LET’S is working with The Feminist Campaign School, who have received a grant to continue a project they started in 2021. They have been looking at the barriers to retaining progressive people in local government who are made marginalized by their gender. In this phase of the work, we are surveying and interviewing folks in PEI, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan, as well as doing educational workshops and policy work in BC and AB as a follow up to our earlier report in 2023

They contacted LET’S as they have budgeted to work with an accessibility consultant to ensure they are doing their best to make their work accessible as they launch and deliver it, as well as to do a review at the end or provide guidance to how they report it after.  They did this the first time around.

LET’S is proud to be working with The Feminist Campaign School. We look forward to seeing this project continue to unfold.

LET’S provided feedback on, and delivered a workshop for SFU staff and a representative from Equity Compass on SFU’s Accessibility Plan. The plan has now been released.

As their website reads:

“Aligned with the Equity Compass and informed by the perspectives and needs of SFU students, faculty and staff with disabilities, the Accessibility Plan describes the changes needed to transition towards a more accessible university. Through the Accessibility Secretariat and Committee and the Equity Office, SFU will refine the plan each year, responding to the provincial standards and community feedback. An annual implementation plan will define milestones and responsibilities, supporting both resource allocation and reporting.

The initial action program spans five (5) years, with the most pressing steps highlighted upfront. While improvements in academics, operations and environment will ultimately inspire culture change, we also highlight actions to foster more directly a culture of inclusivity and care.”

LET’S made some great connections at the Just and Sustainable Future Funds summit. 1 is Rochelle Ignacio, Director of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion at the Tamarack Institute.

About the Tamarack Institute: “The Tamarack Institute is a registered charity dedicated to ending poverty in all its forms. We believe true community change occurs when we adopt new ways of thinking and working together. We equip communities with the skills, knowledge, resources, and connections to make lasting, meaningful impacts.

At the heart of Tamarack lies the belief that true community building, engagement and change go beyond mere words — they require genuine care, compassion and action.

Tamarack is a connected force for community change, building the capacity of changemakers in cities and communities, within Canada, and around the world.”

As part of Vancouver Foundation’s latest initiative, the Just and Sustainable Futures Fund, LET’S consulted as a Community Advisor. The fund is a grant stream “[to] invest in the self-determination of people most impacted by systems of oppression, to support the conditions for a just and sustainable future to emerge for all.”

Last month, we interviewed 3 community members and storytellers. The next step was a 3 day summit at The Brew Creek Centre in Whistler. Community advisors came together, with staff of Vancouver Foundation, to share what our storytellers had relayed.

LET’S offered to provide sensory items for all participants. Little did we know how vital bringing the sensory items would be for those who participated. Unfortunately, the way the process was planned and facilitated had many issues. There was a definite lack of cultural and psychological safety.

The issues actually started with the questions provided to community advisors to ask the storytellers. They were very broad and hard to answer. The 3 people LET’S interviewed were unsure if they were giving answers that were in keeping with what Vancouver Foundation was trying to learn. The questions asked participants to share examples of when they had experienced a just and sustainable situation. At the summit, the majority of participants said that the community members they interviewed have not experienced that within their lives.

The way the process was designed, and the agenda, was built in a way that did not properly incorporate community knowledge and experience. Nor did it incorporate appropriate opportunities to create trust in the space before jumping into intense conversations.

Unfortunately, the facilitators that were chosen were not from identities of marginalized populations. This created a barrier, and a disconnect, right from the start. Throughout the first 2 days, there were several missteps and comments that needed to be called out and addressed. The facilitators changed on the 3rd day.

The environment was such that participants did not feel secure in sharing their community members’ stories. Several Community Advisors felt pressured to share personal information. There was a lack of opportunity to build trust and that affected the overall experience.

The agenda that had been planned for the process was completely changed. Participants called in how the process was not equitable. A concern that LET’S raised was that Vancouver Foundation asked us to gather stories than break them down into a form that Vancouver Foundation asked us to fill in prior to the summit. LET’S had refused this and provided the entire interview (unless participants had asked for something to be removed). It is not equitable or just to filter other people’s experiences or words. We should not be the ones deciding what should be shared. We also mentioned that it was a disconnect to invite storygatherers to the summit but not the storytellers. Instead, the storytellers should have been the ones invited to the summit to share their stories in their own way.

Another concern that we named was holding the summit at The Brew Creek Centre. While the staff, location, and food were all great, it must have cost Vancouver Foundation a lot of money. Money that could have been used by the many communities represented by the storygatherers.

