Charting our future:
Proceedings of the Prairie Region Health
Promotion Research Centre’s Strategic
Planning Event.
May 18th-19th 2004, The Willows, Saskatoon.
DAY ONE
10.00am
Opening and welcome, Lewis Williams, Director, Prairie Region Health
Promotion Research Centre
10.30am
Introductions (participants listed in Appendix B)
Lunch
Afternoon Session One: Guest Presenters – a series of short presentations.
•
•
•
•
•
"La Loche – a community of the North: Strengths, Aspirations and Needs"
Georgina Jolibois, Mayor of La Loche
"Native Theatre as an Approach to Health Promotion and the Arts”
Donna Heimbecker, General Manager, Saskatchewan Native
Theatre Company
"An Ecological Approach to Health Promotion"
Peter Jonkers, Director - Environment, Science and Technology, Programs, Extension Division
"Health Promotion and Distributed Learning”
Dirk Morrison, Distributed Learning Centre, Extension Division
“Internationalization and health”,
Lori Hanson, Director
(Please see power-point copies of presentations).
Georgina Jolibois, Mayor of La Loche – key points included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
La Loche has a population of around 4,000 – a large proportion of the population is youth.
Funding in the north is less than other parts of Saskatchewan and it comes 3 to 4 years later.
An immensely important need is sharing of information and mentoring.
Community development partnerships are currently underway to help growth. An example of this is
a partnership between Chief of Reserve, RCMP & Sask Health, and Sask Education. Potentially
there is scope for other partnerships to assist with La Loche’s development.
Families are an important source of cultural strength. We would like to maintain family role models
to prevent social problems.
Social problems or areas of need include: alcohol and drug use, housing for people at risk and lowincome families, life skills for teen moms to get back into education and living as responsible adults,
literacy rates (however won an International award in this area).
There is great hope for the future – to create positive social change and learn from mistakes. There is
hope, strength, passion, and possibility of fulfillment of dreams.
2
Discussion from presentation – key points included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
La Loche is second largest community in the North. La Ronge is the largest.
40% of the population is under 15
1000 students in 2 schools
300 – 400 in Reserves
Statistics do not include preschoolers, those not in school.
During the last 10 years there has been dialogue with government to manage resources locally. For
example $17 million of transfer payments from Social Services were successfully managed locally
for community development as well as income support.
Developing La Loche is a project of re-imagining and creating what is. It’s important to be creative
in problem solving.
The North has some very good leadership.
The North needs continued assistance.
Donna Heimbecker, General Manager, Saskatchewan Native Theatre Company – key points
included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Theatre is addressing social issues through the arts - arts & culture are intertwined. SNTC
provides holistic healing journeys through the Arts and promoting healthy lifestyles by looking at the
entire individual.
Partnerships are an important means to achieve the work
SNTC use the term “youth with potential” in regards to education, instead of “youth at risk”
SNTC are revitalizing the downtown core of Saskatoon – pride in culture and sharing with family
and friends
Sask Native Theatre being asked by other arts groups for help in developing their programs.
The youth learn life skills
Career programs are 8 months duration and each intake has 15 youth. There is not enough funding
being provided for all the programming they could do.
There is an 84% retention rate of inner city youth. Sixty three participants have completed the
program with an 80% success rate. It is a drug and alcohol free Centre, with assistance to help youth
to break out of the cycle.
Plans for the future include housing with an Elder in residence, a Bistro / café adjacent to SNTC,
especially intended to provide safe gathering place for youth.
Discussion from the presentation included:
•
•
Funding has taken many years of lobbying to achieve.
The Theatre has been a great venue to put forward several issues -- child care, sexual exploitation,
drugs and alcohol abuse. There were 70 people in the Theatre to assist with sexual exploitation
issues.
3
•
•
•
•
They are Bridging with the schools to provide school credits through their programming. Kids want
to be involved with the Native Theatre.
