Evaluation of HOST

4.0  Adequacy of Capacity and Service Gaps

This section describes the findings with respect to capacity and identified service gaps. For the purposes of this evaluation, capacity at the organizational level refers to the resources, knowledge, and processes employed by the organization such as staffing; program management; and infrastructure and financial resources.

Summary of Findings:

All lines of inquiry consistently support the contention that many Host service providers lack the capacity to effectively manage the program or to improve its access. Lack of capacity is attributed to the lack of funding, lack of awareness of the program, and gaps in support for volunteers and Host Coordinators.

4.1 Lack of Funding Identified as a Major Issue

While Host is considered to have significant impacts, all lines of inquiry consistently report that resources are inadequate to effectively manage the program or to expand its reach. As illustrated in Exhibit 4.1, the majority of survey respondents (59 percent) reported that Host funding was inadequate to achieve the expected outcomes; only 21 percent agreed that funding was adequate in this respect. Almost half of survey respondents (45 percent) reported that funding was inadequate to meet the requirements of the contribution agreement—24 percent agreed that funding was adequate to deliver the requirements of the contribution agreement. This subsection will present findings regarding allocation and adequacy of funding.

With respect to allocation of funding, as mentioned in the previous section, Host receives nationally, on average, about three (3) percent of the Settlement/Resettlement budget. While the portion allocated to Host is very small, the exact portion of funding allocated to Host is negotiated through contribution agreements.

Some key informants reported that funding allocations did not adequately reflect the realities of the Host SPOs’ workload. In addition, over half of the survey respondents (52 percent) indicated that funding allocations were not sufficiently flexible to allow for adjustments. With respect to funding allocations, there were some reported areas of inadequacy: funding for secondary migrants; funding for smaller SPOs; and funding based on number of immigrants. Funding is allocated according to the original destination of new arrivals. Key informants report that those areas that receive higher levels of secondary migrants do not have adequate funding to provide programs and services to these newcomers. Funding for smaller centres was raised as an issue because some key informants report receiving proportionally less money for administration and overhead costs as compared to larger centres. Some SPO key informants reported receiving annual reductions in funding—based on numbers of immigrants. They argue that the funding reductions do not adequately reflect the complexity of immigration services and the need to maintain overhead and administration costs. Conversely, some key informants noted that funding allocations, based on increased immigration numbers, were also insufficient.

While many key informants cited concerns with respect to funding allocations, the great majority of key informants identified the overall level of funding for Host as a key cause for concern. It was also noted that the level of funding has not increased in the past eight years despite rising overhead costs and additional responsibilities (e.g. iCAMS). There were a number of identified gaps in funding regarding: outreach and promotion; volunteer management [note 9]; reporting; and supports for Host Coordinators. Some CIC key informants noted that there is a need for a dedicated regional CIC Host coordinator to: facilitate connections between SPOs and CIC; to review Host tools and resources for consistency; to disseminate relevant information; and to train new staff.

According to one SPO key informant, “There is a major funding gap with respect to volunteer management. This amounts to sixty percent of the work, but this is not reflected in the contribution agreements.” With respect to volunteer management, CIC and SPO key informants most frequently cited the need for additional volunteer training and support. Some key informants also noted the need for effective recruiting tools for volunteers. Supervision of matches are also reported to be time consuming, with SPO key informants reporting that they contacted volunteers regularly by phone—reported frequency of contact varies from one to three months.

According to some SPO key informants, reporting through iCAMS is not resourced and this activity is not identified as a cost in the contribution agreements. SPOs are required to report regularly to local CIC offices in addition to reporting through iCAMS.

4.2 Moderate Levels of Satisfaction with CIC Tools and Support

Many SPO key informants and survey respondents indicated satisfaction with the support and guidance provided by local CIC offices. Fifty-two (52) percent of survey respondents indicated that, overall, they were satisfied with the tools and support provided by the CIC (with 24.1 percent dissatisfied). The mean adequacy ratings of SPO survey respondents are outlined in Exhibit 4.2.

Exhibit 4.2 illustrates the mean adequacy rating of support areas such as: policy and functional guidance provided by CIC; training workshops funded or coordinated by CIC; dissemination of research findings by CIC; relevance of the research findings to their organization; dissemination of best practices by CIC; and relevance of the best practices to their organization. Notably, CIC guidance was given the highest adequacy rating, with a score of 3.1 out of five (5). Slightly, lower adequacy ratings were given to dissemination of best practices and research findings by CIC. Training workshops funded or coordinated by CIC were given the lowest adequacy rating, with a mean score of 2.3 out of five (5).

