Evaluation of HOST

2.0  Appropriateness of Delivery

Summary of Findings:

There is an identified need for continuing Government of Canada involvement in the funding and support of settlement programming; the Government of Canada was reported as playing a critical role in maintaining consistent and appropriate immigration priorities. In addition, Host is considered a highly relevant program that meets the needs and expectations of newcomers to a significant extent. Ongoing federal government support is viewed as critical to Host.

Local community-based service delivery was generally considered to be the most appropriate delivery mechanism as these organizations are client focused because they have access to community support, a volunteer network, and are well-positioned to respond to local needs. Therefore, the current model of settlement service delivery is most appropriate.

2.1 Ongoing Role for the Government of Canada

The evaluation found that there is a continuing need for ongoing federal involvement in the funding and support of settlement programming; all lines of inquiry support this statement. Many key informants noted that the federal government must continue to play a leadership role for the following reasons: 1) To maintain consistency and appropriate immigration priorities; 2) To help encourage and promote Canadian values and identity; and 3) To ensure comparable services across the country. Eighty-six (86) percent of survey respondents agree that there is an ongoing role for the federal government—only three (3) percent express the opinion that the federal government had no ongoing role. All survey respondents agreed that, without federal government support, service providers would not have the capacity to meet the needs of newcomers.

Effective partnerships with provincial governments were generally viewed as an important ingredient for improving access to services (e.g., training, education and social services) and for enhancing services and programs for newcomers. However, some key informants noted challenges in improving linkages with the provincial/territorial government (e.g., insufficient resources at the provincial/territorial level, varying degrees of commitment to immigration priorities). However, CIC and SPO key informants in Alberta noted that the federal/provincial partnership—ISP–Integrated Services Program—was effective.

Relevance of Host

All lines of inquiry support that Host is a program of considerable merit that meets clients’ needs and expectations to a significant extent. Host focus group clients related that Host was important to them because it provided social support; expanded their social networks; improved language and communication skills; and increased access to public and community services. Without Host funding, SPO key informants reported that they would be forced to reduce or cut programming. Host clients reported that, without Host, their stress and emotional suffering would have increased and the length of time to adjust would increase.

2.2 Criteria are Appropriate

Overall there was agreement among key informants that the current services address key success factors of settlement and immigration. Seventy-three (73) percent of survey respondents agree that the overall suite of settlement and resettlement services is appropriate given the needs of newcomers, with 14 percent disagreeing. With respect to Host, the majority of survey respondents, 57 percent, agree that the criteria to access services under this program are appropriate, while 21 percent disagree.

Many key informants reported that Host program priorities are appropriate given the level of resources allocated to this program. According to interview data, priorities are laid out in contribution agreements with SPOs and can differ by SPO within the same community or region. While variations exist, government-assisted refugees (GARs) and other refugees are generally identified as high needs clients and are served on a priority basis. Key informants, in every region, point out that resource constraints result in prioritization and that many SPOs put the emphasis on serving refugees, particularly GARs. In addition, the majority of key informants reported that there are insufficient resources for outreach and promotion of Host. According to interview and focus group data, many Host clients are reached through linkages with RAP and ISAP programs. Where ISAP services are targeted to refugees, the reach of Host may be more limited to this client group as well.

There are mixed views expressed by SPO key informants as to the appropriateness of linking Host more directly to RAP clients—GARs. Some felt that Host was the most suitable program to support GARs’ integration and adjustment, as they tend to require considerable one-on-one time to help them adjust. Others indicated that Host should have a broader reach to include other immigrants.

Some refugees have special needs that may not always be met through the Host program. These include basic life skills and mental health-care needs. SPO key informants indicated that enhanced support is needed for Host Coordinators and volunteers to meet the needs of refugees. While these needs may have to be more fully addressed through other types of programming, some view Host as an appropriate support for these client groups.

There are instances where Host service providers are already trying to address these needs, sometimes through their leveraging and networking capacity. For example, the Calgary Catholic Immigration Society has developed a Host program for refugee survivors of torture [note 4]. In Ontario, a Host project is being piloted to provide additional support and follow-up to GARs after they leave the reception house.

There are also other instances where Host has been used to address the employment needs of other immigrants. For example, some SPOs in the Prairie and Northern Territories (PNT) region also match clients based on profession. A business mentoring Host model was implemented in the Atlantic region in 1999. The pilot illustrated potential, but was discontinued in 2001 largely due to lack of resources (see case study located in Appendix C of this report).