“Senior Sundays” is an event which is being developed. Programming is being developed as well as
providing a venue that is comfortable for everyone to bring the family and “donate” towards the
event.
Social impact is as valuable as financial profit on the Company’s financial statements and # of ticket
sales.
The programming is also adaptable to minority groups, and other groups i.e. maternal child health.
The link is culture. The Theatre group would support any other group interested in using the Arts in
their own programming. They could be a resource to assist in writing proposals for funding, etc.
They are enthusiastic in presenting aboriginal culture to communities and assisting communities to
also present aboriginal issues.
Peter Jonker, Director, Environment, Science and Technology, Programs, Extension Division
See power point presentation for key points made by the presenter.
Discussion from the presentation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Declaration of interdependence (David Suzuki) – lacks goal statement of achievement - As soon as
we define an objective caught to be imposing a framework on ecosphere.
Global warming is a message to us.
We should always be thinking about “human health”.
There is evidence that the world trends have exploited the world around it …. Pollution. Is there a
solution? If the trend continues, the earth will be destroyed. We need to change to way we exploit
human development.
Economic growth is important to society. Changes should be one small step at a time. Determinants
are contextual.
Biosphere will get rid of humans in 100 years, the biggest polluter.
Rural Saskatchewan needs sustainability to be valued by future generations.
There is a gap between residential, industrial and government and desire for a meeting point.
Dirk Morrison, Distributed Learning Centre, Extension Division
Key points from presentation included:
• What is distributed learning? It is not just distance learning. It is not just the Web. It is a variety of
technologies which combines distributed environment opportunity for learning, centered around
human exchange. The key component is exchange of information in communication of dialogue and
discussion. Core principals draw from collaborative context.
• Technologies include books, correspondence, telephone, satellite broadcast, computer Web
resources, network of computers, internet, classroom-based instruction, people working together,
collaboration, communities working together on research, learning, and action.
• Central to distributed learning, content and process needs to be the Core, and focus on “what are we
trying to achieve”.
• New tools – integrative, human exchanges, collaborative context.
4
•
•
•
•
•
Workplace learning – how to learn everything needed and wanted (on-the-job training)
Community learning – accessing information, education, research, action
Why using? Change or transformation of something – people (skills), organizations practice,
communities informed and taking action for the purpose of promoting good health.
Implications – Scholarly, planning for effective use of DL technology and processes;
forensic analyses regarding utility for participants and /or communities; (Did these have an effect and
how would you evaluate?) Role of leadership, value of collaboration, facilitation; analyses of both
products and processes (carry on or not?).
Practitioner activities use DL and associated technology to expand number of communities engaged
in the process. Encourage the development of information access and knowledge creation skills for
local participants and communities.
Discussion from the presentation included:
• Question posed to group: “How do you see DL being used in the future to realize your research
and/or practitioner goals regarding health promotion?”
• Access to information depending on location, gender -- limited knowledge and skills to dialogue
around issues.
• How to distribute technology? Just because there is access to the Internet, there needs to be someone
who has the knowledge and expertise to teach this technology. How to have a person educated or to
aid in use of the Internet and books?
• With the different levels of learning resources, what can we do that will be different?
• Health officials want more distance education. In the North, computer lines are unreliable.
• Question posed to group? “How do you see DL being used by the communities you study and/or
serve for the purposes of health promotion”?
• Tracking and documentation of the learning event. Demonstrate health practitioner’s involvement.
How to analyze? Articulate the events with “real” research.
• Communities learning with other communities, learn and think globally – health issues tied together.
“Just in time” concept, learn better connection between act of community and research. Link Sask.
Health, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Develop community of leaning within larger communities
using the right strategies. Communities addressing issues – environment movement use distributed
learning to dialogue several issues, i.e. share stories of success with others.
• Influence public policy, direct links to policy makers, sharing opportunities to connect with others by
sharing opportunities of how to access policy makers, research finding through listserv, possibility of
dialogue/debate in a wider network so someone in a smaller community can participate.
Lori Hanson, Project leader, Internationalization Initiative, College of Medicine.
See power point presentation for key points made by the presenter.
5
Afternoon Session Two: Historical Scan – PRHPRC origin’s and activities (1987 –
2004).
Late 1980s
Various initiatives and groups of people coming together which provided some of the
foundations regarding future PRHPRC key relationships and areas of activity
Early 1990’s Various initiatives and partnerships such as Sustainable Communities, Healthy Cities and
Communities continued to form an important aspect of the Prairie Region Health Promotion
Context.
Early 1990’s Conference in Winnipeg on Health Promotion Research – this initiative was partially aimed at
trying to bridge Saskatchewan and Manitoba in terms of health promotion practice.
1993
Prairie Region Health Promotion Research Center was established at the University of
Saskatchewan as one of six centres successful in a national competition under a joint initiative
Health Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). The
Original mandate of these centres was to strengthen population health promotion through
Fostering research into ways of promoting health.
19931995
PRHPRC involved in health needs assessments workshops that were instrumental in
broadening the definition of health throughout the province. E.g. “Eureka” - a conference
was held on the topic of needs assessments.
1994
A meeting involving the Centre was held in Riding Mountain National Park – document
developed bringing health promotion professionals together.
1994
The PRHPRC was instrumental in the formation of the Saskatchewan Population Health
Partnership that brought provincial stakeholders together for the purpose of advancing health
promotion activity in Saskatchewan.
1994
Centre sponsored a workshop on Participatory Research – this was closely followed by the a
workshop on the Story-dialogue method of reflective practice
1994
PRHPRC participated in range of social policy consultations
19941997
A more formalised shift in emphasis to Health Promotion throughout the province occurrede.g. a formal wellness agenda developed and greater emphasis on health determinants.
Establishment of Health Regions throughout Saskatchewan and the Health Promotion
Contacts group (health promoters throughout the province) was formed. This group became
the key body of practitioners to whom the PRHPRC has since related.
6
1996
This marked the dissolution of the Health Promotion Branch of Sask Health (integrated into
the Population Health Branch), therefore increasing the significance of the PRHPRC as a
repository for health promotion
1996
Partnership with the Prairie Women’s Health Centre of Excellence started.
1997
PRHPRC played a major role in helping to establish the Canadian Consortium of Health
Promotion Research Centres, a national body of Centres playing key health promotion roles
throughout the country.
19971998
A successful transition from the Centre’s initial five year core funding (NHRDP & SSHRC)
was made. 1998 marked the beginning of two core projects from which the Centre was
funded – Heart Health and Training for Health Renewal.
19971998
The Centre’s relationship with THRP (Mozambique) marked the beginning of the Centre’s
role in health and internationalization
19982004
Through the Heart Health project the PRHPRC initiated a number of capacity building
activities with practitioners that included 1) planning, implementation and evaluation
activities and 2) research designed to better understand capacity building processes to
improve health promotion practice. Capacity building activities included workshops around
specific topics, HP Link and an information line for practitioners. Findings since
disseminated in a variety of mediums such as journal articles, a monograph and Capacity
Indicators Workbook for practitioners to use.
19972002
A number of week-long summer schools were held by the Centre. These involved a
a variety of intersectoral partners and more latterly included the use of a learning
design team for the purposes of curriculum development.
1999
Centre website developed
2003
Centre participated in rage of consultations e.g. - Healthy Living
20032004
Northern Capacity Building workshops delivered to three locations (partnership between
PRHPRC and the Northern Diabetes Coalition)
2003
Hiring of new Director, as faculty with Extension Division. This marked a new partnership
between College of Medicine and the Extension Division.
