This webinar explored the affordable housing crisis as it relates to students and the wider public and shared innovative examples from the nonprofit development sector for how assets are being leveraged to meet affordable housing goals. The webinar also explored how post secondary institutions can contribute to this important work.

Video Link

If you missed out on the day-of presentation, not to worry. We’ve made it accessible below.

Presenters

Moderator- Presenter

Abigail Moriah is a connector and registered professional planner specializing in affordable housing development. She works for at New Commons Development and has more than 10 years of experience working in the public and community-based sectors in the areas of community development and affordable housing. Prior to this she consulted for several years with the government and nonprofit organizations, in Halifax and Ottawa.

Alia Abaya’s passion is finding unique ways to bring people together, especially groups which seem like uncommon allies. Alia’s academic background is in Fine Arts and a BA in Sociology.  Her career has spanned social justice, community arts and development, private foundations, corporate responsibility, and now landing at Alterna Savings as the Director of Community Impact supporting building tools and opportunities for Social Finance.

Laurent Levesque is Executive Coordinator and co-founder of UTILE, a nonprofit founded in 2013 that is currently developing 200 units of affordable student housing in Montréal with support from the CMHC, the City of Montréal and the Concordia Student Union. He is also a founding member of the Popular University Student Housing Fund (PUSH Fund).  He has graduated in Urban Planning and is currently pursuing a M.Sc. in Management at HEC Montréal. Finally, he is involved with other nonprofits, most notably as vice-president of the board of the Chantier de l’économie sociale.

Nemoy Lewis, PhD is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow with the Jean Augustine Chair in Education, Community & Diaspora at York University. He earned his doctoral degree in Human Geography from Queen’s University in 2018. For his upcoming Postdoctoral Research at the University of Toronto, Nemoy will explore the growing affordability problems impacting renters in racialized communities since the financialization of the rental markets in Canada and the United States. He has presented papers at local, national, and international conferences, and has contributed to chapters in two books: Neoliberal Chicago and Gentrification as a Global Strategy.

Jorge Sousa is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at the University of Alberta. Jorge’s primary approach to research and practice is community-based. His areas of research all fall within the intersection of community development and adult education. The specific topics that his research focuses on includes: community housing; pedagogy for co-operation; strengthening Canada’s Social Economy; governance and member engagement of non-profit and co-operative organizations; higher education and partnerships; and public policy related to community development and community economic development. Focus topics related to the webinar include Focus on affordable housing crisis to community building; The commons and community housing; and Promoting agency, partnerships and social value in the development of new housing opportunities. ​​

This book includes chapters from each of the hub’s partners, and outlines the different models of engagement used by each partnership to complete work towards reducing poverty in their respective communities.

To view and/or download a PDF copy of the book, click on the image below. Happy reading!

The mission of Community Campus Engage Canada (CCEC) is to contribute to thriving, just, and
sustainable societies by growing connections, capacity, and infrastructure for community-driven
collaboration with post-secondary institutions across Canada. CCEC emerges from a seven-year
SSHRC-funded pan-Canadian participatory action research project that investigates how community-campus partnerships can be designed and implemented to maximize the value created for non-profit, community-based organizations. Beginning May 1, 2019, CCCE will operate as a project under the Trent Centre for Community-Based Education (TCCBE).

CCEC Steering Committee members will oversee CCEC staff, provide necessary reporting to the
TCCBE’s Board of Directors, and participate on one of three CCEC working groups focused on
Organizational Development, Community of Practice and Network Platform Development, and Funding and Policy.

CCEC seeks Steering Committee members who are committed to realizing CCEC’s Strategic Plan, and who have the capacity to build CCEC collaboratively over the course of a year starting May 1, 2019. We aspire to a diverse Steering Committee inclusive of community, post-secondary and boundary spanning CCE champions, as well as geographic, gender, ethnic, and sectoral/disciplinary diversity. We welcome members with patience for the often ambiguous, messy, and exciting stage of organizational start-up.

Prospective Steering Committee members will be assessed according to the following criteria:

• Knowledge of community-first approaches to community-campus engagement;
• Enthusiasm for the future of CCE in Canada;
• Experience with governance, policy development, evaluation, financial oversight, grant writing, and
  fundraising; and
• Connections to diverse local, regional, provincial/territorial, national, and/or international networks.