As the process continued, past the summit, not all storygatherers agreed to have their storytellers’ stories used by Vancouver Foundation. On the 3rd day of the gathering, we had several people who left and either stayed away for a few hours or refused to return because of the harm they had endured.

Thankfully, there were a few things that did work. The opportunity for the Community Advisors to meet one another and connect, both personally and professionally, was great and very much utilized. Within these relationships, there was support, moments of joy and connection, and the ability to examine and reflect the gatherings. The agenda did not allow for enough time for these relationships to develop and that was certainly noted.

A saving grace of the summit was the attendance and participation of Elder Yvonne Rigsby Jones (Snuneymuxw First Nation, Coast Salish) and Elder John Jones (Tseqalmit). Their stead presence and wise words helped alleviate some of what occurred. They were available within the group sessions and for 1 on 1 conversations. They also utilized Cedar in several ways to bring in a more positive energy. Cedar is used for healing, wellness, and ceremony. Many (but not all) Indigenous communities consider cedar to be 1 of 4 sacred medicines. The others being tobacco, sage and sweet grass. Elder Yvonne and John provided a steady, calm, warm, and comforting energy. Their perspectives and insights throughout helped to lessen the tension. Their presence was vital to the entire experience and very much appreciated.

As the summit was emotionally intense, the sensory items were very much appreciated and utilized. In some moments, it was so intense, that participants rubbed the colour off their acupressure rings. LET’S was thanked by all participants for providing a way for them to release and regulate emotions.

In response to all the feedback, Vancouver Foundation staff went back to work and had discussions about how to proceed. They provided Community Advisors with a survey to gather more information. Vancouver Foundation shared the results with participants. It included the following:

“Your contributions have given us (and continue to give us) the foundation to realign our efforts and the collaborative work we are doing to establish the Just and Sustainable Futures Fund.

While some found meaningful connections–particularly on day 2 during the reintroduction circle and in-between summit spaces (meals, walks, etc), we also recognize and acknowledge that a few of you did not feel psychologically safe and experienced harm along the way. As VF staff, we are convening this week and next week to thoughtfully respond to issues that arose. We don’t have all the answers right now, and we feel the importance of slowing down, reflecting and responding properly in the coming days and weeks. In the meantime, we really appreciate and value your patience as we work through some post-summit logistics.”

LET’S is interested to see what the next stage is for this project and how Vancouver Foundation will adapt to the provided feedback.

In the past few months, participation from community members, including LET’S, has led to valuable feedback and observations. The Beyond the Binary team continues to work towards an updated, national, Beyond the Binary Guide.

LET’S, among others, were asked to:

• Check how your name appears under the Acknowledgements section
• Provide high level feedback on updates and flow
• Flag any errors / clarifications that need to be addressed for accuracy
• Review edits/additions to glossary terms (highlighted) and let us know if you have any additional resources to add, i.e. “to deepen your understanding”

LET’S has also been invited to speak at the  Beyond the Binary National Knowledge Exchange. The Eventbrite page is now live. Register to attend. The event is being held on October 16th, 9:00 am (PST). The event invites “researchers from all disciplines, people with lived and living experience, trainees, health and research administrators, civil society and community groups to join in the discussion and learn about a new national resource package to promote gender equitable, inclusive research.”

Once finalized, the Beyond the Binary in Canada Guide will replace Beyond the Binary in BC as a single national resource.

LET’S made some great connections at the Just and Sustainable Future Funds summit. 1 is Rochelle Ignacio, Director of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion at the Tamarack Institute.

About the Tamarack Institute: “The Tamarack Institute is a registered charity dedicated to ending poverty in all its forms. We believe true community change occurs when we adopt new ways of thinking and working together. We equip communities with the skills, knowledge, resources, and connections to make lasting, meaningful impacts.

At the heart of Tamarack lies the belief that true community building, engagement and change go beyond mere words — they require genuine care, compassion and action.

Tamarack is a connected force for community change, building the capacity of changemakers in cities and communities, within Canada, and around the world.”

LET’S was pleased to receive an invitation from the Tamarack Institute to participate in their virtual conference EngageFest, held on October 29th and 30th. The theme of EngageFest! is The Power of People and Place.

 

About EngageFest: “Tamarack exists to end poverty in all of its forms. We do that by hosting spaces where people build skills to change systems. We support local partnerships where people deploy these skills. We amplify their progress and impact. We bring them together so that they can contribute to changing narratives, public policy, and resource flows.

