Evaluation of the Host Program

4. Evaluation findings

This section summarizes the major findings of the evaluation regarding Program relevance, design, implementation, and results.

4.1. Program relevance

The evaluation findings on Program relevance focus on the need for the Host Program, Program uniqueness, and the consistency of the Host Program with CIC priorities, as well as with federal government roles and responsibilities. Using the evidence from interviews, focus groups, surveys, document and literature reviews, the following section describes the findings related to relevance.

Key Findings

The Host Program is relevant as it seeks to address two key needs of newcomers: unfamiliarity with the Canadian environment and the lack of community, professional and social networks.

Compared to other settlement programs, the Host Program is unique in Canada as it provides support to newcomers to assist them in developing social and professional networks in an informal setting. It also involves Canadians directly in delivery of settlement services.

Although other mentoring programs are available to newcomers, the Host Program provides greater scope in terms of its availability and range of support.

The Host Program is aligned with federal and departmental priorities and is broadly viewed to be consistent with the roles and responsibilities of the federal government.

4.1.1. Program need

Between 2004 and 2008, Canada admitted 1.2 million immigrants, which represents an average of 240,000 immigrants per year. Several studies have found that immigrants may have to overcome significant barriers and challenges to settle in Canada.Footnote 13 Beyond settlement needs, which refer to the short-term and transitional issues of newcomers for the basic needs of life in a new country, immigrants also face difficulties in adapting and fully integrating into Canadian society. Integration refers to the life-long process of mutual accommodation between an individual and society, as immigrants take advantage of opportunities to fully participate in Canadian life and society enables this to happen. For example, a key factor in successful integration involves finding employment and developing social and professional networks which are crucial for wellbeing and for developing a sense of belonging.Footnote 14

A review of the Program logic model indicates that the Host Program, with its three overarching outcome areas (settlement, networking, and two-way understanding), is designed to address a wide spectrum of newcomer needs. From the perspective of clients, the Host Program is needed to address the particular settlement issues they may be facing. In the client survey, participants indicated that the services of the Host Program were needed to improve their English skills (55%), to develop a network and relationships with Canadians (33%), and to learn about Canadian culture (30%) (n = 80).

The strong need for the Program was confirmed almost unanimously by key informants. When asked to rate the need for the Host Program, nearly all (11 of 12) CIC directors and managers perceived a strong need for it. Similarly, all five provincial representatives rated the need for the Host Program to be major. CIC Officers rated the need for Host as 4.6 and SPO directors and managers rated it as 4.7, on a 5-point scale. During interviews, key informants from CIC noted the Host Program’s role as the major vehicle for CIC to connect newcomers to Canadian citizens and to facilitate their integration, provide mentorship/networking support, as well as language training and an introduction to Canadian culture. SPO representatives referred particularly to the ability of the Host Program to create a bridge between newcomers and Canadians, and contribute to newcomers’ sense of belonging.

Another indicator of the need for the Program is the demand for services. The survey results indicate that nearly half (43%) of SPO staff believed that the demand for Host services continues to exceed the supply of volunteers and support available. While 33% perceived that supply and demand for the Program are balanced, 8% said that supply exceeds the demand, and the remaining 6% said that they don’t know or provided other answers.

4.1.2. Program uniqueness

CIC settlement programs

A comparison was made between Host and other settlement programs delivered by CIC. While there is some overlap between Host and ISAP which addresses settlement issues, SWIS which assists in the development of community connections, LINC which addresses language skill development, and WCI which addresses cross-cultural exchange, Host is the only program that focuses on creating social networks between newcomers and Canadians.Footnote 15 In addition, it is the only program that relies on the “two- way street” approach to deliver services by directly involving Canadian volunteers. Although Host shares similar settlement goals with other programs, its flexibility and informality contrasts with the delivery mechanisms of other CIC settlement programs. It is the only program, except the Privately Sponsored Refugees Program, that involves Canadians directly in the delivery of the services to newcomers. For more details on the comparability of Host vis-à-vis other CIC programs see Appendix F.

Host clients in focus groups provided examples of how the personal relationships with Host volunteers reduced their settlement stress as they felt that they had an advocate who was familiar with Canadian rights and law and could provide information on rights and responsibilities vis-à-vis specific challenges (e.g., landlord/tenant issues, taxes, insurance). Clients also confirmed the importance of learning English/French, noting that they joined the Program because they believed they would learn English faster through communication with native speakers rather than by attending a formal class or through textbooks and/or reading. As the Host Program provides newcomers with opportunities for one-on-one mentoring and interaction to improve language skills, it can complement the Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada Program (LINC) through a less formal approach.

Comparison to non-CIC programs

A comparison was made between the Host Program and programs in religious and ethno-cultural organizations, certain mentoring type programs in Canada and other volunteer run programs such as Big Brothers and Sisters. Other programs which pair a volunteer with a mentee to gain exposure, knowledge or skills were examined, but most of these programs do not focus specifically on newcomers or pair participants across ethnic groups.

4.1.3. Consistency with government priorities and roles and responsibility

Federal government responsibilities

In 1971, the federal government announced its policy of multiculturalism, which recognized the reality of pluralism in Canada and challenged all Canadians to participate fully and equally in Canadian society. This policy is sensitive to the needs of both long-time residents and newly arrived immigrants. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act (1985) recognizes multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian identity. A review of the goals and logic model of the Host Program indicates that the expected outcome of cross-cultural understanding aligns with the federal policy and legislation on multiculturalism.

Since the 70s, the federal government has been developing public policies and legislation to support the concept of cross-cultural exchange (“two-way street”) between newcomers and Canadians. One of the objectives of IRPA is “to promote the successful integration of permanent residents into Canada, while recognizing that integration involves mutual obligations for new immigrants and Canadian society.” The review of the Host Program design and objectives demonstrates an alignment with the two-way street approach of the federal government.

CIC mission and strategic outcomes

A review of the objectives of the Host Program demonstrates that it is aligned with the mission of CIC, especially facilitating newcomer integration in a way that maximizes their contribution to the country and enhancing the values and promoting the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.Footnote 16 In addition, in 2008, the Multiculturalism portfolio was transferred to CIC which extended the departmental mission to include “reaching out to all Canadians and foster increased intercultural understanding and an integrated society with equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, ethnicity and religion”Footnote 17. Since one of the Host Program’s objectives is to foster intercultural understanding, the alignment of the Program vis-à-vis CIC’s mission appears to have increased.

In addition, the objectives of the Host Program are aligned with one of CIC’s strategic outcomes as outlined in CIC’s Program Activity Architecture (PAA), which focuses on the successful integration of newcomers into society and the promotion of Canadian citizenship through the implementation of integration programs.

Moreover, of the 27 CIC directors, managers and officers who participated in the evaluation, 23 agreed that the Host Program is consistent with the strategic outcomes and priorities of CIC. The Host Program is viewed by the CIC representatives as contributing to the achievement of CIC priorities through facilitating the integration of newcomers and the creation of a more cohesive society. By connecting newcomers to Canadians, promoting language acquisition among its clients, and helping clients to increase their knowledge of Canadian context and thus promoting citizenship, the Host Program is well positioned to support the departmental strategic outcomes.

Federal role

Over time, the federal government has taken on a more prominent role in supporting settlement services for newcomers.Footnote 18 The evaluation found that there is a continuing need for ongoing federal involvement in the funding and support of settlement programming. Many informants noted that it is the federal government’s responsibility to ensure standards and consistent outcomes for the integration of newcomers across the country.

