National Initiatives

National Settlement Conference 2
(Calgary - October 2-5, 2003)

Settlement Accord

Section Six:
The Settlement Sector and The Accord and Codes

This section briefly examines the challenges of applying the principles of the Accord and Codes to the settlement sector, and identifies discussion points.

There is no facility with which to address the questions that relate to the administration of settlement funds raised by this discussion in Manitoba, British Columbia and Quebec, as the Accord and Codes apply only to the relationship between the federal government and the voluntary sector. The discussion, however, does apply in these provinces when settlement agencies relate to other departments of the federal government.

The methodology section has already pointed out that limited timing and resources resulted in preliminary findings only, and this discussion should be read as such.

Principles of the Accord

Independence

Key informants from the sector mentioned this principle more than any other principle of the Accord.

CIC is by far the most significant source of financial support for the settlement sector. Although the voluntary sector in general receives funds from a wide variety of sources (various federal government departments, provincial governments, municipal governments, the United Way, community foundations), these funding agencies generally see the settlement of immigrants and refugees as primarily a federal government responsibility. As a result, the sector has had limited access to funds other than those from the federal government. To a significant extent, the sector is not independent of the federal government but is dependent on the government for survival. On the other hand, the settlement sector is independent of the government in that (as a member of the Working Group said) if federal government funding were removed, the settlement sector would continue to find a way to provide settlement services, albeit in a much different form.

In all provinces except Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia, immigrant settlement agencies relate directly with CIC. An arm’s-length relationship exists in Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia, where the provincial governments administer funds delivered by the federal government.

The dependence of settlement agencies on CIC funds, either direct or indirect, is a challenge. Given Shields’analysis, this would be expected because he believes that as the delivery of social services is increasingly transferred to the third sector, non-profit organizations become ever more controlled by the government’s extensive use of service contracts. They come to be treated merely as “convenient conduits for public services.” One issue in this context is the question of whether Code of Good Practice on Funding provides any redress to this imbalance.

One of the challenges is that there is no mechanism through which the sector can speak to government. There is no national body, and the regional bodies are inconsistent, ranging from dormant to very active.

According to key informants, the ability of community agencies to carry out the CIC-funded portion of their mandate depends upon how well the relationship between CIC and community-based agencies is managed. That is, it is the result of how well the individuals involved respect each other and are able to communicate with one another. Key informants from both sectors shared stories about how well this communication worked in some cases and how poorly it worked in others.

The independence of a settlement agency becomes very fragile when it depends upon the ability of two human beings to get along with each other. So the fact that the Government of Canada has agreed to the principle of independence in the Accord is important.

However this also poses dilemmas for both the federal government and the settlement sector. If the federal government needs the settlement sector to deliver services related to its responsibility for immigration, it has a strong interest in controlling the delivery of these services. How can the government maintain this interest and adhere to the principle of independence at the same time? On the other hand, what can a settlement agency do to address a situation where it believes that its independence is being jeopardized?

It is interesting that Quebec has taken a very different direction from that taken by the federal government. The Quebec Policy on Community Action explicitly recognizes the role of rights advocacy organizations and is refocusing funding to support these organizations. The Quebec government is, in effect, funding organizations to criticize it.

Discussion Points

• How can imbalances in the interdependence between government and the settlement sector be addressed?
• Do new mechanisms need to be developed (dispute resolution methods, regional or national bodies)?

Interdependence

The issues related to the interdependence of the two sectors are closely related to those of independence.

There is no question that the two sectors are interdependent. It is the nature of this interdependence that is of concern to the settlement agencies.

The power imbalance in this interdependence is clearly demonstrated by the effects experienced by the settlement sector as a result of funding cutbacks and imposed restructuring. Landing statistics suggest that cutbacks in recent years have affected all provinces except Ontario and Quebec. In addition, many provincial governments have also cut back on the funds provided to immigrant settlement agencies. The effect has been that many agencies have had to curtail their services and some of the smaller ones have had to shut their doors. Those that continue to function are operating under conditions of extreme stress due to a combination of overloaded services and limited funding.[12]

The restructuring of government funding further complicates the situation. Most government funders have shifted from core funding to program-specific funding, thus favouring larger agencies with more administrative resources and leaving the remaining settlement agencies with extremely limited resources for community education, needs assessment, program planning and advocacy.

