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.

When it comes to making community-campus engagement (CCE) more equitable, a small policy change by a college or university can make a huge difference. This was the experience of the Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE) project when their host institution, 杏吧原创 University, decided to change how it interpreted and implemented its travel policy.

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

Prior to 2016, CFICE participants were expected to pay up front for their travel costs. Travelers could then submit their receipts for reimbursement after their travel took place. While 杏吧原创鈥檚 travel policy allowed for other means of travel funding to be distributed, having travelers submit expense claims after travel was a way of ensuring the university remained accountable to its grant funders.

鈥淭he university as a Public Institution is obligated to account for every dollar spent for any grants it receives. Government funding often carries additional restrictions,鈥� explains Genevieve Harrison, CFICE Project Administrator. 鈥淭he easiest way for an institution to do this is to only release money after proof can be provided for how that money has been spent. This puts the burden of financial accountability on the traveler.鈥�

CFICE Principal Investigator, Peter Andree.

Depending on the travel requirements, the costs to CFICE participants could sometimes be well over $1,500. For CFICE members with limited financial flexibility, like students and some community partners, carrying this expense burden for weeks or even months after travelling was extremely challenging, and perpetuated a power imbalance that went against CFICE鈥檚 community-first focus.

鈥淭he original policy interpretation impacted our ability to equitably include community voices in our project planning,鈥� states Peter Andr茅e, CFICE Principal Investigator (PI). 鈥淲hile we ensured community voices were present at meetings through technology like Skype, it wasn鈥檛 ideal. For a community-first CCE project, we can鈥檛 afford to not have community partners at the table.鈥�

Changing how 杏吧原创 University implemented its travel policy didn鈥檛 happen overnight. Instead, it took months of deliberation by a special committee of university representatives. In late 2016, 杏吧原创鈥檚 Research Accounting office updated its interpretation of the travel policy, granting 杏吧原创 and associated individuals the ability to apply for travel bursaries under select circumstances.

Unlike travel expense claims, travel bursaries are granted based on travel estimates. They can therefore be provided to individuals in advance of travel to cover costs up front. This change has had a big impact on the ability of CFICE to remain true to their mandate of being community-first. For example, the bursary has meant a stronger presence of community partners at CFICE events where project decision-making takes place.

鈥淭he bursary [available for the CFICE Community Impact Symposium] meant more of our community partners could actually attend to help us interpret the data and shape the recommendations. That event changed how we planned to share our research results, which will help us reach more people in the long-run,鈥� says Andr茅e. The impacts of this policy change haven鈥檛 just been felt at a project level. CFICE individuals have benefitted too.

Patricia Ballamingie and Natasha Pei at the CFICE Community Impact Symposium, January 2017.

鈥淪upport through the travel bursary created an opportunity for me to participate in a national conversation about CCE,鈥� explains Colleen Christopherson-Cote, Community Co-lead of CFICE鈥檚 Evaluation and Analysis Working Group. 鈥淲ithout this support I would never be able to manage travel and participation in multiple events in Ottawa. In return, my expertise and community voice would not be included as easily in the dialogue at the CFICE table. Including, and resourcing, opportunities for equitable community participation is at the heart of the Community First approach.鈥�

This bursary is a start in addressing the costs to community partners of participating in CCE, but one significant downside is that the bursary is taxable, reducing the full amount of reimbursement that participants receive. Moving forward, it is important to keep trying to find even better resource solutions for communities. As Andr茅e notes, it鈥檚 often the little changes that can have far-reaching impacts on community-campus engagement work.

As Andr茅e reflects, 鈥淭his experience with 杏吧原创 University鈥檚 travel policy is a reminder that when institutions are more community first in their policies and practices, even in small ways, this can have a big impact on how they serve their communities.鈥�

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!

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!

Nicole Bedford, Project Manager and Communications Coordinator of the CFICE project, talks to us about some of the challenges CFICE has faced with respect to managing and channeling funding for the CFICE project. She highlights the usefulness of having dedicated project administrators to help resolve issues with respect to rules and policies surrounding the dispersal of funding, and she discusses a few ways CFICE has overcome some funding challenges.

Listen to our podcast or read the transcript below for more!

Community-Campus Engagement Funding: A Project Manager’s Perspective Podcast Transcript

[Music sound up]

Chelsea: This a Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement podcast.

Hello and my name is Chelsea. I鈥檓 really excited today, to introduce the 3rd segment in a series on Campus-Community Engagement funding, where we speak to people from community organizations, students and Project Administrators to get their perspectives on the ins and outs of CCE funding.

Project Administrators and Project Managers of Community-Campus Engagement partnerships can play key roles in addressing challenges that come along with project funding. Often, these folks are working hard to find solutions to the problems that come along with funding, such as spending restrictions set by the funder or the institution. It鈥檚 a job that takes both creativity and skill and we can learn a lot from their experience.

Originally, this last segment in this series was to feature Gen Harrison who is the Project Administrator with CFICE, but surprise, instead we鈥檙e sitting down with Project Manager Nicole Bedford who works closely with Gen on a day-to-day basis and has her own unique insight to offer.

[Music sound up]

Chelsea: Hi Nicole, as the Project Manager for CFICE what exactly is included in your role?

Nicole: So as the Project Manager for CFICE I have a lot of responsibilities, but the main one is to make sure that the project is functioning on its work timeline and within its budget. I rely very heavily on our Project Administrator to help with budgeting because our project is so large and then in the timeline aspect, I work with all the co-leads to build the timelines that they鈥檙e going to follow鈥攁nd the co-leads being community and academic partners鈥攕o following the timelines that they鈥檙e going to work on for producing outputs or products or completing research and then I work with them to make sure that they鈥檙e meeting those timelines and that they have adequate support from our Secretariat to do that work.