In addition, there is a strong consensus supporting the role of the federal government in the settlement sector. The survey found that 75% of SPOs managers and directors strongly agreed and 14% somewhat agreed that the development and funding of settlement programs such as Host is an appropriate role for the Government of Canada (9% neither agreed nor disagreed and fewer than 2% disagreed). A discussion paper by the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI) also noted that the federal government has an enduring role in immigrant settlement and integration and that it should continue to play a lead role, in part, because it is more reliable than provincial arrangements in protecting settlement services and funding.Footnote 19

Specifically regarding Host, CIC representatives at NHQ agreed that the federal government has a responsibility to facilitate the success of immigrants as it increases the cohesiveness of the society by promoting integration as a two-way street.

4.2. Design

The evaluation findings related to the design and delivery of the Host Program focus on evidence –based decision making, design, accountability, and Program promotion. Data to support findings was obtained through interviews, focus groups, surveys, and the document review.

Key Findings

Although the design, division of roles and responsibilities and flexibility of the Host Program are viewed positively, stakeholders requested additional guidance on some Program implementation details, and recommended developing specific services for clients with disabilities, youth, women and newcomer professionals.

CIC and SPOs expressed mixed views on the appropriateness of the existing monitoring and reporting mechanisms. iCAMs, which is designed to allow CIC to collect client and service information, needs further improvement in relation to both data entry (i.e. data definitions) and report production notwithstanding the training provided. This, in turn, affects the reliability and usefulness of the data collected. In addition, the CIC systems do not currently collect any data on client outcomes.

4.2.1. Evidence-based decision making

CIC representatives confirmed that the Program has undergone modifications in recent years. The increase in funding, growth in the number of organizations delivering the program, and the number of service activities (e.g., expansion of group activities such as conversation circles and reaching out to new clientele such as professional matches and youth matches), were cited as the most significant recent changes to the Host Program. While it was not possible to outline the causal relationships between changes to the Program and evidence-based decision-making, CIC directors and managers explained that research, monitoring, past evaluations, and consultation with communities and provinces led the Program to undertake these changes.

Some Program changes were made consistent with recommendations obtained in the previous evaluation and subsequent formal reviews. The 2004 Evaluation of the Host Program, which concluded that the Program was effective, recommended that the reach of the Program be expanded (either through increased matches or group activities) as well as increased promotion and appropriate resourcing.Footnote 20 The 2004 report also recommended undertaking a review of the group model after implementation to assess the potential impacts, risks and resource issues of this delivery mechanism.Footnote 21 The increase in funding, the trend towards more group activities, and the increase in SPO promotion activities which occurred in the period under review are all consistent with these recommendations and are further discussed later in the report. A formal review of different group models in Ontario was conducted in 2005 and as a result, CIC Ontario Region issued guidelines for conducting group activities.

In 2006, a formal review of the career mentoring approach assessed the feasibility of such an approach under the Host Program.Footnote 22 This review concluded that career mentoring is a viable option for the Host Program and should be pursued.Footnote 23 Additionally, in the summer of 2006, CIC conducted extensive consultations with stakeholders to develop the Strategic Plan for Settlement and Language Training under the Canada Ontario Immigration Agreement. The consultations confirmed that newcomers have a critical need to develop social networks. There were no reviews pertaining to the Host Program or any of its components after 2006.

One of the major changes to the CIC Settlement programming was the modernized approach, which reorganized the CIC settlement programs under one single program with various components. Many key informants stated that these changes were influenced by new directions within CIC, particularly:

  • A movement to simplify the administration of settlement services and foster a broader synergy between services which centre on newcomer outcomes; and
  • A movement towards a system in which settlement outcomes can be better measured.

4.2.2. Appropriateness of design

In order for the Program to function effectively, its design, objectives, structure, roles and responsibilities must be clear, flexible, and meet client needs. Most SPOs agreed that the general design of Host was effective in meeting newcomers’ needs (90%). In addition, most SPO staff and directors agreed that the general objectives, structures, roles and responsibilities of Host were clear (Figure 4-1).

Some specific aspects of the Program delivery require additional guidance. SPOs stated that they would benefit from more direction relating to Program implementation details, such as the length of services that should be provided, as well as determining when to discontinue different services, particularly the provision of services to clientele such as youth. Moreover, SPOs stated that greater clarification was needed around the definition of group versus individual matching, as well as around the nature of the mentoring program (e.g., in employment). CIC representatives also perceived gaps in some services and recommended developing specific services for clients with disabilities, youth, women and newcomer professionals.

Figure 4-1: SPO perceptions of Host clarity and design

Graph of SPO perceptions of Host clarity and design

Source: SPO Senior Mangers Survey (n=65 for ISAP and Host) and SPO Host Staff Representatives Survey (n=44)

Text version: SPO perceptions of Host clarity and design

While SPOs believed that the Program is well designed, in focus groups, SPOs expressed a major concern relating to the limited eligibility criteria for CIC programming, which excludes Canadian citizens, refugee claimants, temporary workers, and international students from accessing the services. During the focus groups, almost all SPO representatives expressed that eligibility limitations diminish their ability to provide services to all newcomers in need, including temporary residents.

Flexibility was defined as the ability of local decision makers to modify the program in its delivery (i.e., activities, target groups) to accommodate their own priorities and local needs. While most SPO staff (90%) perceived the Program as flexible, SPO managers/directors were not as positive: 68% believed that the Program was sufficiently flexible.

4.2.3. Monitoring and accountability

CIC is responsible for program oversight and accountability, which includes monitoring as well as performance measurement and evaluation. The monitoring process begins with the assessment of proposals received from the SPOs, which is designed to ensure that SPOs have the capacity to deliver the Program. SPOs are responsible for submitting monthly or quarterly financial and narrative reports, inviting CIC staff to Board meetings, keeping CIC staff informed regarding operational challenges, and completing the end of project report. They are also responsible for completing the iCAMs reports each month to provide information on the number of clients they served and the services they delivered. CIC officers are responsible for monitoring the progress under each contribution agreement, which includes a review of the narrative reports on a monthly basis, conducting monitoring visits, and preparing end-of-project reports. CIC officers are also responsible for financial monitoring of the contribution agreements.

CIC officers had mixed views regarding the current monitoring and reporting system. Almost half believed that CIC has inadequate resources and capability to effectively monitor the programs, while half (50%) agreed that the current resources were adequate for effective monitoring (see Figure 4-2). In focus groups, CIC officers expressed concern regarding the lack of time to conduct appropriate monitoring of the projects, in addition to challenges related to the use of iCAMs (discussed in the next section). Moreover, during interviews, CIC staff suggested that as the modernized approach is implemented, it will be important to introduce clearly defined and measurable outcomes for Host activities, ensure that those outcomes are consistent with CIC priorities, and ensure that an effective data collection and performance measurement strategy is put in place. CIC managers and directors also suggested that there should be greater assessment of the Host Program against its objectives and a greater overall focus on outcomes, particularly those demonstrating the impact of Host on clients.Footnote 24

Generally, SPOs expressed a more positive view towards the existing monitoring and reporting mechanisms than CIC staff. Notwithstanding this, SPOs suggested improvements such as having regular feedback on the reports submitted to CIC, having a template for annual reports at an earlier time of the year, more standardization in reporting, and a greater emphasis on measuring the quality and outcomes of the services. Based on interviews with CIC staff and a review of Program documents, it is not evident what CIC does with this monitoring and reporting data, and whether it is used for continuing Program design and development.

