Community Inclusion:

1
Community Inclusion A Learning Strategy for
Understanding Systems Change
National Partners Meeting Toronto May 29th, 2007
2
Continuing the Dialogue of Systems Change

• By the end of the Transition Year, we had created
  a comprehensive framework for the national
  community inclusion initiative.
• A main recommendation was to move beyond the
  framework as an idea and begin to actually use it
  as a tool to better understand systems change.
• CREHS will be working with the Provinces,
  Territories, and PF to better understand how CI
  initiatives are contributing to systems change.

3
Main Objectives of the Project

• There are 3 main objectives of this project
• To help projects gather useful local information
  to better understand how to contribute to system
  change, understand impacts, improve practices,
  and plan for future work.
• To help projects organize their information to
  make it easier to respond to reporting
  requirements and communication of learnings and
  findings in general.
• To summarize a selection of this information
  nationally, by sector, to understand effective
  practices in promoting systems change for future
  planning, collaboration, etc.

4

• In this project we will
• Visit each of the partners to create a local
  logic model within one of sectors that are being
  pursued
• Generate strategies to generate new data and/or
  use existing data to
• track project activities (outputs milestones)
• measure short-term outcomes
• Provide support to partners in collecting,
  analyzing and using data
• Create sector level logic models that
  summarize current practices and outcomes in each
  sector
• Summarize select data about national best
  practices and learnings regarding systems-change
• Make recommendations to the national
  coordinating committees for future systems change
  initiatives.

5
A Recap of the Framework

• A visual picture of the sorts of things you do in
  your CI projects and the sorts of impacts you
  expect to achieve.
• It contains
• The main six priority sectors
• Mechanisms The general strategies you are
  using to promote system change (i.e., public
  awareness, community capacity building, etc.)
• Outputs and short-term outcomes the various
  indicators of change (e.g., creating new
  resources, partnerships, and changes to
  practices, knowledge, skills, participation,
  etc.)
• Longer-term outcomes benefits to people and
  communities that reflect more inclusive
  environments.

6
COMMUNITY INCLUSION
To foster citizenship engagement in development
and implementation of public policies, practices,
and community systems to strengthen and sustain
the capacities of local communities
CI Mission
Guiding Principles
Self-determination
Autonomy decision-making
Support for personal relationships
Social Economic Integration
Equality Equity
Participation Full Citizenship
Community-based interventions
Accessible communities
Community Associational Life Capacity
Deinstitutionalization
Family Disability Supports
Education
Housing
Income Employment
Priority Areas

• Public Awareness Dialogue (e.g. community
  forums, plain language)
• Community Capacity Building (e.g. developing
  partnerships, leadership, training, strengthening
  PF chapters)

• Research Information (e.g., research studies)
• Knowledge Networking (e.g., conferences)
• Policy Development (e.g. policy position papers)

Common Mechanisms
Changes to Individuals
Changes to resources, practices, relationships,
etc.
Knowledge creation sharing
Resources
Collaboration/Networks
Policy/practice
Increases/improvements in knowledge skills,
learning sharing
motivation, participation,
engagement advocacy leadership
inclusive
practices giving
and receiving support
Outputs Short-term Outcomes
Creation of or changes to policies supportive of
inclusion changes in practice
Creation, access to, and use of new learning
action resources Sustainable
finances Community space
Positive change maintenance in participation,
group capacity, operations, climate, etc.
Strategies for research evaluation, knowledge
dissemination, mobilization, networks, awareness
More INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENTS and corresponding
improvements to Safety Education Family
Social support Personal Relationships
Economic security Community Civic
Participation Health Quality of Life
Long-term Outcomes
Local communities are fully inclusive of people
with intellectual disabilities and their families.
Goal
7
Doing systems change work is not unlike planning
a wedding

• There is an extensive amount of planning.
• Many different people and relationships are
  involved that need to be mobilized.
• There are many different elements that we expect
  will contribute to a good wedding.
• We expect the wedding to be successful, and feel
  more confident having carefully planned it.
  But...in the end, we dont know for certain if
  the wedding will be a success. There maybe other
  reasons we havent considered that may diminish
  its success.