Chelsea: Great. You said you rely a lot on Gen Harrison who is the Project Administrator. I鈥檓 wondering if you could tell us why is it important to set aside funding for an Administrator specifically?

Nicole: So for a project the size of CFICE, we have worked with over 60 different partners across the country and we even have some international partners that we work with. You need a Project Administrator. If I was responsible for doing all of the administration and that includes travel claims, payroll, budgeting鈥攁nd our systems are complicated and difficult to use鈥攊f I had to do that all myself that would be a huge full-time job. So having a Project Administrator who knows the ins and outs of the university, who knows who to talk to, who knows what is required when, for example you鈥檙e submitting an invoice to CFICE to make sure that there is no push-back from our institution to say 鈥淥h we can鈥檛 pay this for this reason鈥�, it鈥檚 a huge asset to have with a project this size.

A lot of times Project Managers are responsible for both budgeting and work and timelines, but being able to share that role with a Project Administrator has meant that our research and our ability to complete research and knowledge mobilization products is that much more efficient…

…because we have a pro working on our financials and then being supported by my role鈥攚hich is a project management role鈥攊n reviewing budgets and making sure we run budget committees and things like that, to support the work of administering the project.

Chelsea: In terms of kind of that more administrative and managerial work, where do the funding challenges lie for a CCE project?

Nicole: So I think the thing that makes a community-campus engagement project a little bit more complicated than your average community organization applying directly to a funder, getting directly funded by a funder, is that there are multiple stakeholders in a community-campus engagement project, all of whom have very different perspectives on what鈥檚 important to them, in terms of getting the project done.

So a community-campus engagement project from the CFICE perspective includes community organizations and leaders, academics, students, administrators 鈥攂ecause administrators are also people who support community-campus engagement鈥� so there鈥檚 a lot of different stakeholders and they have different desires in terms of how to spend the money. Especially when it comes to something like CFICE being funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), it means that we need to put our focus on things like research and supporting research and supporting training of research professionals (i.e students) and that spending is not always what everybody in the project, the community-campus engagement project, really wants to spend money on. So that is the first challenge when it comes to funding and using the funding for CCE projects. And then there are other challenges with respect to funding community-campus engagement work.

For example, power differentials in terms of funding and where the funding flows through. So in the SSHRC case, SSHRC puts the money into a university or an institution like a university and we鈥檙e the ones who have to channel the money into the community. We have to do that according to the rules of the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) and our institutions decide how those rules are interpreted according to the institution, to protect their liability. On top of that, we have to spend the money according to SSHRC as the granter.

So what they鈥檙e willing to spend money on, like I said before, they want to train highly qualified professionals鈥攖hose are students鈥攖hey want a large amount of money to be going towards a student. In community-campus engagement that is supposed to be community-first, that can look like it鈥檚 not community-first and having an academic be the end decision-maker, with respect to how that funding is allotted can also be a big barrier in terms of the power differentials for funding community-campus engagement that is community-first.

Chelsea: The CFICE project has been going on since 2012. What are some things that you鈥檝e learned over that time, in order to address these challenges?

Nicole: So there are big challenges and there are little challenges with respect to funding. One of the things that I just talked about was the fact that power-differentials are a big deal in terms of decision making around the funding, so one of the things that CFICE has done, has been to create a budget committee and the budget committee has representatives from the community as well as academics and together they advise on the best choice in terms of how the funding is going to be spent.

Ultimately the final decision still lies with our Principal Investigator, but our Principal Investigator is invested in understanding what both community and academics want and acting on those, as long as it follows the rules that CRA puts around how to spend money and SSHRC puts around how to spend money and 杏吧原创 puts around how to spend money. So that鈥檚 one of the ways that we have addressed the power-differentials to a certain extent and then there are little ways to address difficulties around funding.

So an example is with our travel and reimbursement processes here at 杏吧原创 University鈥攁nd this is an institutional thing鈥攊s that we do not provide money in advance for travel. We don鈥檛 do travel advances. So what that means is that a community organization who wants to travel to a conference or a CFICE meeting or whatever, they have to put the money out up front and then CFICE reimburses them when they submit receipts. Well that can be a huge burden for a very small NGO or community organization that is participating who does not have the financial fluidity to be able to put that money upfront and wait a month to two months to get reimbursed.

So one of the things that we did was we worked with 杏吧原创 University to give out travel bursaries. So travel bursaries allow us to grant a certain estimated amount of money鈥攚e estimate how much the travel is going to be鈥攁nd then we give out that money as a bursary and the only caveat to that is now its income. It鈥檚 considered income to the community partner, which is a bit of an issue because then you have to declare it on your taxes, but it is one way we have gotten around the issue of waiting months to get reimbursed for travel when you don鈥檛 have that ability to put that on your credit card or whatever. And that goes for organizations as well as individuals because we鈥檝e been able to give travel bursaries to individuals.

So there are a lot of different ways that you can work with your institution, to make sure that money is going to where it needs to go in your project…

…to support the research and the on the ground work in a community-first way, but it is a matter of spending time having those meetings with the right people and making sure that you鈥檙e still following the rules that are laid out by the funder and the government and things like that.

Chelsea: Thanks so much Nicole for joining us. Nicole Bedford is CFICE鈥檚 Project Manager, talking to us about her perspective on CCE funding.

[Sound up music]

This has been a CFICE podcast and the third part in a 3 part series on Community-Campus Engagement funding. My name is Chelsea Nash and thank you for listening!

For more information and insight on community-campus engagement, please visit our website where you can read the latest articles and also subscribe to our newsletter. So that you never miss out on the latest development in CCE. We鈥檒l see you there!

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!