Build the system: Not the workaround
There’s a quiet myth that runs through a lot of public sector work: the idea that policy is neutral. That if everyone is treated the same way, the outcome must be fair. That fairness comes from consistency, and that consistency leads to equity.
The problem is, none of that holds up if the original system was built on assumptions that exclude people. Public services in Canada were not created on a level playing field. They were built in a country with long-standing histories of displacement, exclusion, surveillance, and underfunding. Many of those histories continue to shape who is well served and who is not. When equity is not intentionally built into a public system, that system will default to protecting the status quo. That does not happen because people are careless or unkind. It happens because we have been taught to treat equity as a values statement or a communications issue, rather than as a practical design skill.
This blog post is for people working in policy, operations, procurement, community programming, or any area that shapes how public services function. These five steps offer a starting point for embedding equity into how your team designs and delivers services. They are not about creating a new department or writing a new plan. They are about building the kind of systems that work better for everyone, especially the people who are most often left out. Every policy, program, and system reflects a series of decisions. From what documentation is required, to how people are expected to apply, to the language used to communicate eligibility and timelines, all of these choices shape who gets access and who does not. For example, a transit subsidy might require a digital application, government-issued ID, and proof of income. While those requirements may seem logical, they can exclude people without a fixed address, people working informal jobs, people fleeing violence, or people who do not have easy access to a computer. They can also place the highest burden of paperwork on the people who are already stretched the most.
This is not a case of individual failure. It is an issue of structural design.
Once a service or program has been designed with equity in mind, consistency becomes very important. It helps protect people from arbitrary decisions, confusion, or bias. But when the underlying system was not designed to serve everyone, applying it the same way to everyone will not lead to fairness. It will simply entrench existing disparities, just more efficiently. This is why equity cannot be something we consider at the end. If the early design choices are not questioned, then the structure itself will continue to produce unequal outcomes, even when applied perfectly. Equity needs to be part of how we think through timelines, workflows, eligibility criteria, and the daily processes that hold public services together.
Step 1: Ask about harm before you ask for feedback
Before any program design begins, take time to ask a few key questions:
Who has historically been excluded from this kind of service?
What kinds of harm or gaps have been documented in the past?
What assumptions are we carrying forward without realizing it?
For example, many government programs rely on phone-based intake, even for services related to mental health, housing, or family support. This often assumes that people have access to a phone, can speak comfortably over the phone, and are not in a shared or unsafe environment. Those assumptions may leave out people experiencing crisis, trauma, language barriers, or unstable housing, the very people the program may be trying to reach.
These are not technical oversights. They are design patterns that need to be interrupted before the harm is repeated.
Step 2: Make equity part of how your systems work, not just what they say
It is common for equity work in government to focus on external messaging. That includes inclusive language, translated materials, community consultation, and updated branding. While those elements do matter, they are often disconnected from the internal systems that actually determine whether a service is usable, accessible, or safe. Some questions to explore with your team:
Are your procurement and funding processes accessible to small, grassroots, or community-led groups, or are they primarily designed for larger institutions?
Are timelines set up to allow for meaningful engagement, or are decisions being finalized before people have had a chance to weigh in?
Is your eligibility logic shaped around actual need, or around what is easiest to track and manage?
Are services usable for someone who does not speak English or French, does not have a permanent address, or works irregular hours?
During the early days of the pandemic, British Columbia’s Indigenous Community Support Fund created a strong example of what this can look like. The fund provided up-front funding with minimal reporting requirements and coordinated directly with Indigenous governance structures. It worked not because it was perfect, but because it started from a place of trust and flexibility, not suspicion or control.
Step 3: If the data doesn’t show a problem, that might mean the system isn’t built to see it
Government programs often rely on formal data to identify gaps or justify changes. But when systems do not collect disaggregated data like race-based, disability-specific, or language access data, entire communities can be left invisible in reporting. Lack of data does not mean lack of harm. It often means the systems in place were never designed to measure it. Instead of waiting for the numbers to appear, expand what counts as valid input:
Treat lived experience, frontline expertise, and community observations as legitimate sources of information.
Recognize that underreporting is often a sign that people do not trust the system to respond.
Accept that harm can exist even when it has not been captured in a dataset or flagged in a formal complaint.
Ontario’s Anti-Racism Directorate has developed a set of data standards to help public institutions collect and analyze race-based data in a consistent way. These tools are useful because they help surface the gaps that are otherwise easy to ignore.
Step 4: Feedback should shape design, not just affirm it
In many cases, consultation happens after a program has already been planned and approved. At that point, there is very little room to adjust the structure in meaningful ways. This leads to frustration, disconnection, and distrust, especially among communities that have been consulted many times before without seeing any change. Equitable design requires feedback loops that are built into the process from the beginning. That means asking:
Can people give input anonymously or without needing to submit a formal complaint?
Is the feedback process accessible in multiple formats and languages?
Is there a clear way to escalate harm or risk when it is identified?
Are staff trained and resourced to respond, not just to collect the information?
People want to know that their insight leads to action. Without that, consultation starts to feel like theatre.
Step 5: Invest in people, not just platforms
Equity work is often funded through toolkits, apps, and communications plans. While those tools can be helpful, the real work happens through the people who are closest to service delivery. If your budget does not include support for the human infrastructure of equity, your system will struggle to meet its goals. Some steps you can take:
Hire people with lived experience who understand where the system breaks down in practice.
Fund roles like community navigators, cultural safety advisors, and equity coordinators as permanent parts of your team.
Make time for reflection and redesign. Don’t just launch and walk away.
Train staff to recognize where inequity shows up, and build internal processes that allow them to flag and adjust for it.
These changes do not need to be massive, but they do need to be deliberate. Equity cannot be sustained by goodwill alone. It requires structure, support, and intention.
Equity is not a values statement, it is a way of building
Many of the public servants we work with care deeply about fairness. They want to do the right thing, serve the public well, and respond to harm when it happens. But most of them are also working inside systems that were not built for equity in the first place. At QuakeLab, we talk about equity as a technical skill because it is not about perfection, ideology, or personal beliefs. It is about understanding how inequity shows up in the daily mechanics of systems, and how to build alternatives that are stronger, more functional, and more fair.
If your team is ready to go deeper into how your policies, programs, or operations can support equity in practice, not just in principle, we are ready to support that work.