8
Skilled DJ, equipment, requests
Skilled chef, waitstaff
Music
Flowers, centrepieces, taste
Decorations
Food
Chicken Dance, Macarena
Flowers wilt
Location, size
Chicken baby carrots
Guest list, Invitations
Venue
Apparent Wedding Bliss For All
People
Too small
Forgot to invite Aunt Martha
Rental, fittings, style, coordination
Tuxedos Dress
Floods
Red eye
Photos, video
Open mic drunk relatives
Relentless sobbing
Skilled people who share your vision
Speeches
Ceremony, Vows
Warm officiant, create desired message
The right people
9
Skilled DJ, equipment, requests
Skilled chef, waitstaff
Music
Flowers, centrepieces, taste
Decorations
Food
Rocked the house!
Gorgeous!
Location, size
Guest list, Invitations
Delicious!
Venue
Apparent Wedding Bliss For All
People
A grand place!
Rental, fittings, style, coordination
All your loved ones
Tuxedos Dress
Captured the moment!
Stunning
Photos, video
Sweet, and moving
Heartfelt, entertaining
Skilled people who share your vision
Speeches
Ceremony, Vows
Warm officiant, create desired message
The right people
10
A Case Example to Demonstrate the Project

• We tried out the framework as a tool create local
  logic models and ways to measure progress and
  change.
• Conducted logic model meetings in NL and ON
• Focus was on inclusive education
• The goals was to describe their projects in logic
  model form and uncover how parts of the project
  interrelate
• We also noted data that could be used to
• Track activities and how they build on one
  another
• Measure short-term outcomes.
• The example today is from NL

11
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION Newfoundland Labrador
Public Awareness Dialogue
Centre
Policy Development
Knowledge Networking
Community Capacity Building
Research Information
Mechanisms for change
Research/ Information
Community Capacity Building
Policy Development
Public Awareness Dialogue
Engage w/ Dept of Education and Boards re policy
development implementation
Disseminate special education policy news
ID and sharing of best practices at district
level
ON School Culture Initiative delivered to one
school board
Conduct regional focus groups with stakeholders
Create and circulate a National Review of IE
policy
Create Inclusive Education Working Group
Create 4 regional partnership committees
Draft and circulate policy paper on Inclusive
Education
Provincial forum on Inclusive Education
Project activities

• Who Parents educators
• When Fall-Winter 06-07
• Actions
• Presentation of past current special ed.
  policy, context, challenges.
• Discussion of experiences, current practices,
  ideal policy, gaps, strategies.
• Summary report to IE working group NLACL
  participants.
• Participants added to electronic learning
  community.
• Findings used to form policy position paper.
• Data of people, description, participant
  feedback re meetings, distribution of report,
  use of report by IE committee.

Who NLACL, parents, educators, boards, DofE,
HRLE ( Min), Health Comm serivces, NLTA, Fac of
Ed., Educ. students, student support specialists,
Itinerants, CLO (tot. 38), When Mar. 28-29,
2007. Actions Present history of current
policy, strategies for IE, presentations. Data
description of attendees, indicators of future
engagement capacity (e.g., request), resources
distributed, forum feedback
Who website users, CI IE networks. When
Ongoing. Actions Data of newsletters,
distribution, activity on listserv (, to whom,
topics posted, discussed) - e.g, MHAs
Who IE Itinerants, selected schools When
completed (date) Actions Gather best IE
practices from 4 schools, present at forum. Data
Itinerant reports.

• Who NLACL
• When completed
• (date)
• Action
• prepare cross-canada review
• distribute _at_ Nat. IE forum, prov. forum, CACL,
  all CI projects, NB dept. of ed., IE website.

Who Comm. Liv. Ontario, 1 Lab. school
board. When Sept. 2006 Actions Deliver to one
board, present process at prov. forum Data see
ON model.

• Who NLACL partners
• When completed (date)
• Actions
• Prepare policy paper w/ vision of IE,
  experiences in NL, recommendations
• Distribute to networks make available online
• Data of copies sent, requested, downloaded,
  etc.