Some CIC and SPO key informants reported that Host coordinators need enhanced opportunities for professional development, additional support in terms of professional development [note 10] activities (e.g., attendance at conferences or workshops) and increased hours. According to some key informants, the Host Coordinator salary is not commensurate with the skills required for the job (e.g., marketing, outreach and promotional skills, group facilitation and training skills, and volunteer management skills). In addition, insufficient salaries lead, in some instances, to higher turnover of Host coordinators, making it difficult to provide consistent and quality programming.

Overall, SPO key informants reported that the Host brochures and posters were very useful for promoting the program. However, the larger posters were reported to be difficult to place. Moreover, some key informants indicated that the clients depicted on the poster were not representative enough of typical [note 11] clients. While many key informants reported that the Host video was a useful promotional tool, some key informants felt that it gave misleading information about the role of a Host volunteer—created the expectation that the Host volunteer was always available.

4.3 Some Inconsistencies and Gaps in Volunteer Management

As noted in a previous subsection, volunteer management activities include those related to recruitment, screening, training, placement and supervision of volunteers. As was also stated previously, many SPO key informants noted that they lack resources for volunteer management. This subsection will outline findings with respect to screening, training and supervision of volunteers.

With respect to volunteer screening, police checks of volunteers were reported to be general practice—although not policy. In addition, SPOs generally interview each volunteer in order to make a match with the appropriate client. All SPO survey respondents report that they have policies and guidelines regarding volunteer screening and monitoring and the majority of respondents report that these guidelines and policies are effective. Ninety-three percent of survey respondents agree that the criteria to become a Host volunteer are appropriate. In addition, the majority of survey respondents agree (93 percent) that volunteers had met their (SPO) expectations. Nevertheless, some SPOs also noted that resources did not adequately cover more thorough volunteer screening. In addition, some CIC key informants noted that volunteer screening and risk management practices of SPOs should be reviewed to ensure that the risks associated with volunteer screening are adequately mitigated.

Overall, focus group volunteers indicated high satisfaction with their orientation and the ongoing support they received from the service provider. However, some focus group volunteers noted that there was insufficient time devoted to orientation training—usually about three (3) hours in duration. There were also noted variations in the volunteer orientation process—ranging between formal and informal and one-on-one or group training. For example, in some smaller centres, individual volunteer orientation is provided where there are smaller numbers of volunteer recruits.

With respect to ongoing support, focus group volunteers were highly satisfied with the level of support provided by the SPOs. They reported that Host coordinators were accessible and helpful whenever they needed advice or assistance. In addition, SPO key informants noted that they had regular contact with each volunteer through the match period—usually on a monthly basis.

There were also noted variations in the amount and type of ongoing support available to volunteers in terms of training workshops for volunteers, volunteer recognition activities, and social activities for volunteers and clients. However, most SPOs noted insufficient resources to provide additional training and skills development for volunteers. Some SPOs reported that they were able to piggy back Host social activities with other events.

A number of focus group volunteers also cited the need for additional support with respect to allotting a small amount of funding to volunteers for recreational and social activities with newcomers (e.g., museum admission fees). Some volunteers, however, indicated that this was not in the spirit of volunteering. However, it was suggested that CIC and SPOs could network with appropriate provincial and municipal agencies to provide volunteers with special passes or reduced admission fees to provincial and municipal attractions.

Focus group participants, both clients and volunteers, cited the need for consistent volunteer support with respect to the following:

• Consistent provision of orientation information regarding:
  • Community resources and services information;
  • Background information on country of origin; and
  • An overview of other immigration programs and services.
• Provision of ongoing training and development activities to address local/regional needs;
• Additional support and training for dealing with high needs clients (e.g., life skills training);
• Training to provide support for improving newcomer language skills;
• Multicultural/cultural sensitivity training;
• Increased opportunities to interact and share information with other volunteers; and,
• Enhanced opportunities for social activities with other volunteers and newcomers.

4.4 Awareness of Host is Limited

Many key informants (CIC and SPO) indicated that there is a lack of awareness of Host among mainstream community organizations and the general public, particularly in larger urban areas. The great majority of key informants, however, cited good awareness of Host among other immigrant serving organizations. Key informants stated that there is insufficient promotion of Host due to a lack of resources. There is also limited capacity to handle additional matches, according to the interview data. Nonetheless, the demand for Host exceeds capacity in some areas.