The effect of cutbacks and imposed restructuring illustrates the point, made by Shields, about the control exerted over the voluntary sector by the government through contractual agreements. A more sustainable sector with a diverse funding base would not be subject to the same control.

Dialogue

There is universal agreement that dialogue between the two sectors is of prime importance. Given the issues raised above, full implementation of the Accord and Codes will require sustained dialogue.

However, before the government and settlement sector can begin, structures must be put in place to sustain the dialogue.

Roundtables or committees in some provinces bring the settlement sector together with the federal government and others at regular intervals to discuss topics of concern. Here are some examples:

• The BC/Yukon Advisory Committee brings together individuals including representatives of CIC, settlement agencies from each area of the province, legal services, refugees, admissions, labour, health, police, the City of Vancouver, business, and education. This committee meets quarterly and holds some form of annual gathering in each of the four geographic regions of the province. The provincial government is not represented. The purpose of this committee is to promote feedback between CIC and the sectors of the community that are involved with immigration-related and settlement issues.
• Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies (AMSSA) in British Columbia has an Immigrant Integration Coordinating Committee (IICC) with a strong regional base throughout the province. Information from regular regional meetings is fed to the IICC. Issues of concern are identified at the IICC and transmitted to government through AMSSA.
• Alberta’s round table includes representatives from CIC, Canadian Heritage, the provincial government, the City of Calgary, and all the settlement agencies. This group meets for two days twice a year. The agencies meet alone on the first day; all parties meet on the second day.
• Saskatchewan’s Regina and Region Community Advisory Committee meets four times a year. This committee consists of CIC, settlement agencies, Health, Metropolis, the provincial government, the police, the Regina Refugee Coalition and a newcomer representative. They have discussed holding a symposium for business.
• The provincially coordinated Manitoba Settlement Group meets four times a year. It includes representatives from CIC, the provincial government, and settlement agencies, plus the City of Winnipeg Race Relations Officer. The group meets to share information and solve problems.

Groups like these are important to sustained dialogue.

Time and resource constraints and the lack of availability of key players made it impossible for the Working Group to interview anyone from Ontario.

Discussion Points

• How can dialogue be sustained across the country?
• Is there a place for regional or national settlement bodies in this dialogue?

Cooperation and Collaboration

Dialogue builds cooperation and collaboration, and the round tables and committees described above are excellent venues for this.

In addition, many respondents believe that there is significant collaboration and cooperation at the local level despite constraints of the structure within which government departments function and the limited resources of settlement agencies.

The challenge to this collaborative and cooperative atmosphere arises when the rigidity of the bureaucracy and CIC’s fixed annual funding allocation prevent agencies from meeting the needs of newcomers or hinder the administration of the agency. Individuals from both CIC and the agency involved can be frustrated by this lack of flexibility.

A classic example of this was described often by key informants from both sectors: the situation that keeps contribution agreements from being signed until well after March 31, leaving agencies in limbo.

Some responses to such a situation make agencies appear to be responding aggressively; some in fact may be. Likewise, CIC employees can appear to be unwilling to assist the agency in guiding them to the appropriate person at the next level (manager, regional office) with whom they may discuss the situation. This too may be a reality.

To actualize the principle of cooperation and collaboration, it will be necessary to address the systemic issues inside government (such as developing budgets earlier in the year). It will also be important to develop mechanisms to address these issues when they become a matter of dispute.

Discussion Points (to facilitate cooperation and collaboration)

• What systemic issues need to be resolved?
• How can unresolved systemic issues be worked out?
• Should a dispute mechanism be developed?

Accounting to Canadians

The issue of accountability is a complex one. Everyone agrees that accountability is important in principle. However, there are questions about who defines the accountabilities, how they are measured, and who is to pay for the evaluation process. There is concern in the sector about how many resources are being put into accountability structures as defined by government, as opposed to those defined by the sector. None of the respondents went as far as Omidvar and Richmond,[13] who assert that imposing evaluation schemes on immigrantserving agencies as part of the new contractual terms of service are “nothing more than administrative mechanisms to maintain state control of third party (and third sector) service providers.” Chambon and Richmond (2001)

Respondents also commented that while it is easy for the federal government to demand accountability, it is almost impossible to hold federal government departments accountable. Some informants felt that there should be a dispute resolution mechanism or an ombudsman.

Discussion Points

• How can the settlement sector put its accountability issues on the agenda?
• How does the settlement sector hold government departments accountable?
• What mechanism should be developed to resolve disputes or complaints from either party?

