The work behind the practice.

The challenge

A national coalition needed a trauma-informed, evidence-informed trafficking & exploitation prevention program that frontline staff and educators across Canada could actually deliver, not a document that sat on a shelf.

The approach

Working within the LOVE146 #NotANumber curriculum framework, I designed and delivered the associated curriculum development, facilitator materials, and Train-the-Trainer infrastructure to support consistent, safe delivery at scale.

• Curriculum design aligned with the #NotANumber framework
• Facilitator guide with pacing, prompts, and safety protocols
• Participant workbook
• Train-the-Trainer program to build internal facilitation capacity
• Ongoing consultation for facilitators after go-live

What changed

The program moved from a set of materials into an active, delivered prevention program with certified facilitators across multiple provinces. Delivery has continued and expanded since launch.

The challenge

A federal institutional partner needed community and lived-experience expertise translated into practice inside an institutional setting, without losing the community grounding that made the expertise valuable in the first place.

The approach

I brought a combination of program design, consultation, and delivery to the partnership. Work included translating community-informed practice into institutionally deliverable formats, and working directly on program design and delivery in partnership with institutional staff.

What changed

The partnership demonstrated that meaningful community-informed practice can be brought into institutional settings without being watered down, provided the translation work is done carefully and the community grounding stays visible.

The challenge

Organizations wanted to move beyond tokenistic engagement of people with lived experience, but didn’t have the internal structure, safeguards, or advisory-model design to do it ethically or sustainably.

The approach

I developed a set of survivor-informed frameworks and advisory-model designs that organizations could adapt to their context. Work included:

• Diagnostic review of current engagement practice
• Design of ethical advisory or consultation structures
• Compensation, boundaries, and safeguarding protocols
• Training for staff supporting the advisory structures
• Written frameworks for organizational use

What changed

Multiple organizations now operate advisory or engagement models based on these frameworks, with clearer boundaries, compensation, and safeguards than were previously in place.

The challenge

Community-serving organizations needed practical support for a mix of strategic planning, program design, facilitation, and community engagement, delivered in ways that worked for teams with limited internal consulting capacity.

The approach

Engagements have varied by partner, but have consistently included some combination of:

• Facilitated planning sessions and strategy retreats
• Community engagement and consultation design
• Program design and staff training
• Frameworks for advisory or lived-experience structures

What changed

Partner organizations left engagements with concrete documents, plans, and structures they could implement, not just a report. Several partnerships have continued across multiple engagements.