Figure 4-2: CIC monitoring mechanisms

Graph of CIC monitoring mechanisms

Source: CIC Interviews (n=15), SPO Senior Management Survey (n=64) for ISAP and Host Program and SPO Representatives Survey (n=133) for ISAP and Host Program

Text version: CIC monitoring mechanisms

iCAMs

As previously discussed, iCAMs is an internet-based system designed to collect quantitative performance measurement data on the settlement services provided to clients and it also contains 17 pieces of demographic information on each client served, such as immigration category, date of birth, gender, country of birth, etc. According to CIC’s Contribution Accountability Framework, Performance Measurement and Evaluation, Resource HandbookFootnote 25, the purpose of iCAMs is to provide CIC with information on its settlement programs including Host, LINC, ISAP, and RAP. SPOs are required to input information into iCAMs as part of the accountability and reporting responsibilities that correspond to their contribution agreements with CIC for settlement program funding. iCAMs started collecting data on Host in 2004.

Despite the crucial role that iCAMs is expected to play in monitoring, accountability, and performance measurement of settlement programs, it does not present a complete profile of clients and services. Not all SPOs are reporting in iCAMs (see Table 4-1), and CIC officers and SPOs report that challenges exist that discourage SPOs from reporting in, and using iCAMs regularly.

Table 4-1: Comparison of SPOs delivering the Host Program in SAP and iCAMs
Reporting Statistics 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Number of SPOs delivering Host (in SAP) 37 39 40 54
Number of SPOs reporting in iCAMs on clients 34 36 38 40

 Source: iCAMs and SAP

CIC officers expressed two general concerns with iCAMs: a lack of adequate training, particularly in producing information and generating reports and a lack of adequate communication within CIC, and between CIC and SPOs with regards to iCAMs.

In focus groups, surveys, and field visits, some SPOs mentioned that they created other monitoring systems for themselves to track their activities, and/or others failed to report in iCAMs regularly because of the reasons outlined below:

  • Some SPOs reported that they did not receive iCAMs training and/or sufficient guidance on how to use the system. In particular, some SPOs were not sure how to correctly report on all the services they provide for their clients through iCAMs. For example, if SPOs provided services to a family of five, SPOs were unsure whether to report it in iCAMs as serving five clients or one.
  • Some SPOs experienced challenges when asking newcomers to provide personal information that iCAMs requires because of program eligibility requirements as previously discussed (e.g., Permanent Resident card numbers which are required to access services).

Although some SPOs raised concerns regarding insufficient iCAMs training, CIC has developed and delivered iCAMs training materials for both CIC officers and SPO settlement workers. The Operational Management and Coordination Branch (OMC) holds iCAMs training sessions regularly across the country. Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 show that, over the past five years, while the number of CIC officers who received iCAMs training in each region was generally consistent each year, the number of SPO staff who received iCAMs training increased each year to accommodate the local demand for training and the increased number of SPOs in Ontario and Alberta. Notwithstanding the above, iCAMs staff report that SPOs require additional information and training on the types of reports that can be generated and how best to use these reports to serve their needs.

Table 4-2: Number of CIC officers that received iCAMs training, 2004/05-2008/09
Location 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
Ontario 33 37 37 31 33
Atlantic 11 9 10 6 6
Prairies 17 14 14 14 13

Source: Operational Management and Coordination Branch

Table 4-3: Number of SPO staff that received iCAMs training, 2004/05-2008/09
Location 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
Ontario 354 371 407 454 501
Atlantic 31 32 32 27 30
Prairies 58 72 82 103 114

Source: Operational Management and Coordination Branch

During the focus groups, several participants suggested incorporating a follow-up/feedback mechanism into the iCAMs training. This follow-up may determine issues such as:

  • How SPO staff put their training into practice;
  • How trained staff transfer their training and knowledge to their organizations;
  • Any inquiries that trainees may have when they put their knowledge into practice (e.g., whether they are able to describe the privacy and security of the iCAMs data to newcomers); and
  • Provide CIC with information on the effectiveness of the training materials and sessions.

In addition, CIC staff suggested that better communication within CIC and between CIC and SPOs can better ensure knowledge of staff turn-over as well as other training needs.

4.2.4. Program awareness / CIC promotion

While SPOs are responsible for promoting the Program for the purposes of recruitment, CIC is responsible for promoting the Program to SPOs and newcomers in general. CIC directors and managers described the lack of promotion to clients as an area of the Program that could be improved. They stated that Host was not well-publicized or made known to newcomers, and that a branding strategy is needed. Moreover, as discussed further in Section 4.3.1, CIC directors and managers also pointed to the lack of adequate promotion as a weakness of the Program noting that low awareness combined with misunderstandings as to its objectives has meant that the Program has not reached its full potential.

Although half of SPO directors and managers and half of SPO staff who participated in the surveys agreed that CIC’s efforts to promote the Program and services are effective (see Figure 4-3), others believed that CIC should raise the profile of the Program and create a recognizable image of Host across the provinces and at a national level. Some SPOs reported that they were unaware of any CIC efforts to promote the Host Program. In addition, SPOs reported the lack of visible Host content on the CIC website, no regional advertisements on major networks and the lack of a national unified promotion strategy as reasons for the ineffectiveness of these efforts.

Host SPOs, volunteers and clients recommended that promotion and marketing of the Program be expanded. Approximately 21% of Host SPOs specifically recommended increased promotion and marketing, stating that a national marketing program would be useful particularly in promoting Program benefits to newcomer families and youth. As well, 11% of Host clients and 9% of Host volunteers recommended improved promotion.

Figure 4-3: Perceptions of Host Program promotion

Graph of perceptions of Host Program promotion

Source: SPO Senior Managers Survey (n=65); ISAP A and Hostand SPO Representatives Survey (n=44)

Text version: Perceptions of Host Program promotion

4.3. Program implementation

The evaluation findings on Program implementation focus on recruitment, selection and preparation of clients and volunteers for participation in the Host Program, the matching of clients with volunteers, and the support SPOs provide to the matches. In addition, this section presents the findings relating to the effectiveness of matches and group activities. This section is based on evidence from interviews, focus groups, surveys, as well as the document and literature reviews.

Key Findings

While SPOs use a variety of formal tools for promotion, informal means such as “word of mouth” are the most common way in which participants are recruited. The drawback to informal promotion is that it can lead to misunderstandings of the objectives and purpose of the Program and it may not be effective for SPOs just starting to deliver Host.

As there is no standard assessment procedure, SPOs develop their own tools and criteria for the selection and assessment of clients and volunteers.

Training for volunteers is systematic and covers a wide variety of topics, whereas orientation for clients is more informal. Both groups expressed a strong desire for more extensive training/orientation.

The majority of participants were satisfied with the time it took to set up a match, the frequency of meetings, and the compatibility of their match.

SPOs continue to work on individual matches; however significant resources are now dedicated to the organization of group activities.

The activities delivered under the Host Program target a variety of newcomers’ needs. The most popular activities are those which provide opportunities for conversation, regardless of whether those occur in a one-on-one or group setting.

The frequency and type of contact between SPOs and their Host clients and volunteers during the match is appropriate to monitor the match and provide guidance to volunteers regarding how to better address clients’ needs.

4.3.1. Promotion and recruitment

In order for the Program to function effectively, SPOs must attract volunteers and newcomers. SPOs engage in activities to promote the Program through formal and informal means. The formal promotion mechanisms used by SPOs includes group presentations which provide information on the benefits immigrants bring to Canada and on promoting Canadian values. In addition, SPOs actively promote the Program through brochures, presentations, and advertisements in magazines targeting newcomers.