Principles of the Code of Good Practice on Funding

Voluntary Sector’s Value

It can be argued that the settlement sector is on the margins of the voluntary sector. It holds a body of professional knowledge, but this is not well recognized. There remains the belief that anyone - particularly anybody from the same linguistic and ethno-cultural background - can help immigrants to settle. People from the same language background and family members are routinely asked to interpret, even though this violates the privacy rights of newcomers and shows a lack of understanding of the technical and ethical issues involved in interpretation. The lack of value placed on the professional and technical expertise required to do good settlement work contributes to the undervaluing of the settlement sector.

Some steps are being taken to address this issue. For example, the BC Settlement and Immigrant Worker Association (BCSIWA) has been created as a professional association for settlement workers.

Another factor behind the undervaluing of the settlement sector is the undervaluing of clients. Newcomers are subject to racism, systemic discrimination and undervaluation as members of the labour force. In fact, the settlement sector may be the only one in which the economic status of the client is actually declining as the skills and expertise of immigrants are consistently undervalued and underutilized.

The low value placed on the settlement sector is reflected in its pay scales, which are lower than elsewhere in the voluntary sector.

Discussion Point

• What can be done to increase the awareness of the value of the work of the settlement sector?

Strengthened Sustainable Capacity

Capacity building and sustainability are major issues for the settlement sector, particularly in smaller agencies.

As discussed above, the settlement sector depends to a large extent on the federal government, especially CIC. This is not only frustrating for the sector, it is also a challenge for federal government departments. One key informant from CIC said that they could not be “all things to all people.” CIC wants the settlement sector to diversify its funding base in order to be sustainable.

Some individuals in the settlement sector feel that it is the federal government’s responsibility to fully fund services to newcomers. Others believe that it is appropriate to look for innovative funding strategies.

In the Code, the voluntary sector commits to investing in organizational and human resource development and to developing a diversified funding base. In order to carry out this commitment, the settlement sector will need additional support, for developing strategic and financial plans and for implementing them. This will require a transition process over a number of years. It is interesting that in the Framework of Partnership between Government and the Black and Minority Ethnic Voluntary and Community Sector,[14] the United Kingdom government makes a commitment to“ consider the case for setting aside additional funds for BME organisations to build capacity, prepare and deliver projects.”

Discussion Points

• How can the settlement sector strengthen capacity and become more sustainable?
• What innovative funding strategies can be developed?
• What transitional assistance is needed?
• What role can the federal government play to assist this process?

Cooperation and Collaboration

The principle of cooperation and collaboration was first discussed in Section Three. However, under the principle of cooperation and collaboration in the Code of Good Practice on Funding, the government commits to “solicit and consider voluntary sector views on better ways to meet new or existing needs through funding programs.”

It has already been stated that no universal consultation mechanism exists for the settlement sector and that the process varies by province. So when the government carries through with this commitment, the question arises: To whom will it talk?

In order to have an effective dialogue with the government about funding, the sector needs to develop a mechanism through which the concerns of the sector can be solicited, synthesized, communicated, and negotiated. It should be a mechanism that allows the sector to respond when approached by government.

Discussion Point

• What mechanism can be used in discussions between the settlement sector and the federal government on funding issues?

Innovation

It can be argued that the settlement sector is one of the most innovative sections of the voluntary sector. Because the needs of newcomers, especially refugees, are often varied and diverse, agencies have to be able to change and adapt service delivery to emerging needs quickly and often.

On the other hand, the sector has not generally been very innovative in the area of funding. The need for innovation in the area of funding has been discussed above under “Strengthened Sustainable Capacity.”

Diversity and Equitable Access

There is a risk that this principle will be seen primarily as applying to the four equity groups (Aboriginal people, visible minorities, women, and people with disabilities). Although there are immigrant settlement agencies that serve visible minorities and women, the needs of the sector are not synonymous with those of either equity group.

An articulation of the equity needs of the settlement sector might be useful to the government so that they can pursue their commitment to “make an effort to provide equitable access to funded programs for organizations that may face greater challenges.”

Discussion Point

• How can the sector communicate the equity needs of the settlement sector to the federal government?

Accountability

Some of the elements of accountability have already been discussed in Section Three.

