1. The Advocacy Leadership of the Ontario Public Health Association Connie Uetrecht President cuetrech@toronto.ca Garry Aslanyan Chair, Advocacy Committee gaslanya@hotmail.com Jack Lee Executive Director jacklee@opha.on.ca www.opha.on.ca

2. Outline Characteristics of advocacy About Advocacy at the OPHA How OPHA can support your advocacy strategy Case Study: The OPHA Food Biotechnology Workgroup Case Study: The OPHA Healthy Schools Workgroup OPHA’s Advocacy Project Materials Available

3. Advocacy  Changing their perception or understanding of the issue  Influencing their choices when formulating decisions  Changing their decision-making behaviour Impacts decision-makers by:

4. Characteristics of Advocacy  A key strategy for public policy change,  Viewed negatively in government circles  Challenging for health professionals  Time sensitive  Activity must be sustained over time  A variety of activities are necessary

5. OPHA Mission To provide leadership on issues affecting the public’s health and to strengthen the impact of people who are active in public health and community health throughout Ontario How? Why is OPHA involved? through Advocacy Activity

6. OPHA’s Unique Advocacy Position  Provincial  Has access to political parties  Has no political masters  Responds to member issues  Represents a wide range of public health professionals  Is inclusive of all levels of community/public health staff

7.  Facilitates work across the province  Presents a unified voice  Maximizes scarce resources  Can advocate through CPHA  Can advocate to enhance mandates on cutting edge issues OPHA’s Unique Advocacy Position

8. OPHA’s Advocacy Strategies Partnerships Positioning issues with political parties Letter-writing Standing Committees Constituent Societies shape agenda Board Driven Workgroups Board of Director Priorities Member-Driven Workgroups Position Papers with implementation plans Formal resolutions with actions

9. Advocacy Challenges at OPHA  Having enough volunteers  Recognizing that the advocacy work is voluntary  Convincing employers that staff involvement in advocacy is worthwhile and dependent on employer support

10. Who are the Advocacy Committee? Advocacy Committee Chair Members at Large Activities  Translate policy into advocacy  Vet and communicate advocacy feedback  Recommend initiatives to the Board

11. OPHA Advocacy Tools  Communication Resource Guide  Advocacy Strategy slide show  Public Health Voter’s Guide

12. Advocacy: Broadening the Role of Public Health New issues prompt OPHA attention when: a) They get media attention and we have to answer questions, or b) They affect the health of the public but we lack sufficient data. Our job: to determine if and how such an issue is a “public health issue”.

13. Food Biotechnology Issues Gained Public Attention – late ’90s a) food safety b) lack of transparency of information c) lack of freedom for farmers d) insufficient federal regulatory capacity e) potential effect on the environment f) lack of consumer choice g) international trade issues

14.  complex issue with multiple sides (industry, NGOs)  OPHA passed this request to its members, in particular the nutritionist group because it was food related.  a multi-disciplinary ad hoc workgroup was formed to take on the task of writing a position paper. OPHA sought position

15. OPHA Advocacy on Food Biotechnology Preparing a position paper for OPHA  clarified the public health issues related to food biotechnology  key challenge was to gather, read and analyse a multitude of information. Built on the work of: – the Royal Society of Canada report (Feb 2001) – Toronto Board of Health report on GE foods

16. OPHA Advocacy on Food Biotechnology  defines “health” as having economic, environmental and social components  exists for the public interest and therefore inspire trust  bases messages on solid evidence and critical analysis about factors affecting health  is comprised of several key disciplines that are well respected in the community It helped that public health:

17. OPHA Follow-up Actions  Issued a press release  Put the position paper on their website  Secured funding to translate the paper into French  Brought the paper to CPHA for endorsement at their AGM in July 2002

18. Food Biotechnology Workgroup Activities  CBAC interim report on GM foods regulation  media interviews, news articles  federal (CBAC) exploratory committee re “acceptability spectrum” for GM foods and feeds  federal standing committee hearing on the labelling of GM foods  presented public health issues re GM food to the Health Canada Food Directorate  international conference on the monitoring & surveillance of GM foods  community presentations on GM foods on several occasions

19. The Challenge to keep up with on-going issues to inform public health professionals in a learner- friendly way to maintain a collaborative relationship with partners from all sides of the issue: – government and industry – environmental and consumer groups

20. OPHA Advocacy on Healthy Schools  Raised issue at OPHA AGM  tremendous response  OPHA suggested we draft resolution for next AGM  Workgroup formed when two like minded organizations merged to form a coalition that came together with OPHA support

21. “Support” Role of OPHA  Advocacy Committee members attended early meetings of workgroup to assist with drafting of the resolution  linked us to other workgroups (Violence Prevention, Environmental Health)  budget enabled teleconferencing  coaching /advice preparing briefing notes  offer of special conference session to bring together outside organizations  admin support

22. What We Learned  importance of organizations like OPHA who provide opportunities to address issues in broader way  advocacy can focus on positive possibilities, not just focus on negative.

23. OPHA Advocacy Committee Project Evaluation of Previously Adopted Policy Statements  >80 policy statements were adopted between 1988 and 1998  develop an evaluation review process to determine: – are policy statements still relevant? – is OPHA still following the established direction ? Phase I (June – August 2000)

24. Evaluation Process Approved at 2001 AGM  Resolutions: reviewed following year and every 3 years  Position papers: reviewed following year and every 5 years  Evaluations are completed via review form (handout) Were the actions/recommendations completed? List any outcomes result from actions taken to date Is the issue still relevant? Does this policy statement still fall within OPHA mission and reflect its values? Has a more current resolution/position paper superseded this earlier item?

25. Definitions (handout) Archived:  The activities have been completed; or  the issue is not currently relevant in public health in Ontario or is not based upon the most current evidence.  The statement remains the position of the OPHA until a new statement is adopted that effectively reverses or essentially negates all or major elements of an earlier statement. In this instance, the former supersedes the later. Active:  Activities have not yet been completed; or  the issue is currently relevant to public health in Ontario

26. Insights from Phase I  No other organization had a formal evaluation process for their policy statements. Once again OPHA leads the way!  A wealth of information about what happened after a resolution was passed, but was not written down.  OPHA needed to decide which policy statements were dormant  Important to put ALL policy statements (active and archived) on OPHA website for ease of access by members

27. Advocacy Committee Project Phase II (January to August 2002)  Reviewed all position papers and resolutions adopted between 1988 and 1998 using the new evaluation process  Involved OPHA workgroups, sponsors of resolutions and position papers, Advocacy Committee, OPHA staff

28. Insights from Phase II  Each policy statement showed evidence of building upon previous related ones  A paper such as “Shaping the Shift to Community Health” 1993, demonstrated brilliance and lasting power  Participants were amazed at the wealth of materials developed over the years by OPHA.  Several workgroups were considering proposing a new resolution that they discovered were similar to ones developed 10 years earlier!  The reviews encouraged workgroups to consider in their workplan unfinished implementation plans or new position papers