project鈥檚 major tasks or activities

The next step is to lay out your major project deliverables. The best way to do this is to think about your end goal and list the most important tasks that need to be accomplished in order to reach that goal.

For CFICE, the end goal of the project was to answer the research question: How can community-campus partnerships be designed and implemented to maximize the value created for non-profit, community-based organizations?

From this end goal, the CFICE team identified the major activities they would need to accomplish in order to answer this question. These included:

• Working IN community-campus partnerships in different sectors, such as violence against women or poverty reduction, on actual projects.
• Studying/evaluating how each CCE project functioned (looking at project governance; decision-making processes; whether the projects accomplished their goals; how partners communicated; what worked and what didn鈥檛; etc.).
• Analyzing the data across all the projects to determine if CCE projects function the same across sectors or not.
• Answering the research question by coming up with recommended actions for working in CCE projects based on the research data.
• Sharing results with CCE practitioners and professionals!

Figuring out expectations and timelines are part of any good project.

In a project plan, your major tasks are known as milestones. Milestones allow you to plan the minutia of your project tasks and deliverables within a feasible timeline. They also act as markers to signal whether your project is staying on track once it鈥檚 actually in progress!

Using these milestones, you can then break down each section of the work into smaller, easier-to-plan tasks.

Here is a basic example from CFICE:

• Working IN community-campus partnerships in different sectors, such as violence against women or poverty reduction, on actual projects.
  • Identifying project partners and roles
  • Developing project proposals and parameters (including budget) with project partners
  • Applying for ethics clearance (if applicable)
  • Dispersing project funds (as needed)
  • Hiring student research assistants (as needed)
  • Running the project
  • Evaluating the project (submission of written report)
  • Sharing project results (knowledge mobilization)

Plan your activities from deadlines to start dates

With your completed list of milestones and associated tasks, you will be ready to start plotting everything onto a feasible timeline. As any good project manager knows, this process entails starting with final deadline(s) and working your way to the project鈥檚 beginning.

Using your project management software (which could be as simple as Microsoft Excel), insert the final date by which your project must be finished.

Next, add in your milestones from the previous step, and under these milestones, add in the associated tasks. Make sure each task falls in its own row (if using Excel). I recommend using project management software or Excel so you can easily sort, add, and remove tasks that pop up as you insert them into the timeline.

With your personnel resources in-mind, work backwards from the project end date to figure out your deadlines based on how much time it will take for your team to complete each task. Take into account time delays like vacations and statutory holidays too!

For example:

End of Project: March 31, 2019

• Sharing CFICE results
  • 1.5 years to complete (special issues with journals/attend spring/fall conferences to reach international audience, etc.)
  • Start date: November 1, 2017
  • End date: March 31, 2019
• Answering the research question/developing recommendations and key findings
  • This step must be completed before the next step can begin
  • 6 month consultative process; July-August resources are unavailable due to vacations
  • Start date: March 1, 2017
  • End date: October 31, 2017
• Analyzing the data across all the projects
  • This step must be completed before the next step can begin
  • 3 month consultative process (includes 1 in-person meeting)
  • Start date: November 15, 2016 (start in Nov. to take into account December holidays)
  • End date: February 28, 2017
• Studying/evaluating how each CCE project functioned
  • This step must be completed before the next step can begin
  • 6 month 鈥渙fficial鈥� data collection process (CAN be completed over the summer months, but July-Aug resources have less time towards project)
  • Start date: April 1, 2016
  • End date: November 16, 2016
• Working IN community-campus partnerships on actual projects
  • This step must be completed before the next step can begin
  • Goal: To work in as many CCE projects as possible before evaluation stage.
  • 6 month data collection process (CAN be completed over the summer months)
  • Start date: April 1, 2012
  • End date: March 31, 2016 鈥� approximate midterm of project

As you work through this process of planning your project from the end date to the start date, you will notice two things:

• Whether or not your project milestones can actually be accomplished within SSHRC鈥檚 grant timeline; and
• Where you might need to increase your resource availability to ensure you can accomplish your project鈥檚 goals.

These are important factors to notice before tackling the budget. They will help you balance the scope of your project鈥檚 activities with the budget you have. Keeping everyone on the same page and realistic about what can be accomplished is important.

Brainstorm and research a list of associated activity costs as a team

Now that you have all your activities laid out in a work plan, you can start to brainstorm the costs that will be associated with each activity. Doing this activity with a team is the best way to go, since more minds can help with identifying all the different associated project costs you may incur.