It is expected that Steering Committee members will participate for the full Phase I term of CCEC (to May 31, 2020). Members will participate remotely across this pan-Canadian committee. Committee members will typically meet once a month (by video conference), with additional meetings for working groups.

Members can expect to spend approximately a half-day per week in Steering Committee involvement including attending/preparing for meetings, reviewing documents, and contributing to other items related to specific working groups. Interested individuals with limited capacity for participation are invited to describe within their application letter how they may effectively contribute to the committee.

There is no remuneration paid to Steering Committee members, but members will:

• Enjoy access to a vast national-scale CCE network;
• Have a prominent voice in CCEC initiatives for CCE practitioners and stakeholders; and
• Shape the diversity of contributions to significant conversations regarding advancement of CCE efforts in Canada.

Individuals interested in serving as CCEC Steering Committee members are asked to submit a letter (no longer than one page) outlining their interest in CCEC leadership and alignment with the criteria and aspirations detailed above to Lisa Erickson at curtis.sanderson@usask.ca. Review of applications will begin on April 22, 2019. Candidates may be contacted to discuss their interest. Individuals that have been part of the Interim Executive Committee, the Interim Steering Committee, or CFICE, that have convened or participated in CCEC Roundtables, and/or that have a passion for and deep interest in CCE are invited to apply to serve on the CCEC Steering Committee.

Note: Upon applying to this Committee, your application may be shared with current Interim Executive and Steering Committee members as part of the review process.

Please contact Lisa Erickson at lisa.erickson@usask.ca if you have any questions regarding the
nomination process.

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.

“But why human rights?” I am often asked this question when I say that I work for an anti-poverty organization that champions ending poverty through a human rights framework.

Why are human rights so important when we talk about ending poverty in Canada? And who are we talking about when we say there are an estimated people in this country who live in poverty?

In recent years, Gender Based Violence (GBV), gender equality and poverty reduction have become a major focal point for policy initiatives and government mandates alike. As we know, poverty is multi-layered and complex making it hard to even truly define the term, let alone how it overtly impacts our communities, and gender based violence too. It gets even more complicated when take into consideration the diversity found in a country like Canada. But looking at poverty from a human rights framework is a step towards clarity.

Poverty is a human rights issue

, and using a human rights framework allows us to address the root causes of poverty, rather than merely addressing the “symptoms” of it. Through our international obligations found in various treaties, accords, and covenants, Canada is required to create an environment where all people can access an adequate standard of living – and with that, eliminate poverty. Our human rights centre around the , which means that everyone possesses the same rights regardless of who they are, where they are from, their income, or other conditions.

Despite this principle of non-discrimination, there is a stark overrepresentation of women who experience poverty in Canada. A recent  from 2011 found that the median employment income in female lone-parent families with children under 6 was $21,200, which was found to be 50% less than the average income in equivalent male lone-parent families ($43,300.30).

Poverty is also a women’s rights issue

The reality is that, in Canada, not only are more women impacted by poverty, making up , but poverty is directly connected to increased rates of gender-based violence (GBV). For example, on any given night, there are  and children sleeping in shelters due to unsafe living conditions at home and a lack of access to other options. And certain female demographics experience the intersection of poverty and violence at higher rates than others. For example, rates of violence for indigenous women are more than than non-indigenous women.

In their report on Poverty and gender-based violence (GBV), the Government of Canada states: “”. The combined effect of poverty and violence increases a woman’s risk of victimization, isolates women and steals their ability to participate meaningfully within their homes and throughout their communities. There is a clear connection between women’s economic dependence and violence, creating an even larger gap for women living in rural areas where jobs often have low wages and there is a significant lack of resources such as social supports. Services that are often lacking in rural communities include shelters or counselling services. The discrepancy in service provision is a blatant disregard to our government’s rudimentary human rights obligations.

Poverty traps women in unsafe conditions

Poverty also continues to greatly impact the ability for women to leave violent, abusive and unsafe living situations. In a policy brief released by the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses (OAITH), they report that are undeniably the two top challenges for women and children leaving abusive relationships. Because of their increased levels of poverty, women fleeing violent situations face impossible choices. For example, escaping the situation at home might mean choosing homelessness, hunger, and unsafe living conditions for themselves and their children. Without an adequate income, women often live on the margins of society, constantly struggling to survive

Khayman Wood, a Victim Support worker at Ottawa Victim Services (OVS), says that he sees this parallel between poverty and staying in a bad situation far too often. “I have seen first-hand people staying in abusive relationships because they have nowhere else to go,” he says. Wood’s clients often make initial contact during a time of crisis, recounting that his first case was a woman trying to leave a 10 year-long abusive marriage. From there, Wood tries to connect his clients to services such as emotional supports, practical assistance, and advocacy.

According to Wood, advocacy is a key part to addressing the systemic barriers his clients face: “It isn’t just about income; it is about lack of supports with prescription medications, with childcare, with housing. The biggest issue right now is a lack of affordable housing…Ottawa is facing a crisis.”

Wood also notes that when supports such as shelters (or other various accommodations provisions) become full, there is an increase in women staying in unsafe situations for lack of alternative options.

Poverty’s intersection with GBV is complex, and has severe consequences that affect millions of women and children firsthand.

A Canada without Poverty and GBV?

The relief of poverty or GBV, even within our international obligations and human rights frameworks, will be an ongoing process for governments and civil society.  But by addressing the root causes of systemic marginalization and the various aspects of GBV, we will help reduce poverty for all Canada’s citizens.

So, what should our governments and civil society be doing next?

Moving forward with the national housing strategy, gender pay equity legislation, and a national childcare program will help give women better stability and more options when facing poverty and violent situations. By implementing equal pay for equal work, relinquishing certain caregiver responsibilities through national childcare, and having a safe place to return to at the end of the day for women and their families, we will see not only poverty reduction, but a stronger and more cohesive Canada. Lifting up all women is a win socially and economically.

Eliminating poverty and GBV is up to us

It is the responsibility of all of us to hold our governments to account for clear and inclusive approaches to addressing poverty and GBV. Making sure your elected representatives know that you support policies that aim to eliminate poverty, and champion women’s rights, are the first steps in mobilizing our voices to see greater support from parliament on these issues.

It is also imperative to remember why we must work collectively to end such egregious human rights violations: it is on all of us to ensure no one has to make the choice between staying in an unsafe, or violent situation and being able to afford medications, food or rent.

Take the time this December, and into the new year, to make conscious choices about supporting initiatives that work to end poverty and give women the fundamental options they so desperately deserve, because in a country as plentiful as Canada, we can no longer be idle on commitments to end poverty, particularly for women and their families.

Terry Mitchell, Colleen Loomis, Alexia Polillo, Brooke Fry, and Mary Mackeigan worked with CFICE as part of the Poverty Reduction hub‘s Phase I project on shifting societal attitudes towards people living in poverty.

In this article, the authors examine the attitudes that youth have towards individuals living in poverty in southwestern Ontario.

Abstract

Canada has been challenged in attempts to reduce and eliminate poverty. In this study, the authors used a projective technique to assess attitudes about people living in poverty (113 young adults, average age 21) living in southwestern Ontario. Five themes emerged from Thematic Apperception Test responses: (1) negative assumptions about people in poverty, (2) simplified beliefs about various pathways into poverty, (3) conditional compassion for those living in poverty, (4) gendered responses about women in poverty, and (5) individualized attitudes and beliefs about pathways out of poverty. Findings have implications for shifting victim-blaming explanations for why people are living in poverty.

.

This three-day Symposium will feature over 30 concurrent workshops and panel sessions, mobile tours, and keynotes, with a focus on providing actionable tools and knowledge transfer to participants from rural, remote, Indigenous, and northern communities in Canada, allowing them to find innovative solutions and improve the quality of life in their communities.

The Alberta Rural Development Network is seeking presenters for the Symposium. We welcome solution focused presentations that pertain to topics related to rural and remote housing and homelessness, including:

• Homelessness Prevention Practices
• Collaborative Solutions Between Urban and Rural Canada
• Mental health and Addictions Solutions in Homelessness and Housing
• Energy Efficiency and Sustainability in Affordable Housing
• Innovative Solutions
• Research and Policy
• Indigenous Homelessness and Housing
• The North
• Engaging Government and Funders

We encourage sharing the call for presenters with other entities which may be interested. The submission deadline is Friday, June 22nd, 2018.

For information on the Canadian Rural and Remote Housing and Homelessness Symposium, travel and accommodation information, as well as registration, please visit the Symposium website: 

If you have any questions concerning the Symposium, please contact Sofia Lamus at sofial@ardn.ca

Entering into a partnership with post-secondary institutions (PSIs) can open a lot of doors for community-based organizations (CBOs), including access to certain funding opportunities, increased capacity, and the creation of new and collaborative networks with shared goals.

CCE partnerships can be mutually beneficial for both academic and community partners, as both entities have the opportunity to learn from each other, share resources, and deepen their respective understandings of the issues. This is particularly true when academic partners approach the partnership from a community-first perspective.

As one academic partner from the Community Food Security hub noted, “Academics can play an important role” in social and community movements. Speaking specifically about the food sovereignty movement, the academic said that “the movement is dependent on partnerships and finding ways to make these stronger and work better.”

CCE partnerships certainly come with their fair share of challenges, but many community partners find them to also be very valuable. For CBOs who haven’t partnered with an academic institution before, here are some of the benefits that come along with partnering with a PSI.

The benefit of a different perspective

Professional researchers like academics, who might bring different knowledge, experiences, and perspectives to the table, can be an asset to a community project. One community partner within CFICE’s Community Food Security Hub said that “having consistent, high level support to look at a challenge/opportunity in the community” in the form of an academic partner was a helpful resource.

For some community partners within this hub, the partnership provided them with an opportunity to better understand how to approach, engage, and partner with academics in general: “Working with the academics helped us think about how to frame questions,” one community partner said. Participation also forced reflection on how to “work in ways that are movement-building and legitimate in the eyes of our academic colleagues.”

Community partners noted that the nature of their work is generally very busy, and “the academics involved bring a methodical and rigorous approach to the work, frequently reminding me through their observations and suggestions of the original goals of…[and] lessons learned from the project.”

Participants in CFICE’s Poverty Reduction Hub said the community-campus partnership provided an opportunity to engage in applied research, to “think about the bigger picture, and…ask stimulating questions.” One participant noted that the partnership enabled “opportunities for applied research within the community, and increased research capacity from community perspective,” describing it as a “win/win.” The applied research practice also provided opportunity for “initial evaluation” of “novel social enterprise[s],” enabling projects to move forward more effectively.

Formal evaluation practices

Partners within the Food Security Hub found that the Hub’s evaluation mandate encouraged the regular documentation of processes and experiences. Through the more formal research practices adopted within this Hub, partners were able to “capture information that was used to refine their evolving practice.” This process helped projects move beyond the anecdotal evidence they had previously relied on, a practice that was noted as a barrier in translating ideas into action.

Heather Reid chats with other CFICE members about the interpretation of CFICE’s year 4 evaluation data.

CFICE’s evaluation support was also a valuable resource for community partners who wanted to implement formal evaluation processes, but who did not have the capacity to do so. This lack of capacity can also be a barrier when community organizations are seeking funding, because, as one participant in the Poverty Reduction Hub noted, “funders demand evaluations: they like outcome based assessments.”

Credibility and legitimacy 

We add credibility to each other’s work when we collaborate. ©Jason Garlough

Credibility and legitimacy within CCE partnerships is almost always a two-way street in that community and academic partners bring legitimacy to each other’s work. Academics often gain credibility within their own research through working with community partners as the community partners facilitate access for researchers to collect meaningful data, for instance.

Conversely, academic knowledge comes from a place of privilege, and academics can effectively use that privilege to empower community partners.

Participants in CFICE’s Poverty Reduction Hub noted that a SHHRC-funded grant lent some “legitimacy” to the project and “provides context and weight to the work.”

Within the Community Food Security Hub, participants similarly pointed to the credibility that academic partnerships sometimes lend to community work by “help[ing] the community concretely in making a political case for their work of funding.”

Similarly, in the Violence Against Women Hub, one community partner described how the presence of a supportive academic on the project gave them credibility with a partner whose resistance to the community organization was threatening the overall initiative. The community partner said, “This relationship has allowed us to be able to consolidate such that…academia cannot be used against the frontline, and that is what usually happens…so that was a perfect example of a moment where academic bolstered the front line. That’s a good partnership as far as I’m concerned.”

Leveraging Resources

Academic institutions have access to many resources that can be leveraged in the best interest of the community organization. Funding is perhaps the most obvious resource that academic partners can assist in accessing through, for instance, formal evaluation practices.

But resources that can be leveraged for community partners extends beyond the money. Another resource, for instance, is access to research assistants, student volunteers, etc., who can provide “the extra manpower and person power to get things done,” as one academic partner put it.

The networks that persist as a result of community-campus partnerships provide a resource that can be mined even after the partnership concludes. Such networks expose all parties to new ideas, new strategies, and future opportunities for collaboration.

The attendees of CFICE’s Vancouver CCE Regional Roundtable decided to start a community of practice to extend their networks.

Within the Violence Against Women hub, a community partner said the partnership “rejuvenated our ability to work together” as academics and activists, as it provided tangible means by which to collaborate and focus on shared goals.

A participant from the Poverty Reduction Hub similarly acknowledged the CFICE partnership as having “helped build [a] network across Canada regarding community university collaboration,” giving all partners access to valuable connections in their field.

The networks, shared goals, and potential for future collaboration are the most consistent benefits of CCE partnerships acknowledged across all CFICE hubs. As one community partner from the Violence Against Women Hub put it, “We have a movement that needs to be rejuvenated and academics need to be a part of it.”

This article draws from interviews and focus groups conducted in 2015-2016 as part of CFICE’s year 4 project evaluation, and includes common themes from across CFICE’s five Phase I hubs.

Taking a community first approach to community-campus engagement (CCE) is a cornerstone to the work CFICE does, but it’s impossible to be community first without the input and participation of community organizations.

Community-based organizations (CBOs) such as non-profit, non-governmental, or charitable organizations, representing either the community-at-large, or a particular concern or segment of the community, are vital to community first research, learning, and fostering positive change.

CCE occurs when members of academic institutions and members of the community come together with a shared goal and the intention of accomplishing more together. Shared resources, such as funding, time, space, and labour, are an added benefit of CCE.

If you are a CBO considering a CCE partnership with an academic institution, here are a couple different types of CCE partnerships you might pursue.

Symbiotic partnerships: Community-service learning

(CSL), also known as service-learning or community-based learning, is a practical educational tool involving students in community service work as a part of rounding out their education. By making connections between what they’re learning in the classroom and their practical experience in the community, the goal is for students to develop a stronger sense of social responsibility, improve their critical thinking skills, and actively reflect on their connection with the community.

�Ӱ�ԭ��’s definition of community service-learning points out that this model differs from volunteerism in that volunteerism suggests a “charity model,” whereas “service is about mutual learning…[and] a reciprocal relationship between participants and the community members they work with.”

Members of the GottaGo! team, including students ©GottaGo!

The premise is that while students get the added benefit of learning practical skills, networking with potential future employers, and further self-reflection, community organizations receive extra helping hands where they are needed. That said, community service-learning requires a lot of collaboration on the part of academic faculty, community partners, and students themselves.

Stephen Hill, an academic co-lead with CFICE’s Student Pathways for Community Impact Working Group, sees the value of community service-learning, even when it means a lot of extra work for himself: Every year he organizes service-learning placements for more than 300 students in his first year environmental science course.

In a blog post for CFICE Stephen wrote that the partnerships “emerged organically over the years with different partners gradually joining the mix.” The benefit for the students, he said, is having “the opportunity to learn about and work with the community in their first month of university…[which] is so important for building student engagement in the course and with the material.” As the partnerships progressed, he also stressed that “the community partners absolutely depend on the students in their projects.” In addition to providing needed human resources to different community partners, students can also contribute new and innovative ideas. This sort of symbiotic partnership is exactly what CCE is meant to be about.

Community service-learning vs Work-integrated learning

To clarify some terminology (since it can get confusing in the CCE world), community service-learning also falls under what the Ontario government is calling work-integrated learning (WIL). Work-integrated learning, also known as experiential learning, involves the integration of academic curriculums with workplace experience.

Recently, the Ontario government has recommended that all postsecondary students engage in at least one work-integrated learning opportunity before graduation, as part of . Work-integrated learning encompasses all experiential learning, whether that be through systemic training such as apprenticeships, a structured work experience like a co-op placement or internship, or institutional partnership, like community service-learning.

Community-based research: With the community and for the community

In addition to working with students through programs that facilitate community service-learning, community-based organizations can also enter into a CCE partnership by participating in community consultations, or community-based research.