2.3 Making the Case for Community-Based Services

All key informants cite community-based services as the most efficient and effective mechanism for service delivery because it is responsive to local needs. In addition, community-based service providers have developed a broad base of community support, including access to an established volunteer network.

The majority of key informants agreed that service providers are effective and efficient. The evaluation found the following with respect to effectiveness and efficiency of service providers:

• The majority of SPO key informants report that client feedback regarding Host, both formal and informal, is very positive;
• Many SPOs report good community linkages and support and access to a strong volunteer base;
• The Host program relies primarily on volunteers for program delivery;
• Both CIC and SPO key informants argue that the present mechanism for program delivery is less costly than direct federal government delivery;
• Survey results show that the majority of service providers report that they utilize a variety of management practices, guidelines, plans and protocols and that they are very effective. These include: a plan to outreach to newcomers, effective protocols for dealing with high risk situations, effective guidelines regarding confidentiality, effective human resource management processes; and
• Using leveraging of resources as a measure of cost effectiveness, the majority of survey respondents report that they receive in-kind or other financial contributions (83 percent) that contribute to the delivery of Host.

2.3.1 Suggestions for Improvement

While there was overall agreement concerning the appropriateness of the service delivery model, suggestions for improvement include:

• Increased strengthening of provincial/territorial and federal partnerships to build on the idea of a one-stop-shop and to enhance access to employment and social services; and
• Expansion of Host to increase reach—expand outreach to include more immigrants and implement more group-oriented Host sessions such as conversation circles.

2.4 Level of Flexibility is Appropriate

Most key informants indicated that there was an appropriate balance between flexibility and consistency. The majority of survey respondents (76 percent) felt that there was an appropriate level of flexibility to some extent or greater. A regional analysis of survey results revealed that the majority of survey respondents in all three regions agreed that the program provided adequate flexibility. All Western SPO survey respondents (100 percent), 88 percent of Atlantic SPO respondents, and 60 percent of Ontario SPO survey respondents agreed that the level of flexibility was appropriate to some extent or greater.

Many CIC and SPO key informants noted that the flexibility of the Host program was a key strength. Flexibility was a noted strength with respect to different Host delivery models. For example, some SPOs focused on matching individuals while other SPOs provided a combination of individual and group matching. Alternative Host delivery models include conversation circles, youth matches, professional matches [note 5], and models that address GAR or refugee needs, such as the aforementioned Host program for refugee survivors of torture.

However, some CIC and SPO key informants noted that more consistency is needed with respect to training and information resources available to volunteers [note 6]. Many SPO key informants noted that consistency could be enhanced through the increased sharing of information and resources.

2.5 Host Complements and Supports other Immigration Programs

There was general agreement that Host is a unique program that complements and supports other settlement and resettlement programs. Because of its potential to reinforce and support other settlement programs, key informants state that it is critical to maintain or strengthen linkages between Host and ISAP, RAP, and LINC.

The majority of survey respondents report that services offered through Host are complementary with other settlement/resettlement programs. Sixty-eight (68) percent of survey respondents agree that there is no duplication among the settlement/resettlement programs, with 14 percent disagreeing. Fifty-five (55) percent of survey respondents agree that there is coordination between the settlement/resettlement programs, with 14 percent disagreeing.

A regional analysis shows that Prairie and Northern Territories and Atlantic respondents are less likely to agree that there is duplication of services. It should also be noted that Atlantic and PNT key informants stated that the one-stop-shop concept was more common in these regions. Key informants also noted that in larger cities, such as Toronto, with complicated delivery networks, the one–stop-shop concept is more difficult to implement. However, the Ontario region has recently piloted and introduced Newcomer Information Centres (NIC). These centres offer referrals to agencies and organizations serving immigrants, and self-directed resource centres. Moreover, through these centres, newcomers have access to a wide range of services to address their settlement needs.

While duplication of efforts is not considered an issue, some key informants noted that strategies to minimize duplication include SPOs developing their own areas of expertise and then ensuring an appropriate referral system is in place. Other SPOs have partnered (e.g., co-located) in an effort to enhance coordination of services.

According to the survey (see Exhibit 2.1), the large majority of SPOs believe clients perceive seamless delivery—less than 10% of SPOs feel delivery is not seamless.

____________

4. Ramaliu, A. and Thurston, W. Identifying Best Practices of Community Participation in Providing Services to Refugee Survivors of Torture: A Case Description. Journal of Immigrant Health 5 (4): 165-172, October 2003.

5. Some key informants noted that some Host programs attempt to match volunteers and newcomers based on their professions.

6. Identified gaps and inconsistencies are outlined in Section 4 of this report.

<< contents | previous | next >>