National Initiatives

National Settlement Conference
(Kingston - June 18-20, 2001)

The Voluntary Sector Accord: Comments from the settlement sector perspective

Timothy Owen
Director, World Education Services
towen@wes.org

Thank you for letting me share with you some thoughts on the Draft Accord, and how it could apply between the government of Canada and the settlement sector.

As you have just heard, I have been fortunate enough to have spent virtually all my working life (25 years this fall) in the voluntary sector, or as it is more usually called by us, the non government, or not for profit sector. I've done this as staff and board member of several agencies over this time.

Aside from the frustration of trying to explain to my friends and family exactly what an NGO is, or what the acronyms that define my work life represent (my mother always complained she could never tell her friends what exactly it was that I did), this has been incredibly rewarding. I have found that, almost without exception, the people I have worked with in the NGO sector, and in government, have been committed individuals, people who believe in what they doing, and the benefits that this work has for the communities we serve, and who have a genuine desire to help. This has been particularly true in settlement, where the clients we serve are clients both of the chief funder, CIC, and of the NGO's. The commitment we have to the process of facilitating the settlement experience for immigrants and refugees has more often drawn us together than apart. This conference is a good example.

As I think back and look ahead, I realize that many of the people who were first around in the design and delivery of settlement programs are still here, but starting to leave positions of leadership, some retiring, and that a new group (dare I say generation) of people, both within government and the sector are moving into these positions. This is of course good, but as the sector is still relatively new, its standards of practice, philosophy, mission and values, what we do, and how we relate, have evolved in an ad hoc rather than systematic fashion, and have not been institutionalized. The opportunity that the voluntary sector initiative gives us is timely; we can define ourselves, and our mutual relationships, and do so within the much broader context of the relationship between the entire voluntary sector and the government, with the chance to learn from the rich history of this sector in Canada.

Some first questions:

I have thought often about how we could define and enhance our relationships, and I know there are some core questions we need to address. They revolve around issues such as

• the respective roles and responsibilities that govt and NGO's play in our community,
• our missions,
• our respective strengths, limitations and our resources
• our accountabilities and how we manage them (of course, we both end up being accountable to the people of Canada, who are our clients and who are the taxpayers who fund us);
• what has worked best so far in our relationship, and what we still need to work on; and
• what are the key elements in what we call "partnership", and do how do we reconcile the idea of partnership in what is effectively a dependency relationship?

The Draft Accord: what does it say?

When I read the draft accord, I was encouraged to see that these issues had been clearly addressed, and that the Accord was meant to handle them.

The Draft Accord between the government of Canada and the voluntary sector (and I'll quote some sections I thought were important) is intended to describe:

• What is in common between government and the voluntary sector, what is different
• How we work together, what we do together
• The commitments we make to each other and to Canadians

Further, it is intended to:

• "Provide a framework which will enhance existing relationships, and foster the development of others. ...<and> encourage and facilitate cooperative and collaborative behaviour".

And it is based on principles that include:

• social justice, inclusiveness, democracy
• the recognition of the independence as well as interdependence of govt and NGOs; and the separate accountabilities that each has 
• the right of the sector to challenge government policies, without this affecting funding relationships
• the need to engage in open, respectful and sustained dialogue, recognizing that such dialogue contributes to improved public policy
• respect for what each others bring to the relationship and the recognition of the constraints each faces
• the need for mutual trust, and transparency in operations
• the acknowledgement that each needs to use and build on standards of best practice to ensure appropriate accountability and transparency, and public trust

These are wonderful principles, and this is the right language. As they turn into commitments and action, they can really renew our relationship; but they are ambitious, and we will all need to work hard to find ways to achieve them, particularly at the local level.

Issues, implications, and hopes for the settlement sector

So, what does all this mean to the settlement sector? I'd like to comment on a number of issues which I think relate to understanding who we are and how we operate.When we start to clarify what our distinct roles are in assisting immigrants, we have to focus on our missions, for these are what we are going to be accountable for to our stakeholders, and what define us. We need to understand and respect each other's missions, and be clear about how we fulfil them. We have to define what we mean by settlement, and how we measure success? After all these years, we haven't yet come to full agreement on these critical issues, and we still are developing commonly understood terminology. In this regard, it might be worth reviewing the experience of the settlement renewal process, which provides valuable information both in the processes it used, as well as what it says about the elements of settlement.