Who NLACL, Min. of Ed., ADM When Upon policy
paper completion after IE forum. When
Ongoing. Actions presentation dialogue w/
minister, ADM. Link issue to FPT group. Data
record of meeting discussion, policy
opportunities, barriers, next steps.
Outputs Actions (changes to resources,
practices, relation-ships)
Initial indicators of future engagement request
for IE workshop, invit. To partner w/ fac. of ed,
NLTA, led to idea of permanency of itinerants
(then brought up in policy meeting -- see policy
box) - these can be connected to potential
outcomes.
Increased general awareness of IE issues
Greater engagement action by decision-makers on
special education related policy
Greater participation of other boards in ISC
orientation
Increased knowledge / awareness of IE principles
practice among participants
Short-term outcomes (changes knowledge,
attitudes, skills, participation, etc)
Increaed knowledge of FG group participants re
IE principles, policies, and practice
Increased participation sharing in electronic
learning community
Implemen-tation of ISC expansion of Labrador
Sharing of information from forum to others
Greater engagement in IE issues practices
Creation revision of policies that support IE
These can be things that are not exclusively
owned by CI
Limit of 2007-2008 project activities
Partnership with Facutly of Eduction for revision
of Special Education Curriculum (e.g. course
development)
Partnerships with NL Teachers Associaion (e.g, to
deliver in-service training)
Partnerships with CONA, promoting supportive
services for post-secondary students.
Partner with all disability organizations to get
consensus on policy position
Potential new partnerships, training, action
IE workshops for Student Educators
Long-term outcomes
Subsequent changes to IE policy and practice
Subsequent knowledge skill-based outcomes
Inclusion is the norm in classrooms, schools, and
post-secondary education across the province
Elimination of segregation and special education
classes as the primary place of instruction for
students with disabilities
Broad public support for inclusive education
early childhood through to post-secondary
12
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION Newfoundland Labrador
Centre
Engage w/ Dept of Education and Boards re policy
development implementation
Disseminate special education policy news
ID and sharing of best practices at district
level
ON School Culture Initiative delivered to one
school board
Conduct regional focus groups with stakeholders
Create and circulate a National Review of IE
policy
Create Inclusive Education Working Group
Create 4 regional partnership committees
Draft and circulate policy paper on Inclusive
Education
Provincial forum on Inclusive Education
Project activities

• Who Parents educators
• When Fall-Winter 06-07
• Actions
• Presentation of past current special ed.
  policy, context, challenges.
• Discussion of experiences, current practices,
  ideal policy, gaps, strategies.
• Summary report to IE working group NLACL
  participants.
• Participants added to electronic learning
  community.
• Findings used to form policy position paper.
• Data of people, description, participant
  feedback re meetings, distribution of report,
  use of report by IE committee.

Who NLACL, parents, educators, boards, DofE,
HRLE ( Min), Health Comm serivces, NLTA, Fac of
Ed., Educ. students, student support specialists,
Itinerants, CLO (tot. 38), When Mar. 28-29,
2007. Actions Present history of current
policy, strategies for IE, presentations. Data
description of attendees, indicators of future
engagement capacity (e.g., request), resources
distributed, forum feedback
Who website users, CI IE networks. When
Ongoing. Actions Data of newsletters,
distribution, activity on listserv (, to whom,
topics posted, discussed) - e.g, MHAs
Who IE Itinerants, selected schools When
completed (date) Actions Gather best IE
practices from 4 schools, present at forum. Data
Itinerant reports.

• Who NLACL
• When completed
• (date)
• Action
• prepare cross-canada review
• distribute _at_ Nat. IE forum, prov. forum, CACL,
  all CI projects, NB dept. of ed., IE website.

Who Comm. Liv. Ontario, 1 Lab. school
board. When Sept. 2006 Actions Deliver to one
board, present process at prov. forum Data see
ON model.