Most promotional activities are conducted by SPOs. However, CIC has recently developed and disseminated national brochures, posters and videos, which many SPO key informants view as a positive step towards a national branding of the Host program. As mentioned previously, the brochures and posters are reportedly well-used by SPOs.

The majority of survey respondents reported using a variety of methods to promote Host to newcomers and volunteers including brochures, posters, local print, local media, newsletters, presentations to newcomers and the Internet. Both survey respondents and key informants reported that the most effective promotional techniques are word of mouth and direct interaction with the community. Many SPO key informants reported that newcomers were recruited through good linkages with RAP and ISAP.

Suggestions for improvement of promotional activities include:

• National promotional campaign (branding of Host);
• Targeted promotional activities for volunteers and newcomers (e.g., high schools, post-secondary institutions);
• Strengthened partnerships with mainstream community organizations, private sector and government organizations (federal government departments and provincial governments); and,
• Maintaining or enhancing linkages to other settlement/resettlement programs.

4.5 The Matching Process is Considered Appropriate

The evaluation found that the matching process is appropriate. Newcomers are matched with volunteers based on an individual assessment of newcomer needs and expectations. Key informants and focus group participants noted that efforts are made to make matches based on interest and need. Some SPOs conduct home visits with newcomers to better assess their needs. Some SPO key informants indicated that they require newcomers to have a certain basic language level prior to matching. The majority of survey respondents (59 percent) reported that newcomers understand their roles and responsibilities to a large or great extent; 41 percent reported that newcomers understand their roles and responsibilities to some extent. Incompletion of matches or problematic matches were reported by SPO key informants and focus group participants to be rare.

4.6 Some Gaps in Information Sharing

The evaluation found that there is adequate information sharing between local CIC offices and the SPOs. The majority of survey respondents agree that communication/information/feedback from the CIC is adequate (28%) or more than adequate (45%). There is also some sharing of information between SPOs and the national level through designated working groups.

There are opportunities and avenues for information sharing between the SPOs. SPOs indicated that provincial organizations such as the Alberta Association of Immigrant Serving Agencies (AAISA) contribute to communication between SPOs at the provincial level. SPO key informants located in more remote areas report less sharing of information and best practices. CIC and SPO key informants noted gaps with respect to sharing best practice information nationally [note 12] and inconsistent sharing of best practice information among SPOs. Some SPO and CIC key informants noted that enhanced opportunities to share best practices, volunteer training materials and resources would improve capacity.

Some stakeholders and CIC key informants reported that better communication is needed between the local, regional and national CIC levels; they cited the need for the implementation of a formal communications strategy.

4.7 Some Data Inconsistencies and Inadequacies

CIC key informants generally indicated that reporting was appropriate and adequate with respect to monitoring finances and activities, although some cited the need for better tracking of outcomes-based information. SPO key informants reported duplication of efforts as they submit reports to the local and regional CIC and to iCAMS.

The majority of SPO survey respondents felt that the support and tools for collecting and reporting program data (such as iCAMS) are generally in place—66 percent of respondents said they are adequate or more than adequate. However, a sizeable minority (34 percent) indicated that the tools are not adequate.

With respect to outcomes-related information, many SPOs and CIC key informants report that they conduct follow-up client surveys of a small proportion of Host clients on a regular basis—usually at three and six months. However, this practice is not consistent across all regions and SPOs.

A key reporting issue is the lack of accessible information about clients accessing Host. While SPOs submit monthly or quarterly reports to the local CICs, this information is not sufficiently rolled up and disseminated to the regional and national CIC levels. SPOs are currently entering information into a national database (iCAMS). The system is still in the development stages and data from this system is presently not available. It is anticipated that this database will provide CIC with more information about clients accessing Host. For example, iCAMS should be able to tell CIC what proportion of all newcomers access Host; what clients look like in terms of their gender, age, country of origin, mother tongue, education, family composition, etc.; waiting times; and other types of information.

Although other databases exist with outcome-related information (e.g., the Immigrant Database and Longitudinal Survey on Immigrants in Canada), they currently do not have information tied to whether Host services were accessed and would therefore only provide general, contextual information at this point.

____________

9. Volunteer management includes activities related to recruitment, screening, training, placement and supervision of volunteers.

10. Some SPO key informants noted that $200 is allocated annually to each staff member for professional development.

11. These key informants noted that the typical client tended to have higher needs such as basic life skills and other health–care requirements.

12. The first National Host conference was held in February 2005.

<< contents | previous | next >>