Evaluation of the Host Program

5. Conclusions

Rationale

Immigrants face a variety of challenges that affect their ability to fully settle, adapt, and integrate within a new society. Being able to function and participate in any society requires an understanding of the rules and norms, both written and unwritten that direct people’s behaviour. Footnote 32 Although a degree of cultural understanding can be obtained in classrooms and through textbooks, informal and personal exchanges have been shown to be the critical medium for cultural transference and the development of social capital. Footnote 33

The Host Program is relevant as it seeks to address two key needs of newcomers: lack of familiarity with the Canadian environment; and overcoming isolation (which includes networking, as well as developing language skills). It takes a unique approach by relying on a model of two-way exchange between newcomers and Canadians to support settlement and adaptation, building and using networks, and enable learning and acceptance by both newcomers and Canadians. There is no other program within the CIC portfolio, and very few external programs, that are designed to develop social networks to enrich the experience of newcomers in such a manner. In addition, it is perceived as relevant and is in strong demand by a wide range of stakeholders. The goals of the Program are also linked to CIC’s roles and responsibilities, particularly as they pertain to the departmental mission, strategic objectives and commitments under IRPA as well as federal policy and legislation on multiculturalism.

Implementation

SPOs engage in a number of activities to support Program delivery. The Program functions well in terms of recruitment, assessment, preparation and support of participants; however, there are areas for improvement. Although SPOs have been engaging in more formal promotion of the Program (i.e., presentations, brochures, etc.), to date it is not clear how these efforts influenced uptake in the Program. Hearing about the Program from friends and family as well as referrals from other organisations were the two most common ways in which clients first learn about the Program. Over-reliance upon informal promotion as opposed to formal methods has led to misunderstandings of the objectives and purpose of the Program among clients and volunteers. Moreover, informal promotion may not be effective for SPOs just starting to deliver the Program. In regards to the training for volunteers and orientation to prospective clients, both groups expressed a need for a more comprehensive preparation process to ensure that volunteers and newcomers have clear, reasonable expectations regarding Program participation. This could be supplemented by additional training for volunteers to support their ongoing development. The majority of the matches were successfully completed. In addition, the activities conducted between volunteers and newcomers corresponded to the particular needs of newcomers. However, finding an appropriate match was mentioned as a challenge to Program participation (i.e., a quarter of matches required re-matching).

Results

The Host Program objectives align closely with its three expected outcomes: settlement, networking and the two-way exchange. The results related to the settlement outcomes indicate that participants developed a better understanding of Canadian society; had a reduced level of stress related to their settlement process; increased their confidence; and increased their knowledge of services and resources to become more independent. Improving language abilities, however was the most pronounced impact of the Program (73% of clients reported it as a major impact). As language needs were the main motivator for joining Host, this finding demonstrates that Host is responding to the needs of clients. This is noteworthy as Host, unlike Language Instructions for Newcomers, is not designed specifically to promote the development of language skills. Some clients perceive the informal conversation obtained through Host as complimentary or as an alternative to formal language training.

The Program has expanded the social networks of clients and volunteers. There is also evidence that these social connections have persisted beyond the duration of clients’ participation in the Program. Although clients were often provided with assistance in their job search by helping to identify opportunities, develop resumes and prepare for interviews; the extent to which they were able to develop professional networks and employment opportunities was less evident.

The Program has impacted both clients and volunteers in improving awareness and acceptance of other cultures. It has also enabled volunteers to better understand the contributions of immigrants and the challenges they face in Canada.

Design

The Host Program has undergone several changes in recent years, with a five-fold increase in funding between 2004/05 and 2008/09, a growth in the number of organizations delivering the Program, a proliferation of group activities, and a reorganization of the Program within CIC’s modernized approach being the most significant.

Overall, the design of the Host Program has been effective for supporting progress towards meeting its objectives; however, there are a few areas in which improvements can be made. All stakeholders agreed that CIC promotion of the Host Program is lacking (some SPOs were not aware of CIC promotional materials).