2004
Reduced funding to Extension Division
7
DAY TWO
Historic roles for the PRHPRC (as summarised by participants from the historic scan)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
To influence health promotion across Canada
Facilitating connections/networking
Communities Resources (challenging norms/accepted parameters)
Developing health promotion concepts
Acting as secretariat for other Agencies/Projects
“Hearth keeping” for health promotion
Fostering a “knowledge network”
“Common-grounding” (facilitating consensus)
To act as a catalyst
To be a collaborative partner
Training, mentoring, capacity-building, teaching (various support roles)
To be a learner and modelling and modelling that role consistently
To transfer knowledge and experience eg. Internationally
Challenging norms and accepted parameters
Sponsoring research
To influence public policy
Charting the Future: a concept plan.
Presentation of “Charting the future: a concept plan” by Lewis Williams, Director of PRHPRC.
Key points included:
•
•
•
•
This presentation is taken from “A concept plan and strategic planning guide for the Prairie Region
Health Promotion Research Centre”. This was developed in consultation with centre stakeholders as
part of the led up to the strategic planning event. It includes stakeholder perspectives regarding future
directions of the Centre and views of the Centre’s new director.
Lewis presented a synthesised version of the historical scan from the previous day.
It is important to position local health promotion practice and the Centre’s role within this, in relation
to broader context of contemporary population health promotion themes and global issues.
The Centre should work to develop its research, evaluation and practice functions equally so that
they each inform the other. In particular the Research and Evaluation functions will need to be built
8
•
•
•
•
•
•
up as in the past PRHPRC has mainly focused on practice activities. There is also potential to
develop the Centre as a resource for Participatory Action Research or components of it (i.e.
participatory research, action research).
The concept plan introduces three main concepts that could usefully underpin PRHPRC activities in
the future. These concepts are “Power-culture dynamics”, the “Ecology of relationships”, and
“Ethical spaces between knowledge paradigms”. (A description of these is contained in the Centre’s
“concept plan”).
Past Centre activities as detailed in the historical scan were then plotted against the conceptual
schema – (see power point presentation slide #8). The majority of these fall into the practice domain
with some applied research and evaluation.
Power-culture dynamics – past centre activities may be positioned within this as this concept is
concerned with human centred development (the present and official aim of the Centre). Much of the
Centre’s work has been focused on equitable access to health determinants. However the centre
might view this through the lense of “power-culture” to include a broad definition of culture (e.g.
ethnicity, gender, age, sexual identity, ability) whilst actively working to reshape dynamics of power
and culture in relation to a broad range of cultural communities – particularly those marginalized by
public policy.
The ecology of relationships – this effectively challenges the centre to go beyond the aim of “human
centred development”, viewing humans as participants within the biosphere. Health promotion
activities would need to be located within this broader paradigm that actively works with the tensions
between health, economy, and environments. Within this important aspects of health directly related
to material needs and the environment are culture and spirituality. The centre potentially needs to
either come up with a new definition of health promotion or qualify the broad definition of “enabling
communities to increase control over health and wellbeing” through incorporating the notions of
power-culture and the ecology of relationships.
The creation of ethical spaces between paradigms is important as this enables distinctions to be
drawn between various approaches to health promotion research, practice and evaluation activities.
Importantly this also enables traditionally marginalised paradigms such as indigenous, feminist or
social constructionism for examples, to have greater legitimacy within their own right.
Examples of Centre health promotion activities as these related to the future conceptual schema were
proposed. In essence these represent weaving the old with the new. They include continuing
activities that have served the communities of the Saskatchewan and the Prairie Region well (eg
health promotion summer schools and training events, reflective practice) and traditional health
sector programmes such as the primary health care. New activities could potentially be working with
indigenous communities, issues of environment, cultural change, spirituality or evaluation assistance
with community-based organisations.
Key points from discussion included:
•
•
Research is important. In past the Centre has been largely characterized as practise, training and
learning
The Centre chose to focus on practise community as a teachable place because of likely spin off
–in terms of influencing health promotion practice. The Centre tended to work with existing
relationships
9
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The emphasis should be on capacity building and the health promotion practitioner’s experience.
