Evaluation of HOST

1.0  Introduction

1.1 Context for the Evaluation

CIC’s mission is to build a stronger Canada by:

  • Enabling the migration of temporary and permanent residents to meet the social, economic and cultural needs of communities across Canada;
  • Contributing to the management of international migration, including refugee protection;
  • Screening newcomers to help protect the health, safety and security of Canadians;
  • Supporting the successful integration of newcomers; and
  • Promoting Canadian citizenship.

In supporting the successful integration of newcomers, CIC funds and administers three settlement programs (targeted to immigrants and refugees), and one resettlement program (solely targeted to refugees). These programs and their objectives are:

  • Host Program – The Host program helps immigrants overcome the stress of moving to a new country. Volunteers familiar with Canadian ways help newcomers learn about available services and how to use them, practice English and French, get contacts in their field of work and participate in the community. At the same time, host Canadians learn about new cultures, other lands and different languages and they make new friends and strengthen community life.
  • Immigrant Settlement and Adaptation Program (ISAP) – ISAP assists immigrant settlement and integration through funding to service providers that will enable them to deliver direct services to immigrants such as reception, orientation, translation, interpretation, referral to community resources, solution-focused counseling, general information and employment-related services. ISAP’s funding to service providers also enables them to provide indirect services that aim to improve the delivery of settlement services through workshops, research projects, staff training programs, etc.
  • Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) – LINC facilitates the social, cultural and economic integration of immigrants and refugees into Canada. In addition, the LINC curriculum includes information that helps to orient newcomers to the Canadian way of life. This, in turn, helps them to become participating members of Canadian society as soon as possible. Other components of LINC are the indirect services provided through LINC Delivery Assistance that aim to improve the delivery of the program—including curriculum development, workshops, and the development of tools for program delivery.
  • Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP) – RAP has two main components of program delivery: 1) income support to government-assisted refugees (GARs) for up to 12 months—administered and delivered by CIC; and 2) services to GARs in the first four to six weeks including reception at the port of entry, temporary accommodation, orientation and information, assistance finding permanent accommodation and applying for mandatory government programs, assessment and referrals. These services are delivered by service provider organizations.

Actual spending for the 2003-04 fiscal year for the four programs was as follows [note 1]:

  • $2.9M for Host Program;
  • $36.7M for Immigrant Settlement and Adaptation Program (ISAP);
  • $92.7M for Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC); and
  • $40.4M for Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP).

CIC directly manages these settlement programs through its national headquarters and regional offices in seven provinces and the territories. Funding is provided to service provider organizations (SPOs) who deliver the services at the community level. In Quebec—under the Canada-Quebec Accord of 1991—and in Manitoba and British Columbia—under the Immigration Agreements—the provincial governments receive transfer payments from CIC to manage and deliver comparable settlement programming. Resettlement programming is administered by CIC and delivered in SPOs in all provinces, except Quebec.

1.2 Host Program Description [note 2]

The Host program is a volunteer-based matching program. The first major activity for the service providers is the identification, orientation, screening and assessing of potential host volunteers. All hosts are required to participate in an orientation session, either before or after they make a formal application to be a host. During the orientation, potential hosts are provided with orientation material on the program, including information on the nature of the program and the expectations of the host. Then the potential hosts are screened for their suitability to be a host, their interests are identified and a reference check is carried out.

Service provider organizations (SPOs) support the clients and hosts through visits, telephone calls and newsletters. Host volunteers are provided with specific training to better equip them with helping newcomers, including information on the challenges of the settlement process, issues of cultural sensitivity, assisting with conflict resolution, advice on how to do things with, rather than for, newcomers, and how to address newcomers’ issues. This training may be provided formally, through workshops, or more informally through regular contact with the service providers.

When potential clients approach a service provider to participate in the program, the clients are also asked to complete an application form and an interview with a service provider representative. They are screened for eligibility and a reference check is conducted where possible. Clients are then briefed as to the nature of the program and what is expected of them, and what the client should expect of their host.

Once the selection and screening processes are complete, the service provider matches newcomers with hosts, and the hosts and newcomers jointly determine what activities they will participate in. The nature of the matches and the range of activities being carried out under the Host program are quite varied, although service providers emphasize non-employment-related activities. In some cases, the match may be for a short-term, specific purpose—such as orienting a newcomer to a service or teaching a specific skill. In other cases, probably in the majority of cases, the matches are longer-term and may involve a range of social activities (e.g., meeting for coffee, receiving the newcomers in the host volunteer’s home, participating in community events together, language tutoring and assisting the newcomers with settlement tasks).

Not all matches are one-on-one (either individuals or families). Increasingly, the Host program involves matches of groups of newcomers with one or more volunteers to participate, for example, in conversation circles or homework clubs.

1.3 Scope and Objectives of the Evaluation

This evaluation is part of the implementation of the evaluation component of the Contribution Accountability Framework (CAF) for Settlement and Resettlement Programs. To date, the RAP and LINC evaluations have been completed. The objective of the current assignment is to carry out the evaluation of the Host Program. A separate evaluation of the Immigrant Settlement and Adaptation Program was undertaken at the same time to minimize the burden on potential respondents.

The Host evaluation focused exclusively on services managed directly by CIC. The agreements signed between the federal government and some provinces—Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia—for the delivery of settlement services were not included.