For example, take the 鈥淎nalyzing the data across all projects鈥� task, which breaks down to:

• Compiling the data into a single platform (20 hours)
• Preliminary analysis of data using software (10 hours + software purchase)
• In-depth analysis of data based on software results (20 hours)
• In-person 2-day event for team analysis of data findings (20 hours planning; 14 hours in-person; 15 hours transcribing meeting notes; 5 hours processing travel claims/expenses)
• Final report on findings (20 hours)

From this example, we can brainstorm the following costs:

• Personnel:
  • Research Assistant support (for analyzing data)
  • Project administration support (for processing travel claims/expenses; helping with event planning/organization)
  • Honouraria for community partner participation
• Non-personnel costs:
  • Catering
  • Audio/visual support
  • Meeting supplies
  • Meeting space rental
  • Data analysis software

Research the price of as many activity costs as possible

Next, or while you are brainstorming as a team, research the actual costs for as many of the items in your expense list. For example, if you are planning to host two in-person meetings a year, and you know that two of your partners will be flying in from BC, research the costs of flights, accommodations, and meals so you get a much more accurate sense of what this activity will cost.

Two tips here: (1) Keep note of where you find your project costs so you can include this information in the budget justification of your SSHRC application, and (2) don鈥檛 forget to include the costs of employer fees when estimating staff pay!

Check your brainstormed costs against the grant鈥檚 rules

Once you鈥檝e brainstormed and researched your project costs, check them against the grant鈥檚 rules of eligible and ineligible expenses (for SSHRC鈥檚 eligible/ineligible expenses, see the Financial Administration section on ). This step will help you identify any costs NOT covered by the funder, so you can either further narrow your project鈥檚 scope, or start to identify outside sources of funding.

Outside sources of funding can include in-kind contributions from your project partners, or external grants and bursaries. In CFICE鈥檚 case, our partners committed to a significant portion of in-kind contributions (both cash and otherwise), which allowed us to do things such as book free meeting space in the community and hire more students than usual for a project budget our size. Once this outside funding was identified, we were able to shift project funds to other budget lines as needed to ensure all our associated project tasks could reasonably be completed.

Build in an expense reserve

Finally, you will want to build into your budget a bit of cushioning to ensure you have the money to cover any unanticipated expenses as your project progresses. Make sure the amount you hold in reserve can actually be spent before the end of the project in case no unanticipated expenses come up. An idea could be to create a knowledge mobilization fund or a small project fund where you can hold a certain amount of money to which participants can apply for unanticipated knowledge mobilization/project activities such as conference attendance, publications, etc.

Decide how the team will manage the work plan and the budget

The last thing you and your team need to consider as part of your work and budget planning, is how you will manage these pieces once the project starts.

For CFICE, we created a budget committee designated to review the budgets on a yearly and as needed basis. This committee is responsible for ensuring we are on-track with our spending. They advise the principal investigator on what costs to approve that weren鈥檛 originally planned. And, having the committee itself allows for greater transparency around project management and budgeting decisions, which helps keep CFICE attuned to its community-first mandate.

CFICE Members planning together at the Oct. 25 Program Committee meeting. 漏Jason Garlough

We also developed a reporting process that is completed by team leads each quarter to ensure we can accurately assess whether we are meeting project milestones, and if not, to allow us to adjust timelines and budgets so we can complete all project tasks to meet our final project deadline.

Overall, the more in-depth you get with your work plan and budget brainstorming and research, the more accurate your final work plan and budget will be, and the more confident you will sound when writing about the feasibility of your project for your SSHRC partnership grant application. And of course, the more feasible your project sounds, the more likely you are to actually receive money for your efforts!

Do you have any tips for creating work plans and budgets for your SSHRC partnership project? If so, share them in the comments below!

Sometimes it鈥檚 hard to trace the direct impact that government programs have on our communities. This is partly because on-the-ground projects leading to community change often receive funding from many sources, including private donors, industry partners, foundations, and various levels of government. In the end, the question remains: Who gets the (most) credit for project outcomes and impacts?

Listen to the podcast below, or continue scrolling to read the full story! Download a PDF of the podcast transcript.

The Food Secure Canada team poses for a picture. 漏Abra Brynne

In Food Secure Canada鈥檚 (FSC) case, a partnership through the government-funded has had a direct impact on their ability to contribute to consultations on building a Food Policy for Canada. With the Government of Canada鈥檚 extremely short 飞颈苍诲辞飞鈥� to be exact鈥攈aving a Mitacs Postdoctoral Fellow provided FSC with additional policy and research expertise at just the right time.