Practice is an important source of knowledge - reflect on practise to generate knowledge
Research should be about learning and deepening knowledge
The PRHPRC was central to getting PWHCE established in Saskatchewan. If this activity was
counted I would include Women’s health in the research section of the Research, Evaluation,
Practice functions included in Lewis’conceptual schema
The Research segment needs to be fuller and some focus is needed on this to build it up.
The Centre is about supporting (nurturing) the health promotion community and teaching them to
do it (research, practice, evaluation) themselves.
How does the centre fit with organizations such as SPHEPU – SPHERU tended to look at more
theoretical pieces and evaluative activity (health). Does the Centre emulate SPHERU –
partnership around community practise/community building – grounding. SPHERU is not about
HP – but about PHP – broad academically focussed – with a research base to influence public
policy
The PRHPC has focused a lot on community-based action – supporting health promotion
practitioners in capacity building - there are lots of opportunities to blend, partner with SPHERU
around work.
It is important to think about the different types of research i.e. - applied, evaluative, etc. – and to
separate out what should Centre focus on – different variations. There are different variations some theoretical, others academic.
Respect for knowledge grounded in community and practise needs to be balanced for respect for
knowledge based on theory – its important for the Centre to achieve a healthy syntheses of the
above two
Planning exercise
Participants broke into 3 small groups and were asked to consider the following key questions:
• What should be the PRHPRC’s goals and directions?
• Who should be its communities?
• What should be its relationships?
Key points arising from small group discussions
•
•
•
•
•
There is a role for the PRHPRC in research and social transformation – university, communities and
organizations need to partner
Linkages with organizations and communities are important
Continue to build practitioner capacities - i.e. skill development and training
Primary health care is an important area for the Centre to be involved in
Supporting people in health promotion roles
•
•
To ensure freedom from discrimination
To ensure ethical space between knowledge paradigms and cultural groups —respecting diversity
10
•
To facilitate the sharing of health promotion practices - linking with things that are working well
•
•
•
•
•
PRHPRC should maintain, create a space for dialogue between researchers, practitioners.
Focus of centre should be on community and health promotion
It is important to maintain manageable focus – not spread too thin
Increase its focus for Aboriginal groups and capacity building with these communities
To play a role in demonstrating how health promotion works effectively for continued funding –
evaluation - Helping to shape presentation of evidence
There exists many relationships – build on those
•
Lunch
Afternoon Session
From the small group work and the above discussion notes concerning goals, communities and
relationships were each recorded on cards and categorised under the following functions:
PRINCIPLES
• Sharing
• Best practice
• Pay attention to gender class, and cultural differences and power relations within communities could for example work with PWHCE on these kinds of issues.
• Principles should reflect a holistic approach (mutuality, reciprocity) vs. “problem” or “issue” based
approach to health promotion.
• Activities must promote freedom from discrimination
• Embedding the ecological approach
• Create ethical space and dialogue between communities and paradigms
• Maintain a manageable focus (danger in spreading too thin)
• Value local practice
• Ensure practice is inclusive (many levels)
• Personal ownership over health
• “Walk the talk” Processes as well. Actions have to be health promoting
RESEARCH & EVALUATION
• Evidence – Helping to tell the practice story and shape the presentation
• To make evidence-based resources in health promotion more available
• To increase the profile of health promotion research – i.e. knowledge dissemination
• To assist with the application of health promotion research in practitioners’ contexts
• To play a role in making PAR more accessible to practitioners and communities.
• Expand research approaches to be inclusive of communities and issues of community ownnership
ownership necessary
11
•
•
•
To undertake research that serves/responds to communities
A research focus that demonstrates how health promotion works
To conduct innovative community-based empowering research
LINKAGES
• Linking, partnering or seeking funding from research Centres in health promotion, global health,
gender and health, etc within Canada and internationally (E.g. North-South).