The results of client and volunteer’s survey responses related to how they learned about Host, as well as survey responses from SPOs indicating how they promoted the Program are summarized in Table 4-4. The results consistently show that approximately one third of participants (both volunteers and clients) learned about the Program through “word of mouth”. Correspondingly, the majority of SPOs reported that they depend largely on promoting the Program through family and friends of potential clients (98%) and volunteers (89%). SPOs also used current volunteers to promote Host (68%).

Referral was also a common way through which clients and volunteers heard about the Program. Leading sources of referrals included other settlement organizations (for 20% of clients and 12% of volunteers) or community organizations (for 19% of clients and 11% of volunteers). SPOs were more likely to report referrals from other settlement agencies (96% of SPOs received referrals for clients and 55% for volunteers) than from other community organizations (16% for both groups).

Print promotional materials, such as brochures, were used by most of the SPOs. Eighty-four percent of SPOs reported using such materials for promotion to clients and 82% use them for volunteer recruitment. This method of promotion attracted some clients and volunteers as 12% of clients and 20% of volunteers surveyed said that they heard about the Program in this manner.

Many SPO focus group participants and survey resondents noted that they face difficulties attracting a sufficient number of volunteers. Two explanations were provided: first, participants mentioned that there is a lack of awareness of the Program in some communities where the Program has not been offered for an extended period of time; and secondly, participants mentioned that volunteers misunderstand the nature and objectives of the Program. For example, some potential volunteers thought that the Host Program involves hosting a family in their home (a common way that the word “host” is used). Although informal promotion activities are the most utilized method of promotion, the drawback is that it may lead to a misunderstanding of the Program’s objectives and may not be effective for new Host SPOs.

Table 4-4: Client, volunteer and SPOs reports of Host Program promotion
Method of Promotion How they learned about Host: How SPOs Promote Host to:
Clients Volunteers Clients Volunteers
Word of Mouth Referred by a friend or family 23% 27% 98% 89%
Referred by Program participant 14% 7% - 68%
Referral Referred by other settlement programs/agency 20% 12% 96% 55%
Referred by other organizations (e.g., schools) 19% 11% 16% 16%
Print Brochure or other print material/advertising 12% 20% 84% 82%
CIC promotional materials - - 64% 50%
Activity SPO promotional activities - - 84% 55%
Community information events (e.g., fairs, trade shows) - 2% 18% 25%
Online Website 1% 11% 11% 18%
Other 2% 6% 5% 11%

Source: Client (n=85), Volunteer (n=159) and SPO Representatives (n=44) Survey

According to iCAMs, the number of promotion sessions delivered by SPOs increased over the past few years from 908 in 2004/05 to 1,358 sessions in 2007/08 for a total increase of 1.5 times between the first and last years under review (see Table 4-5). Given the challenges identified with iCAMs, it is not possible to determine whether the increase in formal promotion efforts by SPOs has resulted in increased uptake in the Program.

Table 4-5: Host Program activities
Host Services 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Ratio to Baseline
SPO Promotion Sessions 908 1,260 1,275 1,358 1.5

Source: iCAMs; Note: Baseline: 2004/05

Although the demand for the Program (i.e., number of prospective clients) has exceeded the supply of volunteers, the ratio of newcomers on waiting lists to volunteers on waiting lists has continuously decreased (see Table 4-6). Due to a lack of data, it is not possible to determine whether this is an indicator of better matching (i.e., clients are matched faster or more clients are being matched), increased multiple matches (i.e., volunteers are matched with more than one client), or a decrease in demand for the Program.

Table 4-6: Host Program waiting lists
Monthly Average # of: 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Ratio to Baseline
Newcomers in waiting list 843 791 702 467 0.55
Volunteers in waiting list 192 206 244 172 0.90
Ratio of clients to volunteers on waiting lists 4.4 3.8 2.9 2.7  

Source: iCAMs Note: Baseline: 2004/05

4.3.2. Selection and assessment of participants

To prepare clients for participation in the Program, SPOs engage in a variety of activities including assessments and interviews conducted in private settings to identify newcomers’ needs and expectations as they become involved in the Host Program. The most common tool through which information is collected during the assessment process includes an intake/application form (67%). Half the SPOs surveyed reported using interviews to assess clients’ needs (Figure 4-4). While some SPOs used a generic client intake form, others prepared a form that is specifically designed for the Host Program. Such forms collect information specifically relevant to the Program, such as information on newcomers’ needs, expectations, interests, and match preferences (e.g., age group, occupation).

Figure 4-4: Client assessment procedures

Graph of client assessment procedures

Source: SPO Representatives Survey (n=32)

Text version: Selection and assessment of participants

In an open-ended question on selecting clients for Program participation, SPOs reported that they look for a variety of attributes, such as an interest in social connections (i.e., clients particularly interested in personal connections), and clients’ needs (i.e., matching particular needs of clients with Program offerings). Some SPOs (25%) select participants using additional attributes as outlined in their contribution agreements, which may specify particular target groups (e.g., seniors, refugees, youth, etc.). For a list of other attributes, see Figure 4-5.

Figure 4-5: Newcomer attributes assessed by SPOs

Graph of newcomer attributes assessed by SPOs

Source: SPO Representatives Survey (n=44)

Text version: Newcomer attributes assessed by SPOs

The process through which volunteers are selected can include an interview (reported by 64% of SPOs) a criminal record check (52%) and character references (52%) (Figure 4-6). While, it would be expected that 100% of SPOs report criminal checks as part of their process, the SPOs may have misinterpreted the open-ended question, and may not have reported that police checks are undertaken, even if they are part of their process. Volunteers can also be required to complete an application form – some application forms ask Host volunteers to identify the type of match that they prefer (e.g., family, mentorship, newcomers from a particular country).

Figure 4-6: Volunteer assessment procedures

Graph of volunteer assessment procedures

Source: SPO Representatives Survey (n=44)

Text version: Volunteer assessment procedures

When selecting Host volunteers, SPOs use a variety of attributes. The most common ones are their availability, reliability, and commitment (52%). Other important attributes used in selecting volunteers includes communication and relational skills (41%), cultural sensitivity and open-mindedness (39%), and knowledge of local community and Canadian culture (34%) (Figure 4-7). All of these findings demonstrate that there are neither standardized measures nor standard selection criteria to assess clients and volunteers.

Figure 4-7: Attributes of volunteers assessed by SPOs

Graph of attributes of volunteers assessed by SPOs

Source: SPO Representatives Survey (n=44)

Text version: Attributes of volunteers assessed by SPOs

4.3.3. Orientation and training

To prepare Host volunteers and clients, SPOs provide training and orientation sessions. Training, which is only provided to volunteers, focuses on providing specific strategies and advice on how to work with clients, as well as information on newcomers’ countries of origin, cultural barriers, anti-racism and resources available in the community. Orientation sessions for clients cover such topics as roles and responsibilities of clients and volunteers, the benefits of participating in the Host Program and the different types of Host activities.

According to iCAMs data, Host SPOs held an average of 725 volunteer training sessions involving 2,900 volunteers annually between 2004/05 and 2007/08 (see Table 4-7). Subject to the limitations of iCAMs data highlighted earlier, although there are some fluctuations, this data suggests that there has been a decline in the number of volunteers and clients being interviewed and receiving orientation.