, also known as participatory research, is conducted in the community with active participation from community partners. The end-goal is to benefit community partners and have a positive impact on the community. While community service-learning can be primarily about improving and enhancing student education, community-based research provides a space for community-based organizations to speak directly to academics on issues that are practically relevant to the community.

In the context of community-based research, community members actively participate in all parts of the research process, from defining the research question to interpreting and writing up the research results. While their level of involvement can be negotiated to meet the community’s needs, this type of deep engagement ensures the most beneficial outcome for the community can be achieved. Additionally, embedded research assistants, working closely with the community partner, can often act as liaisons between the community and academic partners in community-based research. Ultimately, this approach is collaborative rather than unilateral.

Collaboration is a constant at the Trent Community Research Centre! ©Elizabeth Thipphawong

Some community partners might be wary of being the subject of academic research due to previous experiences where power dynamics damaged relations between the academic and the community members. However, if both academic and community partners prioritize community first engagement, then power differentials in the research process can be discussed and negotiated in a respectful manner.

One example of community-based research within CFICE’s Poverty Hub occurred with the CCE partnership between the and McMaster University. This research project assessed barriers to implementing a living wage experienced by small- to medium-sized business. By conducting the research in a community first way, this partnership successfully developed strategies for encouraging businesses to pay a living wage, and even had some research subjects already committing to being living wage employers by the end of the study.

Students engaged in community service-learning might contribute ideas to ongoing projects with CBOs, but within community-based research, the intention from start to finish is to develop practical and action-oriented results for positive social change in the community.

A positive result of CCE: Mobilized knowledge and enhanced networks

An important aspect of any CCE partnership’s success is sharing the knowledge that was learned through the process. Knowledge Mobilization is the process of creating knowledge that is useful and used by the public, communities, and policy makers. Within the context of CCE projects, knowledge mobilization is the process of sharing the results in ways that benefit the community—even if it’s a matter of learning what not to do in the future. This can include making sure the research findings are curated into final products that can be shared with new and existing partners.

Knowledge mobilization is key to the ongoing success of partnerships because it provides a foundation of knowledge that future community partnerships can then build and improve upon. As well, it helps ensure that community-generated knowledge is shared with other stakeholders, including governments, local businesses, and other institutions. Having access to this knowledge helps stakeholders and networks respond to community needs more effectively.

Ultimately, CFICE has found that engaging in community first CCE can bring out the strengths of all participants, particularly when considering how the skills and capabilities of academic partners and community partners can be different, but complimentary. These partnerships also build lasting networks that extend beyond the partnership itself, which ultimately has the added benefit of connecting knowledge with practice and vice versa.

This is part three of a three-part series on the ABC’s of CCE Partnerships, where we share some of the most important things to keep in mind when engaging in a CCE Partnership. Here, we’ve identified some strategies for sharing power. This article draws from interviews and focus groups conducted in 2015-2016 as part of CFICE’s year 4 project evaluation, and includes common themes from across CFICE’s five Phase I hubs. 

In the first two parts of this series, sharing responsibilities and sharing resources, the question of power has been present throughout. Power dynamics in community-campus engagement (CCE) partnerships are important to be aware of, because if left unchecked, they can leave a lasting and damaging impact on community-campus engagement (CCE) partners.

Power dynamics can be managed and mitigated through building an awareness of power imbalances, openly discussing how power might impact the partnership, and by those holding positions of power using their privilege to empower the voices of others.

This article explores how power dynamics were at play within CFICE partnerships, and the strategies that were employed to manage power imbalances with a community first perspective.

Self-awareness of power dynamics

The first step in equalizing power is to develop an awareness of any power imbalances that might exist in a CCE partnership. The power dynamics and how they play out will differ depending on context, but the practice of being conscious of how power dynamics are impacting any given relationship can always apply.

For instance, within CFICE’s Community Environmental Sustainability Hub in Peterborough, “the role and power of the university and the perception of the university’s influence was a source of tension”, according to one community partner. It’s important to note here that the perception of a power imbalance or undue influence can have just as much of an effect on a partnership as an actual power imbalance.