鈥淏eing able to hire Amanda Wilson through Mitacs has given FSC the capacity to increase the number of voices being heard in the Government of Canada鈥檚 consultation process,鈥� says Diana Bronson, Executive Director of FSC. 鈥淎manda鈥檚 efforts, our partnerships with entities like and CFICE, along with the work of the FSC team as a whole, have lead to a much more robust engagement process around national food policy.鈥�

According to the Mitacs website, the goal of the Accelerate program is to put 鈥渢alent to work with an organization that needs it.鈥� They do this by matching community or industry partner funding for research projects that include a postdoctoral student, a supervising professor and a partner organization. The project submitted by FSC, in collaboration with Amanda and supervising Lakehead University professor Charles Levkoe, was titled .

Amanda Wilson worked as a post-doctoral student for Food Secure Canada.

鈥淥ur goal with this project was to increase the capacity of community and academic partners to contribute to a national food policy process,鈥� explains Amanda. 鈥淲e wanted to experiment with different ways of collaborating and sharing resources for policy impact, all with the goal of pushing for more just, healthy and sustainable food policy.鈥�

Through the project, Amanda has been able to take the lead on developing policy briefs (notably FSC鈥檚 and their ) and engaging with FSC members and academic partners to generate and refine policy recommendations. This included outreach to academic allies of FSC, as well as targeted engagement around New Farmers and Northern Food.

FSC has a long history of community-academic collaboration. A partner in CFICE since the beginning of Phase I, FSC creates space and opportunities for academics, non-profits, and community organizations to work together on research and advocacy for a just and sustainable food system.

鈥淔rom day one, working with Food Secure Canada has been a bit of a whirlwind,鈥� recalls Amanda. I鈥檝e been involved in so many different events and processes. But it鈥檚 been a great opportunity to build relationships with community organizations and academics across Canada and to hopefully have a real impact on the government鈥檚 policy-building process.鈥�

Attendees at the Ottawa Food Summit. 漏Food Secure Canada

While the results of FSC鈥檚 advocacy efforts are not yet fully available鈥攖he first draft of A Food Policy for Canada won鈥檛 be out until mid-2018鈥攖he impact of having matching funds for Amanda鈥檚 position are clear.

鈥淲e wouldn鈥檛 have been able to generate the same depth and breadth of policy analysis, or connect with our members to the same degree without Amanda鈥檚 help,鈥� says Diana. 鈥淭he Mitacs funding has really increased our ability to meet our core goal of supporting the food movement to engage in meaningful policy change. The best part is that the funding lasts for two years, which allows us to breathe and really maximize Amanda鈥檚 contributions to our organization.鈥�

As for Amanda, she鈥檚 happy she鈥檚 had the opportunity to work on such a high-profile policy process that incorporates so many of the crucial issues facing our food system. 鈥淲orking in a community context, there鈥檚 a tangible impact of the work I鈥檓 doing that you don鈥檛 get in a strictly academic context, which is something I really appreciate.鈥�

With another year of funding left for Amanda鈥檚 postdoctoral position, this collaboration is sure to continue generating important policy insight that contributes to a stronger food movement in Canada.

Become more community-first!

To learn more about how to make your work more community-first, check out our list of actions for all community-campus engagement practitioners!

This Spring 2018, the legacy of CFICE is blooming with the creation of Community-Campus Engage Canada (CCEC) and its regional and national roundtables.

Picture taken at CCEC鈥檚 last National Roundtable in Ottawa on February 14, 2018

CCEC is hosting a series of regional roundtables across the country, as well as another national roundtable. The purpose of these roundtables is to collaborate with grassroots partners, engagement practitioners, post-secondary institutions (PSIs), policy makers and funders with the objective of finding a common goal that shapes and funds sustainable community-campus engagement (CCE) in Canada.

Community-Campus Engage Canada (CCEC) was formerly known as Aligning Institutions for Community Impacts (AICI) and currently operates as one of the five working groups in the second phase of the Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE) project. The working group is responsible for convening regional and national roundtables from coast to coast to have participants engage in the discussion of establishing a national CCE network and community of practice in Canada to build the movement long term.