Table 4-7: Host Program activities
Host SPO Activities 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Ratio to baseline
Volunteers
Volunteers Interviewed 2,174 2,060 1,610 2,007 0.92
Volunteers Oriented 2,295 3,374 3,788 2,200 0.95
Volunteer Training Sessions 822 655 567 856 1.04
Clients
Number of interview services 6,945 7,009 6,451 6,069 0.87
Newcomer orientation services 6,118 6,916 5,874 5,202 0.85

Source: iCAMs

In the surveys, the majority of volunteers (89%) said that they had received training. Both SPOs and volunteers estimated that volunteers received between 4 to 5 hours of training. Furthermore, according to the survey responses, volunteer training on the objectives of the Host Program (identified by 89% of volunteers), multicultural and cultural issues (63%), community resources and services (59%), settlement challenges, and immigration benefits (59%) (Figure 4-8).

Figure 4-8: Volunteer training areas

Graph of volunteer training areas

Source: Volunteer Survey (n=150)

Text version: Volunteer training areas

Similarly, SPOs reported providing training to volunteers on cultural sensitivity and anti-racism (48%), Program guidelines and expectations (30%), communication (30%), and immigration/settlement issues (30%).

The majority of Host volunteers (89%) reported that their training helped to develop clear expectations about the types of activities they would be undertaking with newcomers and that the training was useful in preparing them to be a Host volunteer. On a 5-point scale, the average rating given regarding the usefulness of training was 4.3. The Host SPOs were more critical about the usefulness of the training as only 41% of Host SPOs agreed that the training provided to Host volunteers adequately prepares them for participation in the Program. They noted that training tends to be very basic in nature and does not address the wide range of issues that volunteers may face. SPOs suggested that additional workshops covering a range of issues would help to better prepare the volunteers. For example, in focus groups, some SPOs explained that volunteers require further information about the culture shock that can be experienced by newcomers. Close to one-half (49%) of volunteers also recommended increased training, with a particular emphasis on areas such as knowledge of existing community resources and assisting clients with English acquisition. It was suggested that more workshops and bringing in external facilitators with areas of expertise could improve training.

SPOs reported that orientation for clients typically occurred during an interview or assessment, as there was no standardized orientation session with clients. Although orientation was informal in nature, over three-quarters (77%) of Host clients who participated in the survey said that they had developed clear expectations about the types of activities they would undertake with their volunteer and what they would gain through participating in the Program. Despite this finding, clients still requested additional information early on in the process of orientation to enable them to better understand Program goals and set reasonable expectations. In particular, clients commented that they had unmet expectations with respect to employment assistance. This sentiment was echoed in focus groups, with both clients and volunteers mentioning the need to clarify the role of the Host Program related to employment and professional networking. In focus groups several volunteers mentioned having to relinquish certain clients who sought assistance in obtaining employment because they were not in a position to provide help in this area. Overall, the evaluation findings suggest that providing further information and orientation about the Host Program would be valuable to both volunteers and clients.

4.3.4. Matching

The success of the Host Program is determined, in large part, by the effectiveness of the matches made by the Host Coordinators. A match is a volunteer and client relationship originated by the SPO and may include one-on-one matches or family matches. These matches can be between a volunteer and a newcomer, a volunteer and the family of a newcomer, or between two families. These would include clients who have been matched multiple times. Based on the iCAMs data, there were almost 24,000 matches between 2004/05 and 2007/08 (Table 4-8). Based on information provided by prospective newcomers and volunteers during the assessment process, SPOs seek to match clients with an available volunteer who best possesses the skills and characteristics required to meet the specific needs of the newcomer. Clients and volunteers are also matched based on similar interests and hobbies.

Table 4-8: Individual matches
Host Services 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Total Ratio to Baseline

Number of Matches (individual or family)

5,777 5,880 6,089 6,041 23,787 1.05

Source: iCAMs

The average time to establish a match is about one month, which is generally considered to be appropriate by clients and volunteers (see Table 4-9). However, some Host clients (13%) in the surveys reported that the waiting period was an obstacle to their participation in the Program. Host clients and volunteers in focus groups also discussed the waiting period; while some said that a long waiting time affected their participation, others were surprised about the short waiting time (some volunteers were matched within a day or two).

Table 4-9: Perceptions of the matching period
Question Host Clients Host Volunteers Host SPOs
Average number of days it took for clients and volunteers to be matched 28 days 25 days 30 days
Average number of days it took for SPOs to do a match
Was the Length of the Wait Appropriate?
Yes 83% 75%  
No 13% 17%  
Don’t Know 4% 7%  

Source: Client Survey (n=80), Volunteer Survey (n=138) and SPO Survey (n=34)

The majority of clients (82%) and volunteers (76%) surveyed reported that they were currently in an active match. Host clients reported meeting with their volunteer an average of 24 times over 8 months (n=73), which is similar to the frequency of meetings reported by volunteers (i.e., meeting 23 times over a 9 month period; n=142). Clients and volunteers reported that the average length of a match is eight to nine months. Volunteers in focus groups stated that the number of hours they spent with their client tends to decline over the term of the match which indicates that a nine month period may be sufficient to help newcomers meet some of their initial needs.

Many volunteers expressed an interest in continuing to volunteer beyond their first match. In the survey, Host volunteers rated their likelihood of serving as a volunteer with new clients in the future at 4.4, on a 5 point scale. SPOs that participated in the survey reported that 25% of volunteers are matched with more than 1 client (n =37). On average, volunteers reported being matched with 4 newcomers/families since becoming involved in the Program (n=151).

The most common challenge identified by clients in the survey for accessing the Program was finding a good match (18%). Similarly, volunteers who participated in the survey referred to having a good match (39%) as key to their participation in the Program. In focus groups, volunteers reported difficulties in meeting client expectations with respect to the amount of time that would be spent together, his or her ability to provide specialized resources, information, services (e.g., assistance in obtaining employment) and level of attachment.

The focus groups reiterated the importance of establishing an effective match in which both parties benefit. A complete match is a match which spans the duration of the commitment, usually between six months to one year. An incomplete match is terminated prior to completion because of certain circumstances or issues. If a newcomer is matched a second time, it is considered a new match. Several SPOs explained that “when the Program has no match break-downs, it is successful”. In the survey, 77% of clients said that they had participated in only one match and there were no issues with this match. Of the 23% who said their first match did not work, the most frequent reason was difficulty in accessing the volunteer (33%). Other reported reasons included a mismatch between skills (10%) which was also identified as a challenge by SPOs, specifically matching skilled immigrants, recognition that the volunteer would not meet their needs (10%), and personality issues [e.g., being too shy, not getting along (10%)].

4.3.5. Host volunteer activities

Clients and volunteers can participate in individual/family and/or group activities. According to the survey data, an almost equal percentage of clients reported participating in individual (79%) and group (75%) activities, while volunteers reported participating in individual activities (80%) more often than in group activities (68%) (see Table 4-10). This may occur because fewer volunteers deliver group activities (e.g., some volunteers may only meet individually with their clients, who may themselves participate in both individual and group activities).

Table 4-10:   Participation in individual and group activities
  Participation in a match (individual or family) Participation in group activities(on-going and one-time)
Host Clients Host Volunteers Host Clients Host Volunteers
Yes 79% 80% 75% 68%
No 17% 17% 24% 29%
Don’t Know 4% 3% 1% 3%

Source: Question 1 - Client a Survey (n=77) and Volunteer Survey (n=158); Question 2 – Client Survey (n=81) and Volunteer Survey (n=161)

Individual/family activities

Once in a match, volunteers and clients are expected to spend time together and engage in a wide variety of activities that are mutually beneficial. In addition, the activities that the volunteers and clients participate in during individual matches are designed to be flexible in order to meet each client’s specific needs.

Survey responses confirmed that clients and volunteers participate in a wide range of individual/family activities during their match (see Table 4-11). Both clients and volunteers identified conversation as the most common activity they engaged in during their match. The second most common individual activity was participation in social events.Footnote 26

Table 4-11: Types of individual activities
What individual/family activities did you participate in? Host Clients Host Volunteers
Conversation 77% 88%
Participation in social events 51% 58%
Going to the library, movies, sports events etc. 50% 45%
Meet with your Host participant and your friends and family 41% 50%
Meet with your Host participant’s family and friends 41% 56%
Receive professional advice on job search 30% 22%
Shopping 30% 43%
Take public transit 23% 21%
Participate in business/professional events 10% 12%
Meet with the Host participant and your co-workers NA 16%
Other 19% 16%

Source: Client Survey (n=92) and Volunteer Survey (n=147)

SPOs (via Host Program Coordinators) are expected to monitor matches and provide ongoing support to ensure the success of matches. On average, clients reported meeting with SPOs 1-2 times per month during the match. In the surveys, volunteers (n=127) reported meeting with SPOs 3 times per month. Seventy-two percent of SPOs reported interacting with clients and volunteers between 1 to 4 times per month. Specifically, 43% of SPOs reported interacting with volunteers and clients once a month and another 28% reported interacting with volunteers and clients once a week (n=70). For both clients and volunteers, their interaction with SPOs was informal and occurred mainly through phone and e-mail rather than in person.

According to the SPO survey, 30% of SPOs reported that their interaction with clients depended on the length and type of match (n=40). For example, some SPOs met with clients and volunteers weekly at the start of the match and then 1 or 2 times per month thereafter. As reported by clients in the survey, these interactions were most often intended to review how their match was going (68%) and to receive services or information unrelated to settlement (54%). Not surprisingly, during focus groups, SPOs noted that interaction was more frequent for matches facing challenges and less so for matches that were progressing smoothly.

The importance of receiving guidance and support from SPOs was confirmed by volunteers. During the survey, volunteers most commonly classified their interaction with SPOs as related to receiving guidance regarding activities to initiate with their clients (49%), identifying client needs (46%), managing client expectations (44%), and addressing client questions (41%). Clients and volunteers in focus groups said that, overall, they are satisfied with the level and method of interaction as well as the availability of SPOs.

Group Activities

Group activities include activities that involve multiple participants meeting on a regular basis (on-going group activities) or one-time activities.Footnote 27 The document review indicated that while the Host Program originally on individual/family matches, group activities have become more common over the past decade.Footnote 28 This appears to be the continuation of a trend; the Evaluation Framework for Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s Settlement Programs also indicated that the provision of Host Program group activities was increasing among SPOs.

Table 4-12 indicates that between 2004/05 and 2007/08, there have been about 9,500 ongoing group activities and about 1,750 one-time group activities. The number of participants in on-going group activities increased gradually over time, from 1,354 in 2004/05 to 1,814 in 2007/08. This number is an underestimation as not all SPOs report on all individuals taking part in group activities. iCAMs data shows a major increase in the number of on-going group sessions in 2007/08 (i.e., 3,194 sessions in that year versus 2,016 in 2004/05 for a ratio of 1.58), which outpaced the growth in the reported number of matches (i.e., which remained stable in the period under review – 1.05 ratio as compared to baseline).

The increase in group activities represents a shift in the Host approach. As group activities involve multiple participants, they are less personal and more structured than one-on-one activities between a single volunteer and client. Moreover, group activities require greater involvement of SPOs in the design, organization, coordination and delivery. SPOs were more likely to report allocating organizational resources to group activities (44%) than to individual/family activities (35%). In the survey, 56% of SPOs reported that their organization focuses mostly on group activities, 27% focus on both group and individual activities, and 17% focus mostly on individual activities.

Table 4-12: Number of group activities
Host Services 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Total Ratio to Baseline
On-going Group Sessions 2,016 1,981 2,268 3,194 9,459 1.58
Participants in On-going Group Activities 1,354 1,403 1,534 1,814 6,105 1.34
One-time Group Activities 404 431 493 413 1,741 1.02
Participants in One Time Group Activities 11,949 14,104 17,254 13,114 56,423 1.10

Source: iCAMs. * The number of participants in group activities is only derived from individual-based reporting in iCAMs and not from the aggregate-based reporting. Thus, complete information on the number of clients participating in group activities is not available.

Types of group activities

Among group activities, conversation circles was the most commonly identified activity offered by SPOs (91%) and the most common activity in which clients participate (43%). Recreational activities (39%) were the group activity in which the highest percentage of volunteers had reported participating followed by conversation circles (32%) (Table 4-13).

Table 4-13: Type of group activities
Response Host Clients Host Volunteers SPOs
Conversation Circle 43% 32% 91%
Recreational Activity 35% 39% 77%
Field Trip 32% 27% 75%
Women’s Group 21% 11% 43%
Youth Group 10% 15% 61%
Homework/Training Club 8% 8% 57%
Other (e.g., career workshops, men’s group, senior group, cooking, gardening) 13% 15% 50%

Source: Client Survey (n=92), Volunteer Survey (n=150) and SPO Representatives Survey (n=44)

Comparison of individual and group activities

To assess if the activities undertaken between the clients and volunteers address the specific needs of newcomers, the needs expressed by clients in the survey and the activities undertaken during the match were compared.Footnote 29 When asked why they participated in the Host Program, clients provided a range of open-ended responses, which were grouped into nine categories (Figure 4-9). A review of the survey data confirmed that the two most common reasons provided by clients for participating in the Program (to improve English/French and to interact with Canadians) corresponds to the two most common activities reported by both clients and volunteers: conversation and participation in social events.

Figure 4-9: Newcomers’ reasons to participate in Host Program

Graph of newcomers’ reasons to participate in Host Program

Source: Client Survey (n=80)

Text version: Newcomers’ reasons to participate in Host Program

Depending on the client’s goals, needs and personality, they may be better suited to individual or group activities. SPOs noted that some clients prefer to be partnered with one volunteer for individual activities because they experience shyness in a group setting. They also indicated that some parents are more comfortable having their children participate in group activities to prevent isolation of their child. Survey responses indicate that one third of volunteers found individual and group activities equally useful. There is no clear evidence that one type of activity was found to be more useful than the other.

According to the survey results, SPOs, clients, and volunteers indicated that one of the advantages of individual activities is that stronger personal relationships can be fostered which can be more effective in meeting specific client needs. For example, several clients said that they were better able to talk about sensitive issues in one-on-one situations with their volunteer as well as receive individualized mentoring specifically related to language. They also pointed out that developing a personal relationship with the Host volunteer increased their confidence and ability to deal with unfamiliar issues in a new country. Individual activities can also provide opportunities to expand the client’s social network, in that the volunteer could introduce them to members of their social network (this may be harder to do in a group setting). Focus groups supported these findings on the benefits of individualized matches and mentioned greater flexibility in terms of the nature and frequency of their interaction (e.g., volunteers and clients can decide what to do, where, how, and when to meet at their convenience).

Clients, volunteers and SPOs also outlined the advantages of group activities for newcomers. Group activities can be effective in expanding the social network of the client as well as improving their interpersonal skills such as public speaking, social interaction, and the opportunity to practice language skills with a larger number of people. Over one-third of clients (37%) recommended increasing the number and diversity of group language activities.

4.4. Program results

This section presents the evaluation findings according to the three major outcome areas: settlement and adaptation, networking, and two-way exchange, as well as unexpected outcomes.

Key Findings

In terms of settlement and adaptation, the major impact is the improvement in newcomers’ language skills. The Host Program also assisted clients to become more independent in everyday activities and to reduce their settlement related stress.