When we define the elements of our relationships (what we do together, how we work together, sometimes as partners, sometimes not), we face challenges that arise from inherent conflicts, and power imbalances that exist, and these are not just about funding.

CIC's role is two fold: not only does it have the responsibility for the initial settlement of newcomers, but because it manages the selection, and the status of immigrants for Canada, it has an enforcement mandate. It has the ultimate power over the clients that agencies serve, and on whose behalf agency staff advocate. This causes tension, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but for which we have to find some resolution.

The role of advocacy in the settlement sector can mean many things, so it too needs to be defined, and clarified, and a place for it has to be found within the relationship with government. The ability to advocate on behalf of clients is core to many agencies' mission, and if this conflicts with other parts of the relationship/contracts with government, then we may need to recognize that, and create a separate space for it in our relationship, so that it these conflicts do not affect other parts of the relationship. A place where the views of small agencies can be expressed without fear, and where their views can heard by those with power. Perhaps through national or regional umbrella groups such as CCR and OCASI.

The fact that immigrants and refugees are clients both of CIC and agencies also means that the issue of client confidentiality is central to the relationship. Managing this issue is critical to establishing common approaches to service accountability, in establishing service standards and codes of ethics, and in measuring service success. It might be the most important issue we address.

Because we share clients, we need to work together in setting program priorities, and in discussing and proposing policies that affect our clients. We can do this, even as we recognize the reality of the power imbalance between us. Governments have the responsibility to set policy, and NGO's have the right to challenge it. We bring complementary knowledge and skills to the process. Open and respectful dialogue, an indicator of any successful relationship, will facilitate joint action in this area.

Much of the relationship between government and NGO's is defined by contracts for the delivery of service, which do not always speak the language of partnership. It is important that we include, in these contractual agreements, language which reflects the values, principles, and commitments outlined in the draft accord. Contribution agreements, and short term project grants, focus on service deliverables, and reporting requirements. Do these types of contracts lend themselves to the type of partnership described in the accord, or do we need to look at something different? One of the supplementary reports to the 1999 Report of Joint Tables on the Voluntary Sector Initiative described well the limitations of contribution agreements, with their heavy emphasis (and resulting costs to both government and agencies) on administration, and the inherent instability of financial resources that agencies rely on. The Alternative Service Delivery Project of the Canada West Foundation published a research bulletin in 1999 titled "Strings Attached: Non profits and Their Funding Relationships with Government". It provides a very useful perspective on these issues. There is also the risk that this model of funding may lead to an erosion of organizations' missions, as they follow funding to bid on government priorities.

Questions to consider as we move forward

We all believe, I hope, that the goals of the accord are worthwhile, and so we need to commit the time and resources required to develop it and make it work.

The outline of an accord has already been sketched out. We should ask a few more questions as we move ahead:

• How do the values, principles and commitments of the accord get incorporated into contractual agreements?
• How do these values, principles and commitments get communicated, interpreted, and implemented consistently at all levels of government and agencies?
• What kind of mechanisms do we need to create to monitor, review, and revise the accord? How will we know if it has been successful? How will we resolve disputes?
• As we develop definitions of settlement, standards of service, and standards of governance and accountability, how and by whom are these maintained and reviewed? Do we need to professionalize the sector so that it can "regulate" itself? Should settlement become a profession like social work?
• How we develop a place for open dialogue in which participants and agencies feel free to express themselves?
• Would communication, understanding, trust and respect be enhanced through staff exchanges and secondments? Joint training exercises? It is critical to be able to have opportunities to work together outside of contract management and its inherent conflicts.
• How does the role that other government departments play in the settlement sector (HRDC, Heritage, Health, etc.), and their accords get reconciled with this accord.

All relationships depend to a high degree on mutual respect, trust and communication. The draft accord recognizes this, and the success of an accord within the settlement sector will require it. The past 25 years have seen a strong evolution in the skills and knowledge of practitioners and policy makers, and in the many relationships they work within. If we can distil the best of these, and ensure they become established in an accord, we will have left a strong legacy for the future.