• Who NLACL partners
• When completed (date)
• Actions
• Prepare policy paper w/ vision of IE,
  experiences in NL, recommendations
• Distribute to networks make available online
• Data of copies sent, requested, downloaded,
  etc.

Who NLACL, Min. of Ed., ADM When Upon policy
paper completion after IE forum. When
Ongoing. Actions presentation dialogue w/
minister, ADM. Link issue to FPT group. Data
record of meeting discussion, policy
opportunities, barriers, next steps.
Outputs Actions (changes to resources,
practices, relation-ships)
Initial indicators of future engagement request
for IE workshop, invit. To partner w/ fac. of ed,
NLTA, led to idea of permanency of itinerants
(then brought up in policy meeting -- see policy
box) - these can be connected to potential
outcomes.
Increased general awareness of IE issues
Greater engagement action by decision-makers on
special education related policy
Greater participation of other boards in ISC
orientation
Increased knowledge / awareness of IE principles
practice among participants
Short-term outcomes (changes knowledge,
attitudes, skills, participation, etc)
Increaed knowledge of FG group participants re
IE principles, policies, and practice
Increased participation sharing in electronic
learning community
Implemen-tation of ISC expansion of Labrador
Sharing of information from forum to others
Greater engagement in IE issues practices
Creation revision of policies that support IE
These can be things that are not exclusively
owned by CI
Limit of 2007-2008 project activities
Partnership with Facutly of Eduction for revision
of Special Education Curriculum (e.g. course
development)
Partnerships with NL Teachers Associaion (e.g, to
deliver in-service training)
Partnerships with CONA, promoting supportive
services for post-secondary students.
Partner with all disability organizations to get
consensus on policy position
Potential new partnerships, training, action
IE workshops for Student Educators
Long-term outcomes
Subsequent changes to IE policy and practice
Subsequent knowledge skill-based outcomes
Inclusion is the norm in classrooms, schools, and
post-secondary education across the province
Elimination of segregation and special education
classes as the primary place of instruction for
students with disabilities
Broad public support for inclusive education
early childhood through to post-secondary
13
Public Awareness Dialogue
Research Information
Mechanisms
Community Capacity Building
Conduct regional focus groups with stakeholders
Create 4 regional partnership committees
Create Inclusive Education Working Group
Project activities

• Who Parents educators
• When Fall-Winter 06-07
• Actions
• Presentation of past current special ed.
  policy, context, challenges.
• Discussion of experiences, current practices,
  ideal policy, gaps, strategies.
• Summary report to IE working group NLACL
  participants.
• Participants added to electronic learning
  community.
• Findings used to form policy position paper.
• Data of people, description, participant
  feedback re meetings, distribution of report,
  use of report by IE committee.

Outputs Actions (changes to resources,
practices, relation-ships)
Increased knowledge of FG group participants re
IE principles, policies, and practice
Short Term Outcomes
14
Policy Development
Mechanisms
Create and circulate a National Review of IE
policy
Project activities
Draft and circulate policy paper on Inclusive
Education
Outputs Actions (changes to resources,
practices, relation-ships)

• Who NLACL
• When completed
• (date)
• Action
• prepare cross-canada review
• distribute _at_ Nat. IE forum, prov. forum, CACL,
  all CI projects, NB dept. of ed., IE website.
• Data of copies sent, requested, downloaded,
  etc.

• Who NLACL partners
• When completed (date)
• Actions
• Prepare policy paper w/ vision of IE,
  experiences in NL recommendations
• Distribute to networks make available online
• Data of copies sent, requested, downloaded,
  etc.