Since May 2017, CCEC has hosted three national roundtables with the next one underway on June 20, 2018. Many ideas and strategies about enhancing the CCE movement have been exchanged at these events. For example, at the last national roundtable on February 14, 2018, discussions were had about establishing regional roundtables across Canada to explore the diverse functions of CCE locally in Canada. In fact, it was at this same roundtable where the idea of rebranding AICI to CCEC began. Participants discussed how they desired to be part of the national CCE movement and help build the legacy of CFICE, however they wanted the working group name to be more accessible and forward-focused. Through some more consultation after the national roundtable, Community-Campus Engage Canada (CCEC) was created in April 2018, and since then the working group has been busy planning and conducting regional and national roundtables this Spring.

I started at CFICE as an Administrative Research Assistant for the CCEC working group in February 2018. My own academic background is in health communication, and since entering CFICE I have gained a growing interest in how universities can support young graduating students like myself gain practical experience and knowledge with community partners in our respective fields. I had the pleasure and privilege of working with incredible and motivating people at CFICE who value the importance of student involvement and participation in community-campus engagement. During my short time in this role, I was able to experience the rapid transformation of the CCEC working group, and see regional roundtables take off across the country to build the CCE movement in Canada.

Since the beginning of the Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE) project, we have been working with our partners to study how to improve community-campus engagement partnerships. Community-campus engagement (CCE) can include community-based research, community service learning, and other community engagement activities.

Through this evaluation, CFICE has identified a number of elements that are key to the success of a community-campus engagement partnership. Here are the top 5 elements of a successful CCE partnership: skip to the bottom of the page

1. Setting Clear Expectations

CFICE Members planning together at a听meeting. 漏Jason Garlough

Because CCE projects can be complex, CFICE outlines the need to set clear expectations of what will be achieved and how it will be accomplished. If expectations are unclear, CCE partners may have trouble understanding the purpose of their role in the collaboration.

It is therefore important that both parties begin their partnership by collaboratively setting the rules of engagement. This means identifying expectations, roles, responsibilities, limitations, and potential problems early on, and then continuing the collaboration with regular check-ins to make sure everyone is still on the same page. With clear expectations identified, the goals of all partners should be clearly understood so everyone can work towards achieving these goals

2. Being Flexible and Equitable 杏吧原创 Collaboration

Collaboration is the heart of CCE. By working together to identify issues within the community, CCE partners can develop potential solutions that build on the strengths of both academic and community contributions. But not all partners will have the capacity to contribute equally to the project as it progresses over time. This means that partners must take a flexible, 鈥渆xperimental鈥� approach to navigating the partnership work while continuing to balance the partnership鈥檚 shared expectations.

3. Engaging in Clear and Open Communication

Underpinning the ability to engage in a successful collaboration is the need for clear and open communication. Positive CCE partnerships are built on deep, communicative, and respectful relationships that develop based on honest, clear communication. This type of communication and relationship development can be facilitated through working together in-person and virtually; by supporting and emphasizing safe spaces for dialogue; and establishing a shared language.

Developing clear communication between all project partners helped the听ANC Peterborough Project achieve its goals.

4. Developing the Skills of Student Participants

While students often learn about community issues in the classroom, CCE and community service learning gives students the opportunity to apply what they learn in class and develop the necessary skills to address issues identified by communities. However, evaluation of CFICE projects has found that it can take a lot of time and energy for community partners to work with untrained students. Ensuring that students have at least some of the skills they need before participating in a CCE project can be a key factor in ensuring the success of the CCE partnership. This can be achieved by allowing community partners more control over the selection of RAs (so they can identify the students that have the skills the community needs), collaboratively working to set expectations for students鈥� role in the work, and providing sustained support and training to students over the course of CCE projects.

5. Building in Time to Develop Long-term Relationships

Food Secure Canada has been a CFICE partner since the start of the project. 漏Abra Brynne

Long-term relationships are important for the success of CCE partnerships, especially when they are developed while taking into consideration the elements listed above. Long-term relationships increase the depth of the research, the ability to accommodate complex projects, and the lasting impacts that can be achieved.

As CFICE discovered in Phase I, long-term relationships take time to develop. CFICE鈥檚 success as a project has ultimately depended on our ability to foster these relationships over the course of four years. And our continued success will only be achieved based on the relationships that we continue to build into Phase II. As we discovered, it is easier to develop projects in long-term relationships because the work of understanding each other鈥檚 expectations, developing trust, and building important skills has already been established.

Overall, many factors have been part of CFICE鈥檚 success in bridging together academic and community leaders through CCE partnerships. For more information on CFICE鈥檚 Phase I evaluations, read through our Evaluation Backgrounder.