In this instance, the perceived power imbalance was visualized when the number of academics and university affiliates “significantly outnumbered” representation from the community. The university affiliates may have simply been very engaged in the partnership and wanting to demonstrate this enthusiasm through their presence. However, there was discussion about whether or not the strong academic presence affected community members’ comfort in expressing opinions. Whatever the intention of the academic partners, the perception was that there was a power imbalance, and it may have had an impact on community participation in the discussion.

A power imbalance can be real or perceived.

Taking steps to consciously equalize power imbalances is important in developing an effective partnership. For instance, the Poverty Reduction Hub demonstrated a self-awareness of power dynamics by making all decisions with input from both community and academic partners. They also worked to identify and discuss the principles they had been either consciously or unconsciously adopting to equalize power. This type of discussion ensured that efforts to equalize power were front of mind for everyone involved, which naturally lead to a more power-conscious partnership.

Academic institutions and partners, who are often seen to be the players with the power in a CCE partnership, should aim for self-awareness when it comes to their level of participation and representation within a partnership. Too much representation can cause the community partner to feel overpowered. Developing a self-awareness of power dynamics should lead to open and honest discussions between partners to ensure equalizing power becomes a priority for the group.

That said, these sorts of open and honest discussions can only happen when there is a foundation of trust.

The importance of trusting relationships

CFICE’s Violence Against Women Hub found that the success of the partnership was hugely dependent on trust. For partners in this hub, overcoming the inherent distrust that community felt towards academic partners as a result of prior experience with academic research was a slow process, but one that was deemed extremely worthwhile.

One of the academic partners in this hub described the benefit of coming to understand more about “why people in the community might not want partnerships with people in the university,” because it helped the academic partner “think about [her] own interaction.”

Discussing problems that were experienced as part of prior community-academic relationships allowed for the Violence Against Women hub to develop more understanding of potential problematic power dynamics. It also allowed the Violence Against Women academics to approach their partnerships with community in ways that allowed community to re-develop trust.

Similarly, in the Community Environmental Sustainability Hub, community partners made sure that conversations happened as they were needed, because “the need to provide space to air issues, questions, concerns” was a necessary component of a trusting and productive relationship.

Power and control in CCE relationships: Whose voices are heard?

Academic voices are often prioritized. Sharing power is about advancing community voices equally.

Academic knowledge is often privileged: It is usually academics who apply for and receive funding grants, and it is academics whose voices are heeded by institutions like government. As one community partner in the Violence Against Women Hub noted, “when you are talking about a research project, you are talking about who is in control, and it’s not us…ever.”

The feeling that the academic partner is in control of the research project can be amplified if the academic is paying members of the community for their participation. One academic partner in this hub reported how, “once we could pay the participants…then they felt like we were their bosses. Things shifted.” Because they were being paid, the community partners felt that it was ultimately up to the academic whether or not the project proceeded at all.

Therefore, academic partners and community partners engaging in CCE need to be mindful of the potential for “frontline experience [to be] overshadowed by academic expertise in research.”

In the Violence Against Women Hub, one academic partner used their privileged voice to empower the community partner and give them a platform that would traditionally be reserved for academics. When the academic partner was invited to speak at a conference on a topic they knew the community partner had more expertise on, they advocated for a spot for the community partner at the conference. This helped to change the perception that the academic is always the expert, and allows the community partners to have their voices heard.

Additionally, within the context of CCE, it can be important for academics to avoid measuring their work in terms of academic publications. As one academic partner said, keeping a community first mindset means recognizing that “it’s done in this community and it’s sent back to the community.”

Where community power lies

CFICE’s Knowledge Mobilization hub focused primarily on promoting effective communication amongst the other CFICE hubs. As a result, this hub took into account the differences in power held by partners. Ultimately, different models and approaches to CCE provide different ways to approach equalizing power relations. While academic power may hold certain privileges—access to funding and other resources, for instance—it’s important to remember that community partners and communities are not powerless.

Geri Briggs*, former CFICE Co-Director, said, “community power rests in connectedness to networks and individuals, in application of theory. Communities have the power to say ‘no’ thereby decreasing academe’s capacity to fulfill community engagement mandates. Academic power rests in sustainability, multiplicity of resources, research capacity.”

Ultimately, power differentials and imbalances can be corrected by using a community first approach that prioritizes frequent discussions and conscious efforts to equalize power and empower community partners and communities.

*The attributed quotes used in this article came from CFICE’s Midterm Review Report, which was posted publicly to our website in February, 2016.