Short Term Outcomes
15
Research Information
Mechanisms
Community Capacity Building
ON School Culture Initiative delivered to one
school board
ID and sharing of best practices at district
level
Project activities
Who Comm. Liv. Ontario, 1 Lab. school
board. When Sept. 2006 Actions Deliver to one
board, present process at prov. forum Data see
ON model.
Who Education Itinerants, selected schools When
completed (date) Actions Gather best IE
practices from 4 schools, present at forum. Data
Itinerant reports.
Outputs Actions (changes to resources,
practices, relationships)
Greater participation of other boards in ISC
orientation
Short Term Outcomes
Implementation of ISC expansion of Labrador
16
Engage w/ Dept of Education and Boards re policy
development implementation
Disseminate special education policy news
Provincial forum on Inclusive Education
Project activities
Who NLACL, parents, educators, boards, DofE,
HRLE ( Min), Health Comm serivces, NLTA, Fac of
Ed., Educ. students, student support specialists,
Itinerants, CLO (tot. 38), When Mar. 28-29,
2007. Actions Present history of current
policy, strategies for IE, presentations. Data
description of attendees, indicators of future
engagement capacity (e.g., request), resources
distributed, forum feedback
Who website users, CI IE networks. When
Ongoing. Actions Data of newsletters,
distribution, activity on listserv (, to whom,
topics posted, discussed) - e.g, MHAs
Who NLACL, Min. of Ed., ADM When Upon policy
paper completion after IE forum. Actions
presentation dialogue w/ minister, ADM. Link
issue to FPT group. Data Record of meeting
discussion, policy opportunities, barriers, next
steps.
Outputs Actions (changes to resources,
practices, relationships)
Increased knowledge / awareness of IE principles
practice among participants
Increased general awareness of IE issues
Greater engagement action by decision-makers on
special education related policy
Short Term Outcomes
Increased participation sharing in electronic
learning community
Sharing of information from forum to others
Greater engagement in IE issues practices
Creation revision of policies that support IE
17
Public Awareness Dialogue
Policy Development
Knowledge Networking
Mechanisms
Engage w/ Dept of Education and Boards re policy
development implementation
Provincial forum on Inclusive Education
Disseminate special education policy news
Project activities
Who NLACL, parents, educators, boards, DofE,
HRLE ( Min), Health Comm serivces, NLTA, Fac of
Ed., Educ. students, student support specialists,
Itinerants, CLO (tot. 38), When Mar. 28-29,
2007. Actions Present history of current
policy, strategies for IE, presentations. Data
description of attendees, indicators of future
engagement capacity (e.g., request), resources
distributed, forum feedback
Who website users, CI IE networks. When
Ongoing. Actions Data of newsletters,
distribution, activity on listserv (, to whom,
topics posted, discussed) - e.g, MHAs
Who NLACL, Min. of Ed., ADM When Upon policy
paper completion after IE forum. When
Ongoing. Actions presentation dialogue w/
minister, ADM. Link issue to FPT group. Data
record of meeting discussion, policy
opportunities, barriers, next steps.
Outputs Actions (changes to resources,
practices, relationships)
Increased knowledge / awareness of IE principles
practice among participants
Increased general awareness of IE issues
Greater engagement action by decision-makers on
special education related policy
Short Term Outcomes
Increased participation sharing in electronic
learning community
Sharing of information from forum to others
Greater engagement in IE issues practices
Creation revision of policies that support IE
18
Limit of 2007-2008 project activities
IE workshops for Student Educators
Partnership with Facutly of Eduction for revision
of Special Education Curriculum (e.g. course
development)
Partnerships with all disability organizations to
achieve consensus on policy position
Partnerships with CONA, promoting supportive
services for post-secondary students.
Potential new partnerships, training, action
Long-term outcomes
Partnerships with NL Teachers Associaion (e.g, to
deliver in-service training)
Subsequent changes to IE policy and practice
Subsequent knowledge skill-based outcomes
Inclusion is the norm in classrooms, schools, and
post-secondary education across the province
Elimination of segregation and special education
classes as the primary place of instruction for
students with disabilities
Broad public support for inclusive education
early childhood through to post-secondary
19
Discussion Questions

• Think about the most successful aspect of your
  work within your community inclusion initiative.
  From your perspective, what was the chain of
  events that lead to this apparent change?
• If you were asked to provide evidence for this
  story, what evidence (other data and information)
  could you give?
• Think of an example of where you feel your
  project activities somehow fell short. What is
  your explanation of why things did not go as
  planned? Did certain things need to be place
  (resources, people, relationships, leadership,
  etc.), but were not?