Under the Code of Good Practice on Funding, the settlement sector essentially agrees to engage in sound fiscal management and ethical fund raising. For its part, the government makes a commitment to use standards and procedures “flexible enough to accommodate a variety of approaches and the limited capacity of smaller organizations.” By resulting in financial accountability procedures that are more tailored to the size and sophistication of each settlement agency, this commitment will help small settlement agencies.

Transparency and Consistency

The commitments made under this principle by the federal government are essentially to harmonize funding processes across government and to make them more intelligible and realistic. The commitment of the sector is to be open and transparent and to cooperate with external reviews.

Efficiency and Effectiveness

The commitments made under these principles should be well received by the settlement sector. They simplify and streamline processes of funding. The government also commits to recognizing the cost to voluntary sector organizations of monitoring and evaluation.

The problem of delays in the signing of contribution agreements has been discussed above. According to the spirit of the Code of Good Practice on Funding, these delays should no longer occur.

Discussion Point

• If a contribution agreement is not signed in a timely manner, do the Accord and Codes provide a framework for addressing this concern?

Code of Good Practice on Policy Dialogue

The Code of Good Practice on Policy Dialogue states that the Government of Canada will confer with the voluntary sector at all stages of the public policy process: issue identification, agenda setting, policy design, implementation, monitoring and impact assessment.

The Code envisions an environment of continuous learning and improvement, in which the sectors work together to smooth the way for policy dialogue.

The biggest challenge for the settlement sector in this area is the amount of time that policy dialogue takes. When there is little or no core funding, executive directors and others are stretched beyond their capacity, and they cannot easily make time to participate in policy dialogue. There is no commitment on the part of the government to provide additional funds to enable voluntary sector organizations to participate. As a result, only large organizations will participate in policy dialogues.

This constitutes a two-fold challenge. First, settlement agencies must develop the capacity to participate meaningfully in policy dialogue. Second, a framework must be in place for sustained policy dialogue.

One of the complaints of the settlement sector has been that agencies sometimes do not have access to the final reports of consultation processes in which they have invested significant amounts of time. In the Code of Good Practice on Policy Dialogue, the government commits to making final reports available to those engaged in the policy process so that they will know how their input was used and how it might have affected federal government proposals or decisions. This will make a significant contribution to the development of a respectful learning environment. This feedback could occur through whatever mechanism is designed.

Discussion Points

• How will the settlement sector find the resources to build their capacity to discuss policy development?
• What dialogue framework would be most useful?

Emerging Themes

In summary, a number of themes have emerged, including the following:

• Given the contractual relationships between settlement agencies and the federal government, how can the principles of independence and interdependence be upheld?
• What systemic issues need to be addressed in government?
• How can the settlement sector put its accountability issues on the agenda?
• How does the settlement sector hold the federal government accountable?
• What innovative funding strategies can be developed?
• Is transitional assistance needed?
• What role can the federal government play in this process?
• How can the settlement sector communicate its equity needs?

A mechanism or framework for dialogue, feedback, and dispute resolution will be helpful in addressing these themes. However, one remaining issue - how to increase the awareness of the value of the work done by settlement agencies - is probably a matter of communicating this value to the general public.

The control that is exerted over settlement agencies as a result of their contractual agreements with the federal government is clearly a challenge to the implementation of the principles of the Accord and Codes of Good Practice. On the one hand, the Accord and Codes can be seen as an attempt by government to ensure that the voluntary sector can continue to fulfil its traditional functions of community service, advocacy and research. On the other hand, the contractual relationship puts severe restraints on the sector’s ability to fulfil these functions.

This dilemma might be at least partially resolved by the development and implementation of a mechanism or a framework for dialogue, feedback, and dispute resolution.

Index Next...

[12] Omidvar, R. & Richmond, T. (2003) Immigrant Settlement and Social Inclusion in Canada. Laidlaw Foundation, [Internet]. www.laidlawfdn.org (Children’s Agenda/Resources/Working Papers Series on Social Inclusion) [March 19, 2003]. Back

[13] Omidvar, R. & Richmond, T. (2003) Immigrant Settlement and Social Inclusion in Canada. Laidlaw Foundation, [Internet]. www.laidlawfdn.org (Children’s Agenda/Resources/Working Papers Series on Social Inclusion) (March 19, 2003). Back

[14] Government of UK, (1998) Framework of Partnership between Government and the Black and Minority Ethnic voluntary and community sector [Internet] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/acu/bmecompfwork.htm [March 30, 2003]. [currently available via http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ comrace/active/compact/index.html]Back