Running head: EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF SYSTEMIC ADVOCACY Evaluating the Efficacy of Systemic Advocacy: An Intersection of Disability, Human Rights, and Restorative Justice By Darrell Raymond Seib Submitted to the Faculty of Extension University of Alberta in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Communications and Technology August 24, 2016 EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF SYSTEMIC ADVOCACY i Acknowledgements With thanks and appreciation, I recognize my colleagues at the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, including Chief Commissioner David Arnot for serving as a mentor, Norma Gunningham-Kapphahn for supporting ongoing learning, and Andy Livingston for co-facilitating the focus group sessions. Former colleagues at the University of Saskatchewan, including Tom Steele, Don Story, Peter Stoicheff, and Vera Pezer who demonstrated the importance of lifelong learning, collegiality, and that academic pursuits could indeed be both selfless and rewarding. The small team at the Office of the Treaty Commissioner, who demonstrated that a small group of committed people could make significant social change. I also acknowledge the late Elders Alma and Simon Kytwayhat, whose soft touch and firm convictions impressed upon me the need for truly social social justice. My thanks go to the Masters of Arts in Communications and Technology team at the University of Alberta – you too have demonstrated that a small team with a vision can create meaningful change through education. In particular, I thank Stanley Varnhagen for his deep insight into the social nature of research, his significant patience with this project, and his guidance which was instrumental in helping me transform an idea into text. I acknowledge the thinkers, writers, and scholars who deeply consider human rights, human rights advocacy, and social justice to be of fundamental importance to our society. It is my hope that I have been true to and advanced their ideas with this research. I dedicate this work to Patrick and Chelsea, who demonstrate to me that not only is learning social and modeled, but that it unquestionably goes both ways. And to Heather, who has supported, been a part of, and helped me achieve the goals that I set out to accomplish, and, more importantly, achieve the successes that I did not know were before me, for the past 30 years. EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF SYSTEMIC ADVOCACY ii Disclaimers This research project offers an initial analysis of the use of systemic advocacy related to human rights in a unique social context. The findings are also subject to caveats that have been included in this paper. There are likely to be other caveats with, and considerations in, using, applying, or interpreting the materials presented herein. Careful consideration and analysis of the concepts and ideas presented in these materials should be given before any actions based on this research project are taken. EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF SYSTEMIC ADVOCACY iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... i Disclaimers ..................................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... vii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................... 9 Discrimination ............................................................................................................................. 9 Discrimination as a Learned Behaviour .................................................................................... 10 Discrimination and Social Cognitive Theory ............................................................................ 11 Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy .............................................................................. 13 Social Cognitive Theory and Restorative Justice Issues ........................................................... 15 Social Cognitive Theory and Socialization ............................................................................... 16 Social Cognitive Theory and the Media .................................................................................... 18 Human Rights ............................................................................................................................ 18 Human Rights Commissions in Canada .................................................................................... 20 History of human rights commissions in Canada. ................................................................. 20 Legislative foundations of Canadian human rights commissions. ........................................ 21 Social cognitive theory and the work of human rights commissions. ................................... 22 Restorative Justice ..................................................................................................................... 23 Restorative justice and social cognitive theory. .................................................................... 25 Systemic Advocacy ................................................................................................................... 26 Systemic advocacy/consensus-based multiparty negotiation and social cognitive theory. ... 30 EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF SYSTEMIC ADVOCACY iv Consensus-Based Multiparty Negotiation ................................................................................. 31 Consensus-based multiparty negotiation and social cognitive theory. .................................. 33 Disability ................................................................................................................................... 35 Disability and Social Cognitive Theory .................................................................................... 36 Evaluating Human Rights Commissions ................................................................................... 37 Typical Metrics for Human Rights Commissions. ................................................................ 38 Evaluating the Efficacy of Systemic Advocacy ........................................................................ 38 Systemic Advocacy and The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ................................ 42 Systemic Advocacy, Public Education, and the Media ............................................................. 46 Research Questions for Systemic Advocacy Evaluation .......................................................... 47 Method .......................................................................................................................................... 49 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 49 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 49 Project Design ........................................................................................................................... 50 Focus Groups ............................................................................................................................. 52 Online Survey ............................................................................................................................ 54 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 54 Focus Group Participants .......................................................................................................... 55 Survey Group 1 – ATSAC Organizations Members/Clientele ................................................. 57 Survey Group 2 – 2012 Coffee House Attendees ..................................................................... 59 2012 Consultation Report to Triangulate the Focus Group and Survey Responses ................. 59 Media Reports to Triangulate the Focus Group and Survey Responses ................................... 60 Research Ethics Review ............................................................................................................ 61 EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF SYSTEMIC ADVOCACY v Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 61 Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 63 Focus Group Findings ............................................................................................................... 63 Theme 1: attitudes about disability. ....................................................................................... 64 Theme 2: rights awareness. ................................................................................................... 67 Theme 3: communication. ..................................................................................................... 68 Theme 4: stakeholder satisfaction. ........................................................................................ 69 Theme 5: systemic advocacy. ................................................................................................ 71 Survey Groups 1 and 2 .............................................................................................................. 73 2012 Consultation Report Secondary Data ............................................................................... 77 Media Report Secondary Data .................................................................................................. 79 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 81 A Social Cognitive Framework for Restorative Justice ............................................................ 81 Regina Accessible Transportation Systemic Advisory Project (RATSAP ............................... 83 Systemic Advocacy ................................................................................................................... 84 HRCs, Restorative Justice, and Systemic Advocacy ................................................................ 85 HRCs, Restorative Justice, Systemic Advocacy, and SCT ....................................................... 86 Reinforcing the Importance of a Relational Restorative Justice Model .................................... 87 The Need for Disability Awareness Remains Acute ................................................................. 88 Advancing Systemic Advocacy, Restorative Outcomes, Beyond the Process ......................... 89 Advancing Systemic Advocacy, Restorative Outcomes, Within the Process ........................... 90 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 90 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 92 EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF SYSTEMIC ADVOCACY vi References ..................................................................................................................................... 96 Appendix A: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission Program Theory Model .................... 114 Appendix B: 10 Principles of Multiparty Negotiation ................................................................ 115 Appendix C: Search Strategy ...................................................................................................... 116 Appendix D: Focus Group Participants Recruitment Message .................................................. 118 Appendix E: Information Letter and Consent Form for the Focus Groups ................................ 119 Appendix F: Focus Group Guide for Evaluation of Systemic Advocacy ................................... 124 Appendix G: Information Letter and Consent Form for the Survey Groups .............................. 127 Appendix H: Online Survey Questionnaire ................................................................................ 130 Appendix I: Primary Stakeholder Groups .................................................................................. 136 Appendix J: Prohibited Grounds in The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code ............................ 137 Appendix K: Sample Transcript Statement Raw Coding ........................................................... 138 Appendix L: Aggregated Survey Data Summary ....................................................................... 141 Appendix M: Raw Focus Group Transcript .............................................................................. 147 EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF SYSTEMIC ADVOCACY vii Abstract In a human rights context, systemic discrimination can be described as inequity and disadvantage experienced by a group or cohort of people who share similar characteristics. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (SHRC) uses an adapted form of consensus-based multiparty negotiation (CBMPN), to address systemic discrimination and inequity. This process is based on restorative justice principles that focus on repairing relational harm. The present research evaluated the SHRC’s first ever use of its systemic advocacy/CBMPN process to address perceived inequity experienced by users of the accessible public transportation system in the City of Regina, Saskatchewan. Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory of learning was used as a means to understand and explore the efficacy of the SHRC’s systemic advocacy. A mixed methods research design was used to assess focus group and online survey participant’s perceptions of the SHRC’s work. While the findings have limited generalizability, participants responded that the SHRC’s systemic advocacy process was an effective means through which to improve equity. They also cited the need for ongoing education, communication, and dialogue. Social Cognitive Theory offers one way to explain how systemic advocacy can achieve the aims of relational restorative justice through a CBMPN process. EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF SYSTEMIC ADVOCACY 1 Introduction Social justice has always been a strong interest of mine, having witnessed continual racism in the small town community I grew up in, hatred towards my LGBTQ friends and family, and most profoundly in an intensely personal way, when I married a paraplegic woman who uses a wheelchair for mobility. Intersecting with my undergraduate education with an emphasis on gender and sexuality issues, I sought careers with organizations concerned with social justice and equality; namely the Office of the Treaty Commissioner (Saskatchewan), a federal commission charged with exploring the treaty relationship in Saskatchewan, and, more recently, with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. Enrolling in the Masters of Arts in Communication in Technology (MACT) program at the University of Alberta was a natural fit for my previous education, and, more directly, my employment for the last 25 years which has ranged from the production of provincial, national, and international videos on treaty, Indigenous, and legal issues, to the preparation of educational and presentation materials on many rights and equity related topics. In the Fall of 2012, I began working at the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (SHRC) as a public relations and media specialist. One of the first training opportunities that I undertook during my first month in the position was to attend a seminar for Canadian human rights agencies from noted legal scholar Jennifer Llewellyn. At that event, Llewellyn spoke about the importance of applying restorative justice principles to the work of human rights commissions. Restorative justice can be described as an approach to justice that attempts to repair the harm, caused by crime or other wrongdoing. The form of the reparation might involve restitution in the form of monetary or material transfer, an apology, or a change in policy or practice. Llewellyn, however, added relational reparation to the outcomes of restorative justice. EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF SYSTEMIC ADVOCACY 2 That is, and for justice to be truly restorative, the relationships that have been harmed – including between a victim and an offender, between the victim and the community, and between the offender and the larger community – must be considered, reconciled and, if possible, replaced by equality of relationships “realizing equal respect, concern, and dignity” (Llewellyn, 2012, p. 102) between a broad range of affected parties. Relational restorative justice must, therefore, be inclusive and broad, inviting meaningful participation from communities and stakeholders who might be affected by wrongdoing. A relational approach also has applicability to those communities and stakeholders that experience wrongdoing that affects “patterns of relationship without any single traceable cause” (Llewellyn, 2012, p. 97). This is noteworthy for the work of human rights commissions, and for the work of the SHRC in particular, for two reasons. First, and from a human rights perspective, inequality and discrimination is often described as endemic, invisible, and systemic. In other words, inequity and discrimination seem to exist in the absence of an instigating or causal action. Second, the SHRC was mandated by legislation, the year before I began working for the Commission, to address patterns of discrimination. These patterns are more commonly referred to as, and in the vernacular of human rights advocacy, systemic discrimination. During Llewellyn’s presentation at that Fall 2012 seminar, I became intrigued by the idea that a restorative justice approach, and in particular a relational restorative justice approach, could be used to address systemic discrimination. I was also interested in the application of an essentially dialogic activity to challenge broad based discrimination for two reasons. First, and at a personal level, my everyday life, separate and apart from the work I do at the SHRC, is affected by disability. The dialogic interaction I have with friends, family, and the community requires me to be partly responsible