• Link with others: IPHRC, Health Canada “Centre”:
• Internationalization as a way to expand knowledge and communities of practice – learn from within
other communities in the world
• Foci: Aboriginal populations
Community capacity building
Linking and coordinating
Evaluation
• Linkage with organizations that promote health in the community
• Relationships – maintain and build -- Local, Regional, National, International
• Support health promotion people in building a community
• Assist with organizational HP capacity built in Province.
• Link communities and practitioners around PAR
• Build capacity to facilitate community dialogues and network (distributed learning)
SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION
• Advocacy
• Informing Work/Actions of Community
• Healthy Public Policy
• Reshaping policy discourse
Key points from in-depth group discussion concerning future goals of the Centre
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Internationalization is an important area of work for the centre
There is a lot to learn re the issue of expanding communities of practise. Different paradigms of
knowledge expands our knowledge about doing things differently; learning from the world.
It is important to work together in ways that pay attention to the differences of lives eg. power and
culture; inequalities inside communities – e.g. gender, economic/ class inequalities.
The centre should play a role in networking/partnering/linking other resource centres around global
health. For example, a broad research program that links South – North practice
It is important to retain national and international foci in terms of linking up.
The purpose is different working in Saskatchewan and Canada, versus linking internationally
Link with Aboriginal communities here is also important versus linking with resource centres around
bodies of knowledge concepts and theory
Health Canada announcement May 19th -6 public health collaborating centres. Aboriginal and
Environmental health located in BC.
12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aboriginal communities deal with social dysfunctions on an hourly basis, look to distress in present
communities. I think in my priorities, 85% of issues have to do with Aboriginal people i.e.
prevalence with diabetes, ethnicity. We have to deal with Aboriginal epidemic. I am afraid that
centre priorities will be skewed. Aboriginal health issues need to be prioritized. A fear I have is that
we (aboriginal communities) will have input into this part of the Centre’s planning, but may never be
consulted again – that could be the last we hear of it.
Regarding process and consultation with communities. There will be consultation regarding the
Centre Strategic Plan with Centre stakeholders and strategic planning event participants. This will
occur in a more concentrated way with the Community Advisory group (currently 6 members) who
will have input into goals/objectives of future of Centre. First Nations and Metis people will be
around the table as there is representation on the Community Advisory Group.
We need to think of health and well-being issues as not just being located in Aboriginal communities
or other disenfranchised communities, but in the social structures and systems. We need to think
holistically – all communities are part of the solution.
Some tension was expressed as to where the Centre should focus its efforts – i.e. directly with
minority groups, with practitioners and or a policy focus.
One major health-promoting factor is the empowering of immigrants who land in Saskatchewan.
There is a loss of social support systems, sometimes (especially for women) loss of familiar jobs,
lack of a variety of familiar surroundings which can lead to ill-health. In some cases families move
away from Saskatchewan because a partner feels isolated etc. etc. Certain research followed by
related implementation might actually help “keep professionals ‘’ in Saskatchewan. The Immigrant
Women’s Group and Amandla as non-profit organizations try hard to undertake little research
projects followed by health enhancing activities. They are also interested in conducting research
pertinent to immigrant groups here, and to use findings locally. They would also be interested in
conducting research directly related to immigrating issues, areas around youth empowerment etc. etc.
and PRHPRC might be a useful organization to partner with.
Who do we consider to be a health promotion practitioner? We need to broaden the lens outside of
the health sector to include those working with a wide variety of health related issues – E.g. the work
of Saskatchewan Native Theatre Company could be called health promotion.
In the north, everyone is potentially a health promoter – people have responsibility for own health. It
is important to think of community leaders as health promoters and to liase with communities over
who they see as their leaders and key health promotion people – these will not necessarily be health
sector people.
Re community development issues, in Aboriginal communities, the model that works is consultation
with front line and engage the leadership. In order for communities to embrace “champions of
change”, they have to be involved too. It is two-fold.