In terms of networking, participation in the Program resulted in clients meeting more individuals and expanding their social network more than their professional network. However, volunteers assisted clients in their job search by helping to identify opportunities, develop resumes and prepare for interviews.

With respect to two-way exchange, participation in the Host Program contributed to clients’ increased knowledge of Canadian culture. It also contributed to mutual cultural awareness and the acceptance of other cultures by clients and volunteers. The Host Program has also enabled volunteers to better understand the contributions of immigrants and the challenges they face in Canada.

The most prevalent unexpected outcome of the Host Program has been the personal growth of clients in the areas of social skills, identity and leadership. According to clients, another unexpected outcome is the development of lasting personal connections between them and volunteers.

4.4.1. Settlement and adaptation outcomes

According to Program documentation, the facilitation of settlement involves such areas as improving language skills, meeting basic settlement needs, increasing confidence, gaining knowledge about available services and resources, learning about their community, and lowering settlement related stress. In the intermediate term, it is expected that clients will be able to function independently.

In the survey (Figure 4-10), 90% of Host clients reported that the Program resulted in improved language skills. In open-ended survey questions and focus groups, clients explained that the Program provided them with opportunities to practice English or French and that they received personal assistance with their pronunciation and grammar from their volunteers. They also reported that participation in the Host Program enabled them to better engage in casual and informal conversations in everyday life. The type of language learning that occurred in the Host Program complemented their formal language training.

Figure 4-10:  Perceptions of impact on clients’ settlement and adaptation

Graph of perceptions of impact on clients’ settlement and adaptation

Source: Client survey (n=89), Volunteer survey (n=164) and SPO representatives survey (n=44)

Text version: Perceptions of impact on clients’ settlement and adaptation

A high proportion of clients (80%) reported reduced settlement stress. Host clients explained that being accompanied by their Host volunteer during daily activities and receiving information regarding major tasks such as preparing an application for Citizenship reduced their level of stress.

In terms of increasing client independence in everyday tasks, 77% of clients and 88% of volunteers surveyed indicated that the Host Program is making a difference. Clients reported being able to independently undertake everyday tasks such as using public transportation and managing financial, educational and health issues.

Both volunteers and SPOs who participated in the surveys showed a similar pattern, although SPOs consistently rated the impacts of the Program higher than did either clients or volunteers. This may be explained in part, by the fact that they are making a global assessment, summarizing the experience of many participants over time, rather than reflecting on a single instance.

4.4.2. Networking outcomes

The Host Program highlights the importance of social and professional networks in improving newcomer integration. These networks are expected to allow newcomers to expand and use connections to learn about opportunities for employment/professional development and reduce their sense of isolation. As outlined in Program documentation (see Logic Model in Appendix E:), a key outcome of the Program is to develop these networks through individual matches and group activities which may include a business mentorship component.

Eighty-five percent of Host clients (Table 4-11) reported that the Program allowed them to meet more people in their community or in their profession and 61% reported an impact on their job search activities (Figure 4-11). In addition, 55% of the clients and 75% of volunteers responded that they consider their relationship with their counterpart both as part of the Program and as part of their external social network. In focus groups and open-ended survey responses, Host clients reported that they established many new relationships within and outside of the Program, particularly with other newcomers in their community.

The responses provided in the survey indicate that the nature of those relationships was social rather than professional. However, few clients noted that their Host volunteer was part of the profession in which they were seeking employment and provided some connections to other members of that profession. With respect to assistance in searching for employment, clients noted that volunteers assisted them in preparing resumes, preparing for interviews, accessing job postings, and learning how to search for jobs online.

Figure 4-11: Impact on clients’ networks

Graph of impact on clients’ networks

Source: Client survey (n=89), Volunteer survey (n=164 )and SPO representatives survey (n=44)

Text version: Impact on clients’ networks

4.4.3. Two-way exchange outcomes

Creating connections between newcomers and communities and improving cross-cultural understanding is also an objective of the Host Program. Through matching, the Program approaches integration as a two-way process that allows volunteers and newcomers to relate on a personal level and develop an understanding of their respective cultures.

Client impacts

In the survey, 89% of clients reported that the Program gave them a better understanding of Canadian society and culture, and opportunities to participate in community life, with 66% identifying a major impact in this area (see Figure 4-12). In focus groups, clients explained that, through Host activities, they gained a positive attitude towards Canadians (e.g., Canadians have a sense of humour, like to talk, and are willing to help). They also reported that the Program allowed them to not only learn about Canadian culture, but also to discuss the differences between the client’s last country of residence and Canada. Clients also mentioned that they have been able to put the learning about Canadian culture and custom into practice.

In open-ended survey responses, clients also reported learning about the foods and customs of different cultures, traditions and beliefs, and learning about multiculturalism and equity. In some cases, clients reported being able to interact with an ethnic group different from their own, where there had been conflict before. The surveys also investigated the impact of Host on clients’ ability to deal with racism and discrimination. This factor was rated somewhat lower than other impacts with 58% of clients and 54% of volunteers reporting an impact. Although racism does not affect all clients, most SPOs (96%) believe that the Program overall had an impact on clients’ ability to deal with these issues.

Figure 4-12: Clients’ cross-cultural outcomes

Graph of clients’ cross-cultural outcomes

Source: Client survey (n=89), Volunteer survey (n=164 )and SPO representatives survey (n=44)

Text version: Clients’ cross-cultural outcomes

Volunteer impacts

In addition to improving newcomers’ outcomes, the Program is designed to support and strengthen volunteers’ understanding of foreign cultures as well as the challenges affecting newcomers. Ninety-seven percent of volunteers believed that the Host Program increased their awareness and knowledge about other cultures. Volunteers reported that the interaction with the client enabled them to learn more about their client’s culture, particularly their traditions and food. Through participation in ad-hoc group activities (e.g., holiday celebrations) which brought many newcomers together, volunteers also learned about other cultures not specific to their client.

Ninety-one percent of the volunteers surveyed reported that Host had a major impact in increasing their understanding of the challenges faced by immigrants and their contribution to Canada, and 86% reported that it impacted their understanding of racism and discrimination (Figure 4-13). Furthermore, in the surveys and focus groups, volunteers noted seeing first-hand the prejudice and discrimination experienced by newcomers (e.g., when trying to help their client rent an apartment and receiving negative responses from landlords). Other examples cited were the intolerance of some Canadians towards newcomers with limited language skills and the systemic barriers in institutions such as schools which can be compounded by communication challenges.

Figure 4-13: Volunteers’ cross-cultural outcomes

Graph of volunteers’ cross-cultural outcomes

Source: Volunteer survey (n=163 )and SPO representatives survey (n=40)

Text version: Volunteers’ cross-cultural outcomes

4.4.4. Unexpected outcomes

When asked about unanticipated effects resulting from their participation in the Program, Host clients most frequently identified personal growth (38%) and lasting friendships (33%). Similarly, 35% of volunteers most frequently reported personal growth and 23% identified lasting friendships as an unexpected impact of the Program. Forty-four percent of SPOs noted that the mental health of newcomers improved and 38% said the clients’ experienced personal growth (Table 4-14). In terms of developing a sense of belonging 17% of clients, 12% of volunteers and 25% of Host SPOs perceived this as an unexpected result of the Program.

