CROSS CUTTING THEMES ON THE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACTS OF THE BUILDING CAPACITY PROJECT
PHASE TWO
The case studies illustrated a number of cross-cutting themes connected to the process and impact of the project. These included:
-
a growing sense of co-creation, including the active involvement of people with dementia and community members, and the positive influence of this approach in shaping how BCP Partner initiatives evolved;
-
the importance of strategic framing in relation to how Partners conceptualized their initiatives in relation to the term “dementia”, leading to a broader inclusive approach, together with a strategy for “changing the narrative” about dementia so this focus is not lost;
-
the value of a relational approach, for program design focussing on creating connection, and for implementation, including through the formation of organic provider networks;
-
embracing complexity, using the concept of “wayfaring” based on general principles or vision, to take advantage of emerging opportunities, rather than following a script and trying to achieve pre-determined outcomes; following a complexity-based approach partners also sought to influence the inclusiveness and responsiveness of their surrounding community (including the service system)
-
program impacts focussed on connection, enjoyment and purpose, experienced by people with dementia, care partners, volunteers, as well as initiative leaders
-
an increased focus on sustainability efforts, through strategic relationships with other funders (most particularly United Way), and through continued Asset-Based Relationship (ABCD) strategies, aimed at building a broader base of leaders, volunteers and other key resources
The evolution of an organic network of BCP Programs in expanding access to support, and supporting continued program development, which suggests the value of developing continued infrastructure for a Community of Practice to support and grow the work of the Building Capacity Project and its partner organizations “as part of something bigger.”
ENGAGEMENT AS CO-CREATION:
ENABLING COMMUNITY DRIVEN LEADERSHIP
What were the impacts on the individuals involved in the initiative (people with lived experience, care partners, staff, and community members)?
In Phase Two, we’ve witnessed strong community-driven leadership, as the various partners have moved towards a “co-creation” approach featuring a significant and increasing degree of participation and ownership from people with dementia, as well as from the broader community.
For the Burnaby-based Dementia Co-Creation Academy, this ethos started with the initiative’s formation, as the participants of a previously run program encouraged DCCA’s leaders to begin a new one, and acted as an advisory committee during the new project’s development.
For Kits House, co-creation manifested as an increased sense of ownership adopted by the memory buddy pairs, as they moved beyond the original approach of “hanging out” once a week, and spontaneously started meeting more often, basing their choice of activities on individualized goals that the buddy supported the participant to develop.
The Sunshine Coast case study illustrates engagement of the broader community, as the initiatives’ leadership team facilitated the involvement of Gibson’s Senior Society’s members through a survey, enabling their participation in the planning of a successful, well-attended workshop series that in turn, has shaped the subsequent evolution of project.
The ASK transportation initiative also represented community ownership in the sense of the involvement of other community groups (funded agencies as well as grassroots groups, including other BCP Partners) who participated in the conceptualization of the initiative and who were able to successfully influence the evolution of the program as part of the steering group.
At South Granville Seniors Centre, the participation of multiple Latinx participants during Phase One led to the formation and solidification of the Spanish Speaking Memories Café during Phase Two. During Phase One, we witnessed cultural bridging strategies occurring, for example in the initiative of West Point Grey United Church to foster culturally sensitive (as well as inter-cultural) conversations about dementia with their bilingual members who spoke English and Cantonese. Similarly, in Phase Two, the DCCA features a multi-cultural group whose members are from Chinese, English-speaking and Farsi-speaking backgrounds.
Over time, through training and experience, communities gradually became more confident and expanded their sense of what was possible when it came to actively engaging people with lived experience of dementia in shaping program development.
STRATEGIC FRAMING ON BCP INITIATIVES: CHANGING THE NARRATIVE ABOUT DEMENTIA
Partners often wrestled with how to conceptualize their initiatives in relation to “the D-word,” when discussing their initiatives’ overall direction, and who their target audiences would be. Some, like the Dementia Co-Creation Society, whose members were already comfortable with their diagnosis, included the word “dementia” in their title. Given the stigma and fear engendered by the term, most others framed their initiatives using terms considered safer, like “memory”, and “brain health” where they anticipated that people could be more willing “see themselves,” and more likely to participate.
Regardless of terminology, another important shift has been to reorient the programs away from focussing on the individual, per se, towards supporting people to find belonging within their social networks, and to create new opportunities for community.
In Phase One, partners initially tended to use safe, generic terminology (e.g. “seniors programming”) without being intentional about bringing dementia back into the conversation. In Phase Two, it has become clearer that in order to do that, these considerations around framing must also be part of broader strategy to create a safe space for changing the narrative around dementia. For example, in the Sunshine Coast the “Managing Memory” series included dementia-specific education from a local specialist physician, as well as a workshop led by Myrna Norman using the BCP Conversation Starter Cards, designed to create safe, experientially-based conversations.