We (aboriginal communities) have very mixed emotions around research. In past experience,
researchers have attended to their own agendas and their has been no community ownership. Utilize
a respectful approach. Partnership – respect ethical space.
Aboriginals have knowledge to pass down, be “beside” us in the process, respect of different
learning styles, who owns this process, ownership process, partnership; learn from one another i.e.,
capacity building workshop.
The way in which the PRHPRC works with Indigenous communities requires a whole a whole
discussion in itself and will be earmarked for future development. The advisory group should be
involved in this. Different models are possible – for example in Aotearoa New Zealand, bi-cultural
13
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
models are utilised. It might be in the future that one PRHPRC staff is located in a satellite office in
the North – many different options for the how the Centre engages in work with Saskatchewan’s
indigenous communities.
Setting priorities mechanisms – way of sharing where there are intersections. The Centre has
catalyst role. May do things differently; does not contradict.
The goal is to enhance health promotion. It’s important to maintain a manageable focus and support
health promotion. Health promotion capacity can be about good organizational policy to be
responsive to priorities in different areas i.e. North/South. Working at a different level. As a
province, problems in Aboriginal at present, put resource in Aboriginal communities. Work on
whole province; set up communities of First Nation health practitioners and work on it provincewide, together. Make entire province healthier – non-aboriginal communities also needs work.
It’s important to consider what principles underlie the way you want to support. It is broader than
stating goals. NAHO document. Principles of support as backdrop to goal setting; keep in mind
cutting edge of health promotion; see communities in holistic way i.e. strengths and weaknesses.
Issues of spirituality are important – keep holistic principles in mind.
College of Medicine (internationalization and health program) – doesn’t want “top down” projects.
Reciprocity/mutuality – why you want to engage. (Mutuality how can a 1st World Nation effectively
help a 3rd World Nation?).
Establish trust relationships with Aboriginal community to address ways to work together.
Research – have to produce evidence, ethical, disseminate widely in a variety of ways. Linkages –
national/international/local/community
What is the Centre role in advocacy? It’s implicit in what we have, however it’s not explicitly
written.
Do we include advocacy – lots of political baggage can come from that.
It’s important to have an action/social transformation category – type of advocacy role – not any one
position on how that’s done. Balance with commitment.
With advocacy comes expectation; could the Centre handle it?
The centre has an important role as power broker. If you ignore Power you are actually supporting
that power. A stance for health is advocacy.
Who do we consider to be a HP practitioner?
Every individual is health promotion practitioner. Empower people to take responsibility
Historically the practitioner was the ‘expert’ – this is not a useful model.
Who identifies those individuals? Are they individuals in the community at large? The community
has to identify the collaborative process – community identified leader.
Past research is too fast paced – not respectful – learn who the leaders are. Develop relationships
with Tribal Councils / Health Regions before starting. The last last five years there has been more
blending of teaching methods. Paradigm shift in communities; some hurt from residential school –
lost vital skills; just starting to talk “getting out of the dysfunctional box”; people are taking control.
Health isn’t just medical models. Great things are happening in communities i.e. lifestyle changes
and education. See what meets the needs of the communities.
Who is HP practitioner? Those on “healing journeys” – could be leaders / grass roots. Choice
between working and community “healing journeys” – do it right. Work with a range of people on
activists. If relationship is built, people listen. Respect is key.
14
•
•
•
•
•
•
PAR as a process of engaging in community for understanding direction for action. In Canada PAR
has become a watered down concept; no action on the other end. It is about participatory social
transformation.
“Walk the talk”. Aboriginal people expect accountability for leaders. Real leaders live it. They
don’t have alcohol abuse and domestic violence in their own lives.
Groups should work together, power and culture, tendency for community to hide, make sure that all
issues are looked after.
Great social inequities and distress exists in aboriginal communities - greater priorities today to
ethnic groups, epidemic in proportion. Are the aboriginal issues going to be really looked after, or
just said that the Centre has been in consultation with an aboriginal person?