Table 4-14: Unexpected impacts
Unexpected/ Other Impacts Host Clients Host Volunteers Host SPOs
Personal growth (e.g., reduced shyness, changes in cultural identity, increased leadership skills) 38% 35% 38%
Lasting friendships 33% 23% 13%
Improved mental health (e.g., decreased loneliness, depression) 0% 18% 44%
Sense of belonging 17% 12% 25%
Job skills (e.g., computer skills, professional conduct) 13%    
Other 4% 12% 13%

Source: Client Survey (n=24), Volunteer Survey (n=43) and SPO Representatives Survey (n=44)

4.5. Resource management

To assess resource management, the evaluation examined program capacity (financial and human resources) and cost-effectiveness (cost per client and leveraging resources).

Key Findings

There are mixed viewpoints as to whether the financial and human resources are adequate to ensure effective Program delivery.

Host as a volunteer-run Program is widely perceived as an economically efficient model to deliver services. However, the available data suggests that the Program became more expensive, as the cost per client has increased and the ratio of leveraged resources has declined over the years under review.

Given the limitations of iCAMs and lack of outcome monitoring, it is not possible to report conclusively on cost-effectiveness.

4.5.1. Program capacity

Program capacity is dependent upon having adequate financial and human resources to support the effective delivery of activities. Half of CIC directors and managers interviewed agreed that CIC currently has adequate resources and capabilities to effectively support the delivery of Host. The other half who believed that resources and capabilities were inadequate pointed to the need for more funding and personnel to manage the Program at CIC. Of the Host SPOs, 65% of directors and managers and 50% of staff agreed that funding was adequate, while 26% of managers and directors and 29% of staff did not. They suggested that additional funding was required for salaries and volunteer appreciation. This additional funding would help retain personnel, improve the variety and quality of service, and meet the demand for services.

Financial resources

In 2004/05 and 2005/06, CIC spent slightly more than the budget allocated to the Host Program (Table 4-15). In 2006/07, the Host Program budget increased significantly from the previous two years (three times by 2007/08). However for the next two years (until 2008/09), some of the budget allocated to the Host Program was not used. This finding indicates that CIC and SPOs may have faced some challenges in building the capacity to match the new funding profile.Footnote 30 Following the budget increase in 2006/07, the number of SPOs as well as the number of clients accessing the Program also increased. However, the rate of increase of these two groups was not proportionate to the rate of increase in the budget or expenditures. While the budget grew 3.6 times and, the expenditures grew 2.6 times, the number of SPOs increased only 1.5 times and the number of clients remained fairly stable (Table 4-15).

Table 4-15: Financial resources
  2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Ratio to Baseline
Budget (Gs&Cs) $ 2,800,000 $ 2,800,000 $ 7,400,000 $ 10,100,000 3.6
Expenditures (Gs&Cs) $ 3,100,00 $ 3,300,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 8,100,000 2.6
Number of SPOs (in SAP) 36 39 40 55 1.5
Number of clients 5,109 5,165 5,138 5,439 1.1

Source: Budget: RPPs; Expenditures: DPRs; Number of Host SPOs: SAP; Number of Clients: iCAMs. Note: Budget and expenditure figures refer to funding provided to SPOs through contribution agreements. It does not include the operational budget allocated to CIC management.

Staff retention and training

The personnel principally responsible for delivering Host are the dedicated Host Program coordinators employed by SPOs. Focus group participants mentioned that SPOs have difficulty retaining staff due to low salaries and the frequent hiring of newcomers as Host coordinators who consider the job as a first step to employment as opposed to a long term career.

In terms of the capacity of staff to deliver Host, 71% of Host SPO managers and directors and 66% of Host SPO staff agreed that the nature and level of training provided was appropriate while 25% of managers and directors and 22% of staff disagreed. SPO managers and directors who disagreed said that staff training is infrequent and that there is no adequate standard training for the Host Program. Despite the provision of information exchange opportunities such as Host Conferences (e.g., three conferences delivered in Ontario between 2007-2008), some SPO staff suggested that it would be useful if CIC implemented more regular professional development opportunities, such as conferences, seminars, and sharing of best practices. SPOs referred to the staff training, as well as iCAMs training. Moreover, 17% of SPO staff suggested expanding staff training and professional development opportunities.

4.5.2. Cost-effectiveness

Using volunteers for direct service delivery to clients with some assistance from program management is widely perceived as a cost-effective approach. The CIC regional managers and directors stated that the Host Program largely run by volunteers is a providing a good value for money.

The evaluation tried to address the efficiency of the Program using the available information from SAP and iCAMs. Analysis of the available data suggests that the cost per client has grown due to increased expenditures (expenditures grew 2.6 times comparing to 2004/05) which are disproportionate to the increase in the number of clients being assisted (number of clients remained fairly stable at 1.1 growth comparing to 2004/05) (Table 4-16) making the Program more expensive to run.

Throughout the report it has also been shown that the growth in number of volunteers and number of services delivered has not been keeping pace with the growth in funding. Therefore, the Program appears to be more expensive to run. It is unknown whether this is, in fact, the case, or whether the Program has simply been unable to demonstrate its growth because of weaknesses in the data collection systems. Given the limitations of iCAMs it is not possible to report conclusively on cost-effectiveness.

Table 4-16: Cost per client
  2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Ratio to Baseline
Expenditures (Gs&Cs) $ 3,100,00 $ 3,300,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 8,100,000 2.6
Number of clients 5,109 5,165 5,138 5,439 1.1
Cost per client $ 607 $ 639 $ 973 $1,489 2.5

Source: Expenditures: DPRs/SAP; Number of Clients: iCAMs

Leveraging of resources

Another important element of a volunteer-run program is the ability to leverage unpaid resources. Clients receive individualized attention and services through volunteers, who are often matched with more than one client or family at a time. iCAMs does not collect data on the number of hours that volunteers spend with clients each year in individual matches. However, a partial estimate can be developed using data provided by clients and volunteers in the evaluation surveys (Table 4-17).

According to the survey data, volunteers and clients meet approximately 31 times per yearFootnote 31. If each of these volunteers had met 31 times with their clients in individual activities for an average of two hours each time, volunteers would have spent between 124,000 and 138,000 hours with clients during which the clients practiced their language, social and cultural skills and obtained answers or advice to their questions and issues. Based on an annual work year (excluding vacations) of 1,950 hours (based on 37.5 hrs/week for 52 weeks), the number of hours volunteers spend directly with clients in individual activities alone is equivalent to about 64-71 full-time positions per year (depending on year). This figure does not include any of the time which is spent by volunteers for preparation, travelling, group activities, researching, reporting or training. Based on the above calculations and using an average annual salary of $48,000 to $51,000 per settlement worker, Table 4-17 presents an estimate of the value of personnel resources leveraged over the five years of the Program which remained fairly stable. Given that the cost of the Program increased, the ratio of leveraged resources decreased by half (from 0.98 in 2004/05 to 0.41 in 2007/08).

Table 4-17: Leveraged resources
  2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Expenditures (Gs&Cs) $ 3,100,00 $ 3,300,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 8,100,000
Number of volunteers matched 2,000 2,237 1,904 2,026
Average number of hours / volunteer / year 62 62 62 62
Total hours spent by volunteers / year 124,000 138,694 118,048 125,612
# of equivalent FTEs (days) 63.6 71.1 60.5 64.4
Average salary (per year) 48,000 49,000 50,000 51,000
Resources leveraged by volunteers 3,052,308 3,485,131 3,026,872 3,285,263
Ratio of leveraged resources to expenditures 0.98 1.06 0.61 0.41

Source: Expenditures: DPRs/SAP; Number of Volunteers: iCAMs, Number of Hours: Volunteer and Client Surveys

Page details

Date modified: