Positive results are reported.

Must demonstrate at least minimal involvement from the community in planning, developing, implementing and/or evaluating the initiative.  If the initiative is introduced to the community from outside (i.e., government, NGO, researcher), it must be clear that the community has participated in the adaptation and/or implementation of the initiative.

Sufficient information is available to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention.  Accepted evidence includes:  peer reviewed reports/journal articles, gray literature reports, internal reports, reports emphasizing lived experiences and using Indigenous specific data collection methodologies including story‐telling, talking circles, and testimonials.  Digital stories in the form of videos, blogs and other formats are accepted.  “Sufficient information” will reflect the community development, partnerships, incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and the “benefit to many” of an initiative.

Addresses a chronic disease or health promotion topic using a community based or population health approach.  (Excludes clinical initiatives)

Authoritative/credible source of the initiative with contact information readily available.  Credible sources include:  community based developers, academic partners, evaluators, researchers, peer reviewers etc. Initiatives must have been developed free of commercial interests that may compromise integrity.

(See ratings on p. 12 in the WTT Guidebook)

Describe how Indigenous stakeholders (community members, service providers, community leaders, Elders) are involved in the planning, design, delivery, adaptation, and evaluation of the practice.

(See ratings on p. 13 in the WTT Guidebook)

Describe how the practice addresses multiple issues from a wholistic approach on four dimensions:

1) Wellness: mind (knowledge development, awareness, skills), body (physical activity, nutrition), emotion (relationships, healing), spirit (mental wellness, confidence, self‐esteem, coping) (e.g., medicine wheel model may be used)

2) Implementation environments (e.g., school, community, home, workplace, businesses)

3) Nature of target group (e.g., children, youth, Elders, families, community members or leaders, organizations)

4) Involvement of cross sector departments (e.g., education, health, governance, justice, social services)

(See ratings on p. 13 in the WTT Guidebook)

Describe how the practice formally addresses and incorporates the values, culture, shared experiences, and principles of the community or group in which it operates.

(See ratings on p. 14 in the WTT Guidebook)

Describe how the practice recognizes community capacity or readiness (identifying strengths and weaknesses within the implementation environment) at the outset and builds-in mechanisms to leverage strengths and fill gaps through the implementation process.

(See ratings on p. 15 in the WTT Guidebook)

Describe how the practice is supported by other organizations or institutions within and/or external to the community (federal, provincial, municipal government, NGOs, institutions). The emphasis is on collaborative approaches to addressing needs or issues (funders are only counted as partners if they provide more than funding to the relationship).

(See ratings on p. 16 in the WTT Guidebook)

Demonstrate that the practice has achieved significant (substantive or statistical) positive intended and/or unintended outcomes among target groups (e.g., program participants, communities, organizations, and/or partners).

The term ‘substantive significance’ is applied broadly to mean more than the quantitative effect size but inclusive of qualitative or practical considerations such as cultural, political, or economic significance. Stated another way the substantive significance refers to the degree to which the findings are significant within the community and context in which they are observed.