Model that works best is to engage local leadership, respectful, ownership of process, respect ethical
space physical location and space, where things take place, where can schools take place, northern
workshops.
Not all priorities will intersect with the Centre, the Centre should be a catalyst, considering political
priorities. Not contradicting health issues for particular groups
FUNDING SUGGESTIONS
There is a threat of research funding driving the agenda. Let the projects drive the funding
Saskatchewan Health funding is not available now. Will need full sources of funds to pursue activities.
Suggestions included:
•Kellogg Foundation
•Provincial government Federal government
•Aboriginal government
•Canadian Institutes Health Research (CIHR)
•Primary health care fund (federal)
•Specific initiatives for primary health care
•Private practitioners (evaluation funds)
•Health Quality Council (SHRF)
•Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation •Smaller organization eg. Status of Women ($10-40,000)
•CUISR
•Aboriginal Healing Foundation
•Canadian Consortium of HP Research
•Federal funds for health promotion evaluation
•Health Canada (community development) •Human Services Integration Forum-broad training idea
•“Disease specific” funds (Health Canada, Heart and Stroke Foundation, Diabetes Association, Lawson
Foundation, etc.)
•Training sessions – Health Living – when it reaches fruition. Call for evaluation – training specific to
evaluations. Demonstration of effectiveness of community intervention. Government support – what
happens with it through Consortium.
•International Union Health Promotion and Education 2007 conference and lead up activities
•3 year funding sponsoring event. Spin off around conference/training/workshops over next three years.
•Global Health Research Initiatives (CIHR) – research and training
•Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) -- internationalization
•Profit (fee for service)
•Community Development Corporation (Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority -- SIGA)
• Muttart Foundation and Canadian Volunteer Initiative
15
Concluding remarks
The Centre needs to shape its direction. Some new directions will be ear-marked for further development in
the future, other areas will receive more immediate attention. We will take a critical look at what’s been
written up from this meeting i.e. draft the outline of a strategic Plan and workshop this further at the initial
meeting of the Community Advisory group in July. The Centre will be in a better position to build once it
has a clear mandate and direction.
16
Appendix A Participants
Adele Crocker, Health Canada
Bruce Reeder, Dept Community Health and Epidemiology
Debbie Mpofu, Saskatoon Immigrant Women’s Society & Saskatchewan Institute on Prevention of
Handicaps
Denise Kouri, THRP
Dirk Morrison, Extension Division, U of S.
Donna Heimebecker, Saskatchewan Native Theatre Company.
Georgia Bell Woodard, Prairie Region Health Promotion Research Centre
Georgia Jolibois, La Loche Municipal Government
Earl Magnuson, FSIN
Elaine Malbeuf, Kewatin Yatthe Regional Health Authority
Jackie Hubick, Sask Health
James Irvine, Population Health Unit
Jill Shanks, Saskatchewan Institute on Prevention of Handicaps
Kay Willson, Prairie Women’s Health Centre of Excellence
Karen Schmidt, Prairie Region Health Promotion Research Centre
Kathryn Green, Dept Community Health and Epidemiology
Kevin Fenwick, Sask Justice
Larry Flynn, Health Canada
Lewis Williams, Prairie Region Health Promotion Research Centre
Linda Willet, Five Hills Health Region
Lori Hanson, Dept Community Health and Epidemiology
Meredith Moore, Moore Chamberlain Associates
Marcia Mirasty, Meadow Lake Tribal Council
Nikki Gerrard, Saskatoon Health District
Peter Jonker, Extension Division
Saqib Shahab, Sunrise Health Region
Scott Mclean, Extension Division
Sue Delanoy, Saskatoon Communities for Children
Val Churko, Sunrise Health Region
Victoria Walton, Saskatoon Health District
Willie Ermine, Sturgeon Lake First Nation
Facilitator: Kevin Fenwick, Mediator with the Regina Office of The Dispute Resolution Office - Saskatchewan
Justice.
17