In addition to making the topic of dementia safer, these interactions were seen by participants as changing the perception of what it meant to have dementia, leading them to “seeing dementia differently… especially (after seeing) people with dementia leading community change,” - Sunshine Coast participant.
ADOPTING A RELATIONAL APPROACH TO PROGRAM DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
In Phase One, our Thunder Bay Partners from the NWDWG noted that “the relationship is as important as the work.” During Phase Two the importance of adopting a relational approach to program design and development has come increasingly into focus in BC; “people need to be together and see joy in people's faces” - SGSC Participant
Along these lines, new partners described how they avoided thinking in traditional program development. They affirmed learnings from Phase One about the importance of sharing a meal, and the value of creating a vibrant space for community building.
Just as a relational approach was integral to program design, relationships were integral to ongoing program development, as BCP partners followed an Asset-Based Community Development approach, drawing on existing partnerships or building new ones in order to build their initiatives. This entailed volunteers, artistic guidance, food; it also involved securing in-kind support from other organizations, such as training, mentorship, or supplementary supports.
Also important, was finding partners with shared values or interests where there was some reciprocity rather than simply an “ask.” This was illustrated by the formation of DCCA’s partnership with the Rideau Retirement Residence, where DCCA secured a bright, accessible, street-level space with nearby parking, and the program was made available to residents of the care home. The sense of reciprocity derived by volunteers has enabled DCCA and other programs, e.g. KNH, to develop a growing pool of people, who no longer need to be recruited, but approach these programs to seek out opportunities.
Another related development is the fostering of relationships between Building Capacity partners, as a way to improve their own programs, and expand access to a more comprehensive range of supports to complement their own offerings. For instance, participants from KNH and SGSC have attended outings provided through ASK’s Bus Program. And KNH and SGSC have partnered to obtain a successful United Way grants around information and referral and system navigation.
EMBRACING A COMPLEXITY-BASED APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTATION
The BCP was founded on a developmental, complexity-based approach that was less linear and predictable.
In Phase One, partners talked about the value of “trying things out”, and adapting as they went along. In a similar vein, partners in Phase Two talked about the idea of “wayfaring”, which meant following general principles, rather than a script, and being able to respond to and capitalize on new ideas congruent with this vision as they went along.
Elaine Weirsma, from Thunder Bay, talks about how success for them has been associated with having the “right people”, and “the right place”, come together at the “right time.” A complexity-based approach to program development entails an enabling style of leadership (“letting the doers do”), and avoiding what one leader called “a bureaucratic lens” that is overly focussed on managing risks, as opposed to taking advantage of opportunities. It also entails learning to move on when doors appear closed, being sensitive to the surrounding context of the initiative, and taking steps to influence the “systems” in their surrounding community. For BCP Partners this means engaging with the broader community to address the stigma that hinders their own efforts, and makes things more difficult for their own participants in their wider social networks.
Like in Phase One, the partners' initiatives in this second phase evolved in unexpected and serendipitous ways, and their efforts have influenced their surrounding communities to become more inclusive and responsive to people with dementia.
IMPACTS
-
We conducted several focus groups to measure the impact of BCP initiatives amongst partners, which showed an impact on sense of belonging (including cultural belonging), engagement/enjoyment, and feelings of support.
-
Focus group participants indicated that their participation made a significant difference.
-
Participants (including volunteers), also gained a strong sense of purpose that was connected to their involvement in the project, and to make a difference in the lives of others.
-
There was a significant impact with respect to the deepening of relationships between volunteers and participants, which included the formation of a strong and growing support networks that moved beyond initial 1:1 volunteer/participant relationships, and included an intergenerational aspect.
SUSTAINABILITY
Sustaining the programs and extending their reach and impact was a main concern of partners throughout Phase Two, which manifested in various ways. Other strategic partnerships with the United Way’s Community-Based Seniors Sector initiative have significantly contributed to the broader sustainability efforts of partners, helping them retain staff and resources to solidify and grow their initiatives.
Throughout the two phases of the BCP, the project has benefitted from the commitment of leaders for whom the work has been and continues to be “a passion project.” Sustainability in the sense of solidifying these programs has come from an ability to distribute leadership, including finding key point people to drive their initiatives. In Phase Two we’ve also witnessed a growing base of committed volunteers who help run and resource various programs.
According to BCP Partners, sustainability efforts have also benefitted from the credibility of the BCP. The credibility of the project has also been beneficial for asset-based strategies, and is expected to continue to offer benefits beyond the funded period of the projects for partners as they continue to develop new partnerships and resources.
CONCLUSION
As in Phase One, partners affirm the value of continuing to do the work “as part of something bigger”, or as part of an overall movement where like-minded people and organizations implementing similar initiatives as part of a network. This network has evolved organically as partners have come together to connect their current initiatives and develop joint funding proposals for further work. They also affirm the need for future resources for some infrastructure to continue this community of practice.