Evaluation of HOST

5.0  Summary of Findings by Evaluation Issue

1. Program Rationale: To what extent does the program remain relevant to the priorities of the Government of Canada and to the needs of newcomers?

• 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 felt that the Government of Canada 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 address secondary migration issues. Eighty-six (86) percent of survey respondents agree that there is an ongoing role for the federal government.
• With respect to the 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 relate that Host was important because it provides social support; expands their social networks; improves language and communication skills (see Conversation Circle Case Study located in Appendix C); and increases access to public and community services. Without Host funding, SPO key informants report 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. All survey respondents agreed that, without Government of Canada support, newcomer-serving organizations would not have the capacity to meet the needs of newcomers.
• Some key informants and focus group participants indicated that newcomers were not adequately prepared for the settlement experience prior to coming to Canada in that they had unrealistic expectations particularly with respect to employment. Some focus group clients stated that they were not aware—prior to coming to Canada—of how difficult it would be to find employment and accommodation. A common theme that emerged from interview and focus group data related to lack of employment. Key informants and focus group participants cited the need for more information with respect to: recognition of professional credentials; information about Canada (e.g., provincial and regional differences); and realistic job opportunities. With respect to the impact on Host, focus group clients reported high levels of satisfaction and significant benefits from Host, regardless of the problems faced when arriving in Canada. Focus group clients expressed high satisfaction with Host because the program was critical in providing them with social support and friendship. Some SPO key informants stated that while unrealistic expectations have some negative impacts on Host, these were not considered significant.
• 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 agreed that the overall suite of settlement and resettlement services is appropriate given the needs of newcomers, with 14 percent disagreeing. With respect to Host, 57 percent of survey respondents agree that the criteria to access services under this program are appropriate, while 21 percent disagree. 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 do exist, government-assisted refugees (GARs) and other refugees are generally identified as high needs clients and are served on a priority basis. Many key informants indicated that these priorities were appropriate given resource constraints. 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 great 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.
• GARs and refugees may have needs that cannot be met by Host; these needs include life skills and mental health needs. Many key informants state that Host service providers lack the resources to support high needs clients. Host coordinators need additional resources for volunteer management and professional development. Volunteers also require additional support and training. Different Host delivery models have been piloted or developed that are designed to address the needs of different client groups. For example, the Calgary Catholic Immigration Society has developed a Host program for refugee survivors of torture [note 13]. 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 support other client groups. For example, some SPOs in the PNT region also match clients based on profession. A business mentoring Host model was piloted in the Atlantic region. The pilot illustrated potential, but was discontinued largely due to lack of resources (see Business Mentoring case study located in Appendix C of this report).
• There was general agreement that Host is a unique program that complements and supports other settlement and resettlement programs. There are no reported areas of duplication between programs. The majority of survey respondents reported 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 with this statement. According to the survey, the large majority of SPOs believe clients perceive seamless delivery—less than 10% of SPOs feel delivery is not seamless.