Most SPOs agreed that the design of Host was effective in enabling the program to meet newcomers’ needs. In addition, most SPO staff and directors agreed that the general objectives, structures, roles and responsibilities of Host were clear. However, SPOs also reported not having a clear understanding of some of the particulars of the operational aspects of the Host Program. For example, many SPOs noted the absence of clear guidelines regarding what standard services should be provided, and for how long the matches should be supported. SPOs also stated that they would benefit from more direction regarding the length of services and what the cut-off point should be for different services and provision of services to clientele such as youth. Newcomers are often unclear about what the Program can and cannot do for them. Finally, volunteers need more clarification with respect to their role in the Program, particularly in areas such as helping clients with employment and social networking. The Program can benefit from further definition and communication of its goals, scope, and the roles and responsibilities of each group of stakeholders.

Eligibility criteria

Some SPOs considered the limited eligibility criteria for CIC programming, which excludes refugee claimants, temporary workers, international students, and naturalized Canadian citizens from accessing the Program, as a drawback of the Program. This limited eligibility diminishes SPOs ability to provide services to all newcomers in need who seek their services (including permanent and temporary residents). Moreover, limiting eligibility to three years (or when clients receive their Canadian citizenship) was raised as problematic as clients may still have needs, especially related to adaptation and integration which can take decades.

Reach

While it was recommended by the previous evaluation that reach of the Program be increased, the number of clients as well as number of volunteers remained fairly stable in the years under review. Some activities that have increased are those that relate to promotional efforts of SPOs and those related to group activities. This strategy has not resulted in increasing the number of clients. However, given the constraints relating to iCAMS, the number of clients served may have been higher than captured in the System.

Increasing reliance on group activities

The number and variety of group activities grew considerably over the last 10 years. While originally designed as a matching program, with one-on-one/family matches geared to provide contact with Canadians, the increasing prominence of group activities may be moving the Program in the direction of a multiple-way street where newcomers interact with other newcomers. A multiple-exchange model may support greater cross-cultural learning as newcomers and volunteers are exposed to other newcomers (with different backgrounds); however fewer one-on-one relationships with established Canadians may develop, which may result in the immigrant having less access to a volunteer’s network and connections. Depending on the client’s goals, needs and personality, they may be better suited to individual or group activities. Both individual and group activities have strengths and weaknesses. Notwithstanding this, the most popular activities are those which provide opportunities for conversation, regardless of whether those occur in one-on-one or group settings. The movement towards group activities could be further examined to better understand the potential benefits and draw-backs associated with each delivery methods.

Cost-effectiveness

Over the years under review, the budget for the Host Program grew by a factor of 3.6. The expenditures have not been able to match the pace of growth as during two years some of the eligible funds were not used (2006/07, 2007/08). By 2008/09 expenditures outpaced the budget, which suggests that it took time to increase the capacity of the settlement sector to deliver the Program.

As the budget and expenditures have grown and the number of clients as well as services has remained relatively stable, the cost-per-client has increased steadily. Moreover, evidence also suggests that the ratio of leveraging resources to expenditures has declined. These two indicators suggest that the Program may have become less efficient to run. However, given the constraints relating to iCAMS, any conclusions relating to this aspect should be interpreted with caution.

Monitoring and reporting

CIC has invested in the development of a monitoring system – the iCAMS. iCAMS focuses on collecting data on clients and services provided. The evaluation findings indicate that, with respect to iCAMS, there are three key issues.

  1. The type of information iCAMS is set up to collect for the Host Program may not be useful to decision makers. For instance, iCAMS collects information on how many matches were made but is not able to provide information on how many clients were matched. Additionally, iCAMS does not collect information on how many hours volunteers or group facilitators spend with their clients. Moreover, information on the type of group activities delivered is not currently collected in the system.
  2. Data in iCAMS is incomplete as approximately one quarter (23%) of all Host SPOs are not reporting (representing 10% of the total Program budget).
  3. Although several SPOs in focus groups reported that they do use iCAMS, they are unsure if they are using it correctly.

These issues all reduce the reliability and usability of iCAMS for monitoring, evaluating and decision-making. In addition, CIC lacks a system or an approach to collect outcome data which makes it difficult to demonstrate the achievements of the Host Program. Further work is required to develop the measures to collect outcome information.

Page details

Date modified: