Photos by Sandra Schinnerl and Adrian Morillo.
In Term 2 of 2025-26, students in POLI 504D/405G partnered with the BC Government on a behavioural policy project to improve communication about settlement and integration services.
Drawing on concepts such as administrative burden, program take-up, and behavioural insights, students examined why many newcomers do not access available supports despite their potential benefits.
We spoke with CMS affiliate Prof. Vince Hopkins, instructor of POLI 504D/405G, and Dr. Sandra Schinnerl, Senior Economist in Immigration and Integration Policy with the Government of British Columbia, about how this initiative bridges classroom learning and real-world policy, and what meaningful university–government collaboration can look like in practice.
Can you tell us what motivated the focus on communication barriers and access to settlement services in British Columbia?
V.H: I’ve taught this course for a few years, and each time I teach it, I try to integrate more hands-on experiential learning. For this last year, I really wanted to focus on something current and challenging. Immigration has been in the news a lot, but we tend to talk much less about integration and how governments communicate which services exist. Take-up is a widespread problem in public policy, with extensive research on social benefit programs, but we know far less about take-up of services related to employment, language learning, credential navigation or community settlement.
Addressing this problem is interesting because it requires a bit of knowledge across the different areas of public policy. Because programs may involve different levels of government and different service providers, it can be difficult for residents to know what exists, who is eligible, and where to start. I wanted students to think seriously about the gap between program availability and access, and most students in Political Science already have a good understanding of federalism in Canada.
How did the collaboration with the BC Government take shape, and what role did the government partner play throughout the project?
V.H: This wouldn’t have been possible without CMS. The Centre has such a great network of experts, practitioners, policymakers, and so I already had a sense that the government might be open to collaborating on this. But, really, this specific collaboration was built around a live policy challenge. Before the semester started, I reached out to gauge interest, and then early on in the semester, Ministry staff came to class and introduced students to the policy context.
That really helped give the course a concrete anchor from the beginning. It helped students understand the “big picture” policy landscape, some of the real-world constraints, and the kinds of evidence that would actually be useful to decision-makers. Over the next few months, students applied behavioural science methods: diagnosing barriers, reviewing evidence, designing interventions, and interpreting results in ways that they hoped would resonate with policymakers.
Looking back on the semester, I believe that balance was essential; it preserved the independence and creativity of a university course while keeping our work grounded in a real policy environment.
In what ways did this project help translate theoretical concepts from the classroom into practical, policy-relevant insights for improving access to settlement services?
V.H: Behavioural science is interesting because it’s very interdisciplinary. Students learn about ideas and methods from psychology, economics, political science, sociology, anthropology, etc. It can seem a bit abstract until students start applying it to a real problem. So, for example, when thinking about how to increase policy take-up, some people assume it’s because of low awareness, i.e. maybe if we tell people that the program exists, then they’ll sign up. But I was really impressed to hear the students ask more precise questions: Why is awareness low? Is it lower for certain populations? And in terms of addressing the problem: which messages will make people feel the service is relevant to them? How can messaging increase awareness without stigmatizing people?
We fielded an original survey experiment as part of the course, which means the students were able to design a questionnaire, design and critique an experiment, analyze responses, and translate the findings into practical recommendations on how the government might improve outreach and reduce friction in the enrolment journey.
From your perspective, what did students gain by working on a live policy challenge introduced by BC Government officials, rather than a purely hypothetical case?
V.H: I think it changes the stakes, which helps focus attention and build motivation. It’s one thing for students to write for their professor or for a grade, but it’s another to work on something that public servants are actively thinking about, and to present evidence to them in real-time.
I think that kind of practice forces us to grapple with the tough trade-offs of policy work: government officials never have enough information, must follow strict ethical commitments, and operate in complex political and legal contexts. So, I think hands-on practice is super valuable, getting students to think deeply and quickly, consider trade-offs and then communicate findings (and limitations!) to policymakers.
From what students told me, I think many people also gained confidence. That’s especially valuable in a mixed undergraduate and graduate seminar, because students bring different strengths and learn from one another.
What value does the BC Government see in partnering with university courses like POLI 504D/405G, and how can student-led research contribute meaningfully to ongoing policy development?
S.S: The B.C. government sees value in partnering with university courses as part of a broader commitment to working with partners across civil society to inform policy and program development. Complex challenges, particularly in immigration and integration, benefit from bringing together different forms of expertise and experience.
Student-led research contributes by creating space to engage deeply with complex policy questions in a structured way. It allows issues to be examined from different angles, challenged, and refined outside of immediate operational pressures. As part of broader partnerships—such as the collaboration with the UBC Centre for Migration Studies—this kind of work supports more thoughtful policy development by bringing together analysis, external perspectives, and informed debate.
What concrete outcomes have emerged from this collaboration—for example, in terms of research outputs, student opportunities, or implications for policy and practice?
V.H: The project produced a complete student-led policy report, followed by a research poster that two students, Samarjit Virk and Claire Hofmeister, presented at the 2026 Bridging Divides conference at Concordia University in Montreal. The poster summarized the class survey and experimental findings, including evidence that awareness of settlement services remains low among newcomers and that further research is needed on which communication strategies are most effective. The poster also discussed some practical policy recommendations. They did such a good job! One student will also be using elements of this data for their Master’s thesis in Political Science.
S.S: From a policy and practice perspective, the value of this work is in filling a persistent gap in government knowledge. While there is more insight into individuals who access services, far less is known about those who do not—even though they are eligible or could benefit. This project helps surface that gap by identifying where uptake breaks down, including how services are framed and whether individuals see them as relevant to their own circumstances or appropriate to use. Student-led research is well-suited to this type of question. It brings focused analytical effort to issues that are difficult to observe through administrative data alone and applies behavioural insights to better understand non-participation, not only in terms of awareness, but in how individuals interpret whether a service is “for them.” In that sense, the impact is cumulative rather than immediate. The findings inform how programs are designed and communicated over time, so that services are not only available but framed in ways that support uptake among those who might otherwise opt out.
