findings:
Pillar 4: Meaningful Participation
Rethinking Municipal Policy Responses to Encampments: Building a Human Rights Approach in Ontario
Exploratory Questions:
- Is there any evidence of lived expertise engagement in the process of developing encampment protocols or other relevant policies?
- Do bylaws and/or protocols recognize the autonomy of encampment residents in making decisions concerning their immediate options for shelter?
- Do protocols provide a mechanism for encampment residents to participate in local decision-making concerning encampments?
|
Is there any evidence of lived expertise engagement in the process of developing encampment protocols or other relevant policies?
Human rights documents emphasize the importance of meaningful participation of encampment residents in policy decisions that affect them. Consequently, in assessing municipal policy documents, we explored whether there was evidence of lived expertise engagement in developing the protocol, whether there was recognition of the autonomy of encampment residents in making decisions about their own lives, and whether there were any mechanisms for encampment residents to participate in making decisions about encampments or provide feedback about the municipal response. |
For the most part, we found little evidence of meaningful engagement of encampment residents. Not only was there little evidence of engagement in the protocols, but there also was little evidence of engagement in accompanying staff reports and website documents. Some protocols were explicit about this lack of engagement. For example, the staff report accompanying the City of Guelph’s protocol notes that, “Due to the Council direction to bring the by-law back no later than the end of February 2024, there was no opportunity to conduct community engagement.” In other contexts, there were opportunities for public engagement, but these did not centre the people living in encampments. For example, the City of Hamilton hosted three public town halls concerning the development of its encampment protocol. While people with experience living in encampments could participate in these town halls, as could other residents, on several occasions, the town halls became emotionally charged and hostile environments. In other cases, municipalities with well developed lived expertise engagement tables like the Kitchener, Region of Waterloo, and the Region of Niagara did not engage these tables in the drafting of encampment policies and protocols. For example, the Region of Waterloo Protocol was put forward during municipal budget talks, with minimal opportunity for public feedback, and no consultation with the local lived expertise engagement tables.
These are not simply "issues" to be managed—they are people
whose choices, voices, and lived experiences must be
respected and meaningfully included in any decision-making process.
whose choices, voices, and lived experiences must be
respected and meaningfully included in any decision-making process.
Do bylaws and/or protocols recognize the autonomy of encampment residents in making decisions concerning their immediate options for shelter?
In other cases, some engagement with people living in encampments was noted, however there was limited accountability in terms of summarizing what these engagements revealed and/or how these engagements influenced protocol and policy. For example, Greater Sudbury notes that, “The [protocol] document reflects the inputs provided during a multi-day, on-site visit with the different entities involved in the encampment response.” However, this does not explain the specific role of people with experience living in encampments in the site visits, nor how exactly the site visit informed the final protocol. Given the information publicly available, it is impossible to assess whether specific recommendations or changes that emerged to the protocol because of input shared by lived experts.
|
In sum, decisions about the future of encampments are typically made by senior municipal staff, sometimes with input from multi-agency planning table, but rarely with meaningful involvement from the people living in the encampments themselves. Overall, we found very limited opportunities for residents to participate in decisions that directly affect their lives, despite meaningful participation being a core principle of a human rights–based approach.
|
|
Do protocols provide a mechanism for encampment residents to participate in local decision-making concerning encampments?
Only two protocols, London and Toronto, discussed at length the meaningful participation of people staying in encampments, in the protocol and service provision design. Toronto’s protocol included lived expertise engagement, including engagement with Indigenous peoples with lived expertise, which is outlined in a consultation document that was used to develop the protocol. In addition, Toronto’s protocol states that whenever possible, people living in encampments should participate “in decision-making processes that impact them.” The protocol further develops a definition of what meaningful engagement means, and discusses a process for integrating meaningful engagement into decision-making concerning encampments. In London, individuals with lived expertise were provided opportunities to engage and provide feedback at Service Depots, though not at the encampment response table.
Only two protocols, London and Toronto, discussed at length the meaningful participation of people staying in encampments, in the protocol and service provision design. Toronto’s protocol included lived expertise engagement, including engagement with Indigenous peoples with lived expertise, which is outlined in a consultation document that was used to develop the protocol. In addition, Toronto’s protocol states that whenever possible, people living in encampments should participate “in decision-making processes that impact them.” The protocol further develops a definition of what meaningful engagement means, and discusses a process for integrating meaningful engagement into decision-making concerning encampments. In London, individuals with lived expertise were provided opportunities to engage and provide feedback at Service Depots, though not at the encampment response table.
Promising Practice: City of Toronto’s Definition of Meaningful Engagement
The City of Toronto’s encampment protocol includes a clear and specific definition of meaningful engagement in the context of encampments. The protocol states,
“Meaningful Engagement” refers to the ongoing and purposeful participation of people with lived experience that fosters genuine participation, robust collaboration, and contribution. It values the experiences and perspectives of participants, striving to integrate feedback into decision-making processes. Meaningful engagement in the context of outreach includes working with people to build trust and allowing them to define their immediate needs.
This definition is effective because it situates engagement as an ongoing process that is led by encampment residents and also specifies that engagement should inform decision-making. Further, the protocol describes how meaningful engagement will be implemented: through a “Community Working Group” established at each site. A limitation of this model is that aspects of deep engagement, such as the Community Working Group, are only available where the city deploys their Enhanced Outreach model at sites which receive more dedicated resources. Moreover, while this definition of meaningful engagement is promising on paper, local advocates have raised concerns about a lack of substantive implementation of these principles during encampment evictions in Toronto.
The City of Toronto’s encampment protocol includes a clear and specific definition of meaningful engagement in the context of encampments. The protocol states,
“Meaningful Engagement” refers to the ongoing and purposeful participation of people with lived experience that fosters genuine participation, robust collaboration, and contribution. It values the experiences and perspectives of participants, striving to integrate feedback into decision-making processes. Meaningful engagement in the context of outreach includes working with people to build trust and allowing them to define their immediate needs.
This definition is effective because it situates engagement as an ongoing process that is led by encampment residents and also specifies that engagement should inform decision-making. Further, the protocol describes how meaningful engagement will be implemented: through a “Community Working Group” established at each site. A limitation of this model is that aspects of deep engagement, such as the Community Working Group, are only available where the city deploys their Enhanced Outreach model at sites which receive more dedicated resources. Moreover, while this definition of meaningful engagement is promising on paper, local advocates have raised concerns about a lack of substantive implementation of these principles during encampment evictions in Toronto.