The objective of the Host Program evaluation was to provide evidence to answer questions related to four main evaluation issues:

  • Program Rationale – To what extent does the program remain relevant to the priorities of the Government of Canada and to the needs of newcomers?
  • Program Delivery – Are the design and delivery of the program appropriate?
  • Effectiveness and Efficiency – To what extent does the program use the most appropriate, efficient and cost-effective methods to meet its objectives?
  • Success – To what extent has the program been successful in achieving its desired outcomes?

1.4 Methodology Overview and Caveats

A more detailed presentation of the methodology can be found in Appendix A and collection instruments are available under separate cover. The data collection for this evaluation spanned about six weeks, from July 19 to August 31, 2004. Over this time period, GGI conducted the following:

  • A data and document review – GGI reviewed available reports, websites and data reports generated from the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada (LSICs) and the Immigrant Database (IMDB);
  • 18 key informant interviews with Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) representatives – GGI conducted interviews with six individuals at headquarters and 12 individuals at the regional or local level of CIC;
  • Nine (9) key informant interviews with Service Provider Organization (SPO) representatives – These service providers were invited to participate in an interview that probed more deeply into issues of program relevance, design, overall success and alternatives;
  • Two (2) key informant interviews with stakeholders – Stakeholders were considered representatives from umbrella organizations representing the agencies that provide services to newcomers. They were asked to comment on the overall relevance, design, success and alternatives to the program;
  • Five (5) focus groups with 51 Host clients were held in Halifax (n=1), Toronto (n=2), Ottawa (n=1) and Calgary (n=1) – The group in Ottawa was conducted in French. One of the groups in Toronto was held with youth participants. Up to two service-provider organizations in each city were asked to recruit the participants. Participants represented a range of demographic characteristics, ethnic backgrounds and languages. Up to 10 participants were recruited for each group and participants were paid an honorarium of $50—youth participants received a $20 gift certificate for pizza.
  • Four (4) focus groups with 46 Host volunteers were held in Halifax (n=1), Toronto (n=1), Ottawa (n=1), and Calgary (n=1) – The group in Ottawa was conducted in French. As for the client focus groups, up to two service-provider organizations in each city were asked to recruit the participants. Up to 10 participants were recruited for each group and participants were paid an honorarium of $50.
  • A telephone survey of 29 service provider organizations delivering Host (representing a response rate of 88%) – All service providers that received Host Program funding in the 2004/05 fiscal year were first contacted with a letter and subsequently called and invited to participate in a telephone interview. Participants were offered the choice to complete the survey in either official language. All potential respondents were called up to five times before being considered a non-response. Interviews lasted, on average, between 20 and 30 minutes; and
  • Two innovative practice case studies of Conversation Circles and Business Mentoring – Case studies explored the factors that make the project/case study an innovative practice and how it might be applicable in a wider context and in different jurisdictions. For each case study, GGI conducted up to two interviews and a document review—where available.

The names of key informants and focus group details are presented in Appendix B. Findings for the innovative practice case studies are available in Appendix C and are interwoven throughout the report, as appropriate.

The findings in this report should be interpreted with the following in mind:

  • No data was made available to the consultant—to support or explain findings suggested by key informants or the survey respondents—with respect to the number of newcomers accessing programs, what kinds of newcomers access programs, what programs are accessed most often and for how long [note 3]. This seriously limits the extent to which the evaluation can draw conclusions and make recommendations since most of the findings are opinion-based and not placed in the context of actual service delivery figures.
  • Findings related to the outcomes of clients are limited to those gleaned from focus groups. As well, service providers were asked their opinions as to client outcomes. The evaluation design did not include a survey of clients due to funding and time constraints. Thus, while findings related to outcomes are reported, it is unclear the extent to which they are representative of the Host client base.
  • While a telephone survey response rate of 88% is considered quite good, it likely could have been improved if the evaluation had taken place at some time other than during the summer.
  • Any evaluation of one of CIC’s national settlement programs must acknowledge the different roles of headquarters and the regions in the delivery of the programs. Since the evaluation was national in scope and did not include evaluation issues/questions pertaining to how regions allocate their funds, how regions and local offices interact with service providers, or how regions makes decisions regarding the delivery of their programs, recommendations for the national evaluation will not address these matters.

1.5 Organization of the Report

Rather than a traditional evaluation report that would be organized around the main evaluation issues, we have chosen to take a more strategic approach. This approach presents the evaluation results by theme, or main finding. It is the expectation that not only will this approach offer a more concise and direct report, but that the themes will better lend themselves to decision-making for the program. As well, it is believed that a presentation by main theme will make the transition to the recommendations smoother. The themes of this report include:

  • Appropriateness of the Current Delivery Model;
  • Overall Success of the Program; and
  • Adequacy of Capacity and Service Gaps.

To ensure comprehensive coverage of the evaluation issues, however, Section 5 presents a Summary of Findings by Evaluation Issue. This section is organized around the traditional four evaluation issues. Challenges are presented in Section 6 and Recommendations are presented in Section 7. Should the reader wish to view the evaluation issues and questions, they are presented in Appendix D.

____________

1. From CIC Departmental Performance Report (DPR) for the period ending March 31, 2004.

2. Real World Systems Settlement Evaluation Framework, May 3, 2004.

3. CIC has been collecting data through the Immigrant Contribution Accountability Measurement System (iCAMS) since January, 2004. However, the data was not in an accessible format at the time of the evaluation.

<< contents | previous | next >>