Social Impact Lens Policy Assessment Toolkit

This toolkit provides guidance and structure to ensure a standardized approach and mitigate unintended consequences when developing new policies and reviewing existing ones.

We recognize our history as a community with various types of intentional or unintentional structural outcomes that can occur as products or by-products of policy creation and implementation. Lack of awareness, ignorance or an unwillingness to look deeper into ourselves is no longer acceptable. We must embrace and live our values of social impact and belonging at SMPH. Policies should reinforce and exemplify these values and mission. 

In the spirit of “you can’t fix what you can’t see,” this toolkit offers a lens for assessing policies for a better tomorrow, starting today.

Reviewing and making policy through a social impact lens requires self-reflection and education. These buttons will introduce you to this toolkit and to creating a policy review team, and then guide you through a series of learnings that will position you to do this important work.

Introduction and Getting Started

1. Tools and Exercises 2. Policy Proposal, Development, and Review

Supplementary Information

Introduction

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

The purpose of this toolkit is to facilitate:

  • Standardization and consistency of policy creation, review and implementation across SMPH using a social impact lens
  • Ensuring belonging for the workforce, learner population, training experience and environment for all
  • Recognizing and mitigating unintended consequences by allocating the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach a more just outcome

This toolkit should be used to review:

  • New policy during creation, implementation and evaluation
  • Existing policy when deemed to: constrict opportunity for individuals and groups; no longer meet legal or ethical standards for funding and governing bodies; have unclear outcomes; etc.
  • Policy/ies that fit within the purview of the policy review team

The goals of this toolkit are to:

  • Ensure policies are developed and implemented to build a true culture of belonging for all
  • Ensure unintended consequences within policies are consciously addressed, revised and evaluated so that harmful policies and practices are not perpetuated  
  • Empower individuals and groups to review policy even if they do not have jurisdiction to change which can bring to the attention of those with power to enact changes
  • Ensure we are not just speaking about our values, mission etc. but actively working to live in an environment that centers social impact and belonging by regularly reviewing our policies and making changes that are warranted

The intended impact from using this toolkit is:

  • Transformation of our environment so that everyone truly feels welcomed, celebrated and a sense of belonging here
  • Examine what we know today and do better

Getting started

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Who should use this toolkit and be at “the table” with it?

  • Any interested party from UW SMPH — staff, faculty, leadership, students and learners
  • A person in a position of power/chain of command at SMPH who can address/implement changes
  • One or more people who are currently, or could be in the future, impacted by the policy
  • Multiple stakeholders with a variety of perspectives — not just those who write the policy, benefit or are impacted

Setting team expectations — things to consider:

  • Timing 
  • Confidentiality of discussion
  • Impact assessment
  • Intention
  • Distribution
  • Editing
  • Commitment to social impact and belonging
  • Accountability of everyone on the team
  • Recognition not everyone is in the same place or had the same journey

Roles and responsibilities of policy review team:

  • To review newly proposed and existing policies alongside this toolkit to ensure social impact is at the fore 
  • The team is responsible for:
    • Acknowledgement of any known group assumptions
    • Use of respectful language and defining any new terms
    • Thoughtful assessment of policy impact
    • Communicating policy changes and justifications to stakeholders 

Have a question?

Have a question about this toolkit? Get in touch with us by emailing ntakahashi@uwhealth.org.

 

Supplementary Information

Frequently Asked Questions

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Why assess and review SMPH policies and practices with a social impact lens?

It is possible, if not likely, that some long standing policies within SMPH were developed and implemented by a homogenous group of individuals at a moment in time in which the value of belonging in our community was not as evident as it is today. We also continue to learn about ways in which individual assumptions can subconsciously permeate policies and result in unwelcoming experiences. This Toolkit was developed by a group of SMPH faculty, academic staff, and students as a way to evaluate SMPH policies in order to identify within them gaps, address disparities, and mitigate barriers that may be present or conveyed in written or spoken language. 

What is the goal of the Social Impact Lens Policy Assessment Toolkit?

The goal of this Toolkit is to provide a framework by which to reassess SMPH policies through a social impact lens. By providing a basis of knowledge and a clearly outlined process for reviewing policies, this Toolkit aims to identify areas for improvement and amendment that will result in policies that unambiguously reflect an engaging environment that values belonging and a variety of backgrounds, abilities, and experiences in our community. 

How do we use the Social Impact Lens Policy Assessment Toolkit?

The committee or group involved in performing policy assessment using the Toolkit should include a varied collection of perspectives from stakeholders representing all groups affected by the policies being reviewed. For further instruction, please refer to the section “Using This Toolkit” that is located above. 

What happens after the Toolkit Assessment determines that an SMPH policy requires amendment?

If the Policy Review Team determines that an SMPH policy does not meet the standards outlined in the toolkit, any requested amendments and/or revisions will be routed through the SMPH Policy Proposal and Approval Process. The policy will undergo review at least every three years.

Where can I find examples of other institutions that performed policy assessments with a focus on social impact and belonging?

Several other institutions have recently reevaluated their policies using processes similar to the Social Impact Lens Policy Assessment Toolkit. We have curated a list of links to these institutions and the tools used in their policy assessment as an educational reference. 

Where can I find more information about specific SMPH policies and their development?

An overview of SMPH policies, including policy development, approval, and review, as well as a searchable policy library, can be found at https://intranet.med.wisc.edu/policies/

UW-Madison policies can be found at www.policy.wisc.edu

An overview of the Policy Life Cycle at UW-Madison can be found at https://development.policy.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1600/2021/03/UW-Madison-Policy-Life-Cycle-01-20-21.pdf

To contact the UW-Madison Policy Library Coordinator, please email policylibrarycoordinator@wisc.edu.

Best Practices for Difficult Conversations

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Starting point

Have the group accept a set of agreements for the conversation. These agreements should encourage everyone to participate, everyone to listen in an understanding way, and everyone to feel safe in expressing their feelings without fear of negative consequences. Participants should use “I” sentences and talk about their own experiences and ideas and should avoid “you”, “we”, and “they” sentences that may lead to characterizing other’s ideas inaccurately.

Positive goal

The group should focus on the common goal and assume that each member is trying to help reach that goal.

Dialogue

The best understanding and resolution of conflicts will be achieved if everyone participates and expresses their honest opinions. The group should lean into discomfort to best address the issue. Individuals need to admit they do not have the same lived experiences as other members. Thus they should actively listen to the experiences of the group members and empathize with those telling their stories. Fear of negative consequences will prevent any meaningful dialogue, i.e., if people are afraid of being labeled as too sensitive or as overreacting, they will not speak openly and honestly. Where possible, the conversation should be made explicitly confidential to avoid these negative consequences. Asking others to share their ideas and feelings may bring about an honest and useful conversation. 

Summary

Meetings should end with a summary of decisions and policy changes agreed upon in an effort to make sure all members are comfortable with these conclusions. The summary increases transparency and allows all members of the group to voice any remaining concerns.