2. Program Delivery: Are the design and delivery of the program appropriate?

• According to the great majority of key informants, Host program objectives and roles and responsibilities are clear. Some key informants described the program objectives as broad and providing adequate flexibility for program delivery.
• The majority of CIC key informants report that the selection process is appropriate because it limits selection to experienced immigrant-serving organizations with extensive community networks. The majority of SPO key informants indicated that the project selection criteria are clear and that there is adequate awareness of the selection process among local community organizations. Survey results indicate that 70 percent of survey respondents have been delivering settlement services for more than 15 years. Only six (6) percent of survey respondents report that they have been delivering settlement services for fewer than five (5) years.
• Most promotional activities are conducted by SPOs. However, CIC has recently developed and disseminated national brochures, posters and videos. Many key informants view this as a positive step towards a national branding of Host. Interview data revealed that there is a lack of awareness of Host among mainstream organizations and the general public, particularly in larger urban centres. Survey data revealed that the majority of SPOs reported using a variety of mechanisms for promotion such as the 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 community.
• 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 Host Coordinators and volunteers.
• Overall, the great majority of key informants, both CIC and SPOs, felt that SPOs did not have sufficient capacity to deliver Host services. Resources were reported to be insufficient for: outreach and promotion; volunteer management; reporting; and supports for Host coordinators and volunteers. Interview data was strongly supported by survey findings which found that almost half of survey respondents (45 percent) reported not having adequate funding to meet the requirements of the contribution agreement. Only 24 percent of survey respondents agreed that their funding was adequate to meet the requirements of the contribution agreement. Furthermore, 59 percent of survey respondents reported that Host funding was not adequate to achieve the expected outcomes with only 21 percent agreeing that funding was adequate in this respect.
• Most key informants thought the balance was appropriate because there was enough flexibility to meet regional and local needs. Seventy-six (76) percent of survey respondents felt that there was an appropriate level of flexibility to some extent or greater.
• Overall, CIC key informants cited financial controls as adequate. All SPOs provide monthly or quarterly financial reports to CIC. Eighty-three (83) percent of survey respondents reported preparing audits on a regular basis. The majority of respondents, 92 percent, reported that these audits are very effective. Some CIC key informants expressed the following challenges: building capacity of CIC program officers with respect to financial monitoring; and tracking costs of different programs within the SPO, where the SPO provides more than one settlement program.
• CIC monitors SPOs through monthly or quarterly reports. Some SPOs submit narrative reports as well. CIC key informants stated that they conduct regular site visits. The frequency of the site visits depends on the assessed risk level of the SPO. Ninety-seven (97) percent of SPOs report that they evaluate Host services and measure client satisfaction of services. The majority of SPO key informants also reported that they enter information into their own databases. Sixty-eight (68) percent of survey respondents reported that tools and support to collect and report program data were adequate, with 35 percent reporting that they were not adequate. SPO key informants noted that iCAMS is currently causing duplication of effort.

3. Effectiveness and Efficiency: To what extent does the program use the most appropriate, efficient and cost-effective methods to meet its objectives?

• The great majority of key informants agreed that SPOs are effective and efficient. The evaluation found the following with respect to effectiveness and efficiency of service providers:
  • SPOs 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;
  • 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 great majority of service providers reported 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, and effective human resource management processes, etc.
  • 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.
• The majority of CIC and SPO key informants report that local community-based organizations are best positioned to deliver immigration services that will effectively address local needs.

4. Success: To what extent has the program been successful in achieving its desired outcomes?

• There is overall agreement that Host has positive impacts for those who access it. The evaluation found high levels of client satisfaction with the Host program. Host is considered effective in meeting newcomer needs to a significant extent. All lines of evidence strongly support significant positive impacts of the Host program most notably with respect to providing social support/friendship and expanding newcomers’ social networks. Some focus group clients indicated that Host did not meet their expectations with respect to employment although they were highly satisfied with other aspects of the program—source of social support. Some focus group participants noted that the quality of the match/volunteer was related to their level of satisfaction.
• With respect to achievement of immediate outcomes, the evaluation found that Host provides newcomers with social support and friendship and engages them in the social networks of Hosts. Impacts with respect to receiving informal guidance related to the newcomers’ goals and needs were also reported as significant. Moreover, Host was reported to have positive impacts on volunteers in that it improved the volunteers’ understanding of other cultures.
• Host was also considered to contribute to a number of intermediate results such as improved access to services, expansion of social networks, improved communication skills, and improved ability to achieve personal goals.
  • Focus group clients indicated that, to a great extent, Host helped improve their ability to access community resources and services. Clients also reported increased confidence in conducting daily activities (e.g., banking, shopping, using the transit system) as a result of Host activities. Focus group participants also cited numerous examples where access to health care and educational services was improved as a result of Host.
  • With respect to communication skills, many focus group clients/volunteers reported that Host provides clients with increased opportunities to practice their language skills, particularly for those who were involved in Host conversation circles.
  • Many focus group clients/volunteers reported that they met their personal goals particularly in areas of education and language improvement; less so with respect to employment.

____________

13. 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.

<< contents | previous | next >>