Now more than ever, these partnerships are crucial because they are attuned to local history and current context, they engage people with lived experiences of harmful systems, and they have access to the full range of local assets.

 

We hope participants at EngageFest! go back into their communities with practical tools, knowledge, connections and the confidence to create sustainable impact in their local communities. We hope they hear stories of change, learn from challenges, and set intentions for what they will do next. We hope they find new ways to engage with the Tamarack network once the events end.”

1 of Tamarack’s Learning Centre Directors, Yas Hassan, has drafted workshop content for ‘Art, Mindfulness and Play: Practical Strategies for Accessible Spaces’, LET’S has been asked to collaborate on this 90 minute workshop. We are excited by this project and the building of this relationship.

About Yas Hassan: Yas is dedicated to community development and engagement with a focus on ethical co-creation and collaboration. Yas works on driving systems change by addressing gaps in areas such as Black liberation, Indigenous sovereignty, anti-racism, belonging and more. Complete list of EngageFest! speakers.

At our Victoria Pride low sensory space, we were able to provide free menstrual products, such as reusable underwear (up to xxl), menstrual cups, and reusable pads. This was thanks to our partnership with the United Way Period Promise Campaign. The campaign provided select organizations with free reusable menstrual products and some disposable pads. They were hoping to better understand what impact reusable products can have as part of building long-term solutions. The campaign sought out community organizations who offer support to those demographics that disproportionately experience period poverty in BC: people living with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, and families making less than $40,000 a year. They hoped to get some useful information on participants’ experiences using reusable menstrual products, with the goal that the data will inform future policy changes that address period poverty in BC, and ultimately help to better serve our communities.

Visitors to our low sensory space were thrilled with the free reusable products. We had 1 set of friends who walked and 1 of them said “I’ve been trying to talk her into a menstrual cup the entire walk here and now you have them for free! She has no excuse not to try them now.” Her friend explained that cost was the barrier that had them hesitating. They knew in the long-run they’d save on money but it was trying to get the upfront cost that was a struggle.

The campaign’s only ask was for people, who took the free supplies, to do an online survey. We will share the results when it is released.

The feedback we heard included the following:

• “Based on conversation, the biggest barriers, for our members, are cost, colour, and perception/bias.
• The majority of disabled people live in poverty and buying menstrual products is expensive and ongoing. A big frustration is that in order to save money by buying reusable underwear, you have to have more money up front, which our members do not have. There was a lot of excitement about the underwear and cups being free as they are unaffordable to many members.
• Providing them at events is a great way to aid them having access.
• Colour is a big barrier, even within the products provided in the study. Menstrual products are typically in pinks with flowers or other perceived feminine designs.
• This is a barrier for many trans folks. A person may be male but have a period. They don’t want to carry or use things that may peg them as a gender different to their own. Having menstrual products available in a variety of colours for all genders would be an aid.
• Another barrier is perception and bias. Many people perceive periods, and thus menstrual products, as being for women only. This is untrue. People of all genders have periods and need menstrual products. They may be judged when buying products and/or there may be a lack of menstrual products in the washroom that aligns with their gender. The colours speak of this bias by using feminine perceived colours like pink. Having better education in classes, in bathrooms, and throughout the community would aid to work against these misperceptions and biases.

SFU asked LET’s to review their draft accessibility plan and answer 3 questions, mentioned below. We provided feedback on the plan and made some suggestions for further emphasis as well as expanding the spectrum of who, on campus, is disabled. We will provide the link to the final plan in our September/October newsletter.

Questions we were asked to think about included:

What resonates and/or should be further emphasized?
What might be missing, particularly given your experiences with what makes the most significant impact in terms of accessibility?
Are there any sensitivities we have inadvertently overlooked that we should address?

Our response included:

These are the 4 points that most resonated with me:

o   limited knowledge of disability and accessibility, particularly as it pertains to neurodiversity

o   of process delays in accommodations, inconsistency in services, and gaps in procedures and services for graduate students

o   develop and consider mandating instructor education, with an emphasis on long-term learning rather than one-time training.

o   expand student support services, including the number of counsellors and peer programs across all campuses.

I’m really glad to see the long-term goal of expanded student support services, including counselling. Counselling is crucial to disabled and neurodivergent folks but also to non-disabled and non-neurodivergent students. A question I have is what support is there for disabled/neurodivergent staff? It is vital that student mental health be addressed but so too must the needs of people who aren’t staff.
I will always think of things that could use further emphasis, like the need for better, ongoing, training. However, I think this document works as a starting point with good brief descriptions of items that will be expanded and further emphasised in later protocols/documents/policies.
What might be missing, particularly given your experiences with what makes the most significant impact in terms of accessibility?

The accessibility issue our members talk about the most is the reliance on a diagnosis to receive accommodations and the lack of recognition of the ways multiple marginalized intersecting identities affect one’s ability to get a diagnosis. Additionally, some of our members have had to quit school to get a diagnosis (which is basically equivalent to a full time job) so that they could get accommodations at school. If they have to quit, they are less likely to return.
I don’t see anything about the fact that if professors/instructors incorporated accessibility into the classroom, there would be less reliance on accommodations. If classrooms were facilitated with mandated accessibility, students wouldn’t have to disclose, go through the accommodation process, or utilize SFU resources (funding). While this won’t completely address accessibility issues, it would be a huge step towards less reliance on putting the onus on the student.
Acknowledgement about the lack of understanding of the broad spectrum of disability. When schools and staff don’t know what disability encompasses, it affects one’s ability to feel comfortable disclosing their disability. This is slightly referred to under “Limited awareness and understanding” but it is important enough to specifically note.
I didn’t see anything about more support/resources for the Centre for Educational Excellence to increase ability to meet the needs of students.
Also, another issue often mentioned by our members is interacting with non-disabled staff who decide whether they are eligible for accommodations. It might be good to highlight a need to hire people with lived experience.
Everything is geared to the student. The university has disabled and neurodivergent folks (staff, profs, etc.) that need accommodations, support, counselling, etc. How is the university working to meet their needs?
Culture change is centralized. However, there is a lack of addressing the need for student education of those who are not disabled and/or neurodivergent. Without other students understanding the broad spectrum of disability, the need for accommodations (how it isn’t special treatment or people trying to get out of work), the culture of the university won’t move forward. In my workshops, I talk about 360 degree accessibility and how organizations often only look at disability/neurodivergent needs from certain perspectives. For example, working with Pride organizations, they often only think of accessibility from a spectator perspective, not a vendor or participant experience. For art galleries, they think of visitor accessibility but not accessibility for staff and/or disabled/neurodivergent artists. This plan speaks to student needs but neglects other members of the university community.
Are there any sensitivities we have inadvertently overlooked that we should address?

People who use identity first language are not represented in the document.

 

(4 people with different disabilities.)

As part of Vancouver Foundation’s latest initiative, the Just and Sustainable Futures Fund, LET’S consulted as a Community Advisor. The fund is a grant stream “[to] invest in the self-determination of people most impacted by systems of oppression, to support the conditions for a just and sustainable future to emerge for all.”

Last month, we interviewed 3 community members and storytellers. The next step was a 3 day summit at The Brew Creek Centre in Whistler. Community advisors came together, with staff of Vancouver Foundation, to share what our storytellers had relayed.

LET’S offered to provide sensory items for all participants. Little did we know how vital bringing the sensory items would be for those who participated. Unfortunately, the way the process was planned and facilitated had many issues. There was a definite lack of cultural and psychological safety.

(A collection of low sensory items provided, including: acupressure rings, pop-it keychains, spinning soccer balls, meditation stickers, sensory stickers, and slinkies.)

The issues actually started with the questions provided to community advisors to ask the storytellers. They were very broad and hard to answer. The 3 people LET’S interviewed were unsure if they were giving answers that were in keeping with what Vancouver Foundation was trying to learn. The questions asked participants to share examples of when they had experienced a just and sustainable situation. At the summit, the majority of participants said that the community members they interviewed have not experienced that within their lives.

The way the process was designed, and the agenda, was built in a way that did not properly incorporate community knowledge and experience. Nor did it incorporate appropriate opportunities to create trust in the space before jumping into intense conversations.

Unfortunately, the facilitators that were chosen were not from identities of marginalized populations. This created a barrier, and a disconnect, right from the start. Throughout the first 2 days, there were several missteps and comments that needed to be called out and addressed. The facilitators changed on the 3rd day.

The environment was such that participants did not feel secure in sharing their community members’ stories. Several Community Advisors felt pressured to share personal information. There was a lack of opportunity to build trust and that affected the overall experience.

The agenda that had been planned for the process was completely changed. Participants called in how the process was not equitable. A concern that LET’S raised was that Vancouver Foundation asked us to gather stories then break them down into a form that Vancouver Foundation asked us to fill in prior to the summit. LET’S had refused this and provided the entire interview (unless participants had asked for something to be removed). It is not equitable or just to filter other people’s experiences or words. We should not be the ones deciding what should be shared. We also mentioned that it was a disconnect to invite storygatherers to the summit but not the storytellers. Instead, the storytellers should have been the ones invited to the summit to share their stories in their own way.

Another concern that we named was holding the summit at The Brew Creek Centre. While the staff, location, and food were all great, it must have cost Vancouver Foundation a lot of money. Money that could have been used by the many communities represented by the storygatherers.

As the process continued, past the summit, not all storygatherers agreed to have their storytellers’ stories used by Vancouver Foundation. On the 3rd day of the gathering, we had several people who left and either stayed away for a few hours or refused to return because of the harm they had endured.

Thankfully, there were a few things that did work. The opportunity for the Community Advisors to meet one another and connect, both personally and professionally, was great and very much utilized. Within these relationships, there was support, moments of joy and connection, and the ability to examine and reflect the gatherings. The agenda did not allow for enough time for these relationships to develop and that was certainly noted.

A saving grace of the summit was the attendance and participation of Elder Yvonne Rigsby Jones (Snuneymuxw First Nation, Coast Salish) and Elder John Jones (Tseqalmit). Their steady presence and wise words helped alleviate some of what occurred. They were available within the group sessions and for 1 on 1 conversations. They also utilized Cedar in several ways to bring in a more positive energy. Cedar is used for healing, wellness, and ceremony. Many (but not all) Indigenous communities consider cedar to be 1 of 4 sacred medicines. The others being tobacco, sage and sweet grass. Elder Yvonne and John provided a steady, calm, warm, and comforting energy. Their perspectives and insights throughout helped to lessen the tension. Their presence was vital to the entire experience and very much appreciated.

(The boughs of Western Cedar.)

As the summit was emotionally intense, the sensory items were very much appreciated and utilized. In some moments, it was so intense, that participants rubbed the colour off their acupressure rings. LET’S was thanked by all participants for providing a way for them to release and regulate emotions.

 

(A Palestinian summit participant holds up

a row of acupressure rings on the end of

his Black and White Keffiyeh scarf.)

In response to all the feedback, Vancouver Foundation staff went back to work and had discussions about how to proceed. They provided Community Advisors with a survey to gather more information. Vancouver Foundation shared the results with participants. It included the following:

“Your contributions have given us (and continue to give us) the foundation to realign our efforts and the collaborative work we are doing to establish the Just and Sustainable Futures Fund.

While some found meaningful connections–particularly on day 2 during the reintroduction circle and in-between summit spaces (meals, walks, etc), we also recognize and acknowledge that a few of you did not feel psychologically safe and experienced harm along the way. As VF staff, we are convening this week and next week to thoughtfully respond to issues that arose. We don’t have all the answers right now, and we feel the importance of slowing down, reflecting and responding properly in the coming days and weeks. In the meantime, we really appreciate and value your patience as we work through some post-summit logistics.”

LET’S is interested to see what the next stage is for this project and how Vancouver Foundation will adapt to the provided feedback.

LET’S is consulting for SFU on the creation of their Accessibility Plan, a requirement of the Accessible BC Act.

“An organization must develop a plan to identify, remove and prevent barriers to individuals in or interacting with the organization. An organization must review and update its accessibility plan at least once every 3 years. In developing and updating its accessibility plan, an organization must consider the following principles: inclusion; adaptability; diversity; collaboration; self-determination; universal design.

In developing its accessibility plan, an organization must consult with its accessibility committee.”

We met in May for LET’S to deliver a Disability Awareness workshop. Preceding the workshop were introductions to team members, including:

• Heather McCain (LET’S’ Executive Director, accessibility consultant)
• Allison Rugge (Rugge Consulting, project management, planning, analysis, leadership)
• Laya Behbahani (SFU, Director, Equity Diversity Inclusion, Staff, Office of the Vice-President, People, Equity & Inclusion)
• Rachel N. Wong (SFU, communications)
  Katrina Trinidad (SFU, student communications)

Heather, from LET’S, was retained by SFU to guide the project team on how best to communicate with accessibility in mind. The Disability Awareness workshop included accessibility guidelines when communicating out the invitations for consultations on the Accessibility Project. The workshop was well received and attendees learned a lot. Workshop topics included:

overview of types of disabilities, neurodiversity, Deaf/deaf
current terminology,
avoiding using diagnosis’ as adjectives,
intersecting factors that affect how language is used,
not using disabilities in idioms, metaphors, etc.
how to ensure ableism isn’t embedded in language,
person first versus identity first language