What is this research about?
This report looked at the opportunities and limitations of digital tools in the International Organization for Migration (IOM) Canadian Orientation Abroad Programme's (COA) Pre-Departure Orientation Training for refugees coming to Canada.
What do you need to know?
According to researchers "There is now broad recognition that connectivity and access to digital tools and services are fundamental to inclusion and participation in society. The research study aims to assess and understand both the barriers and enablers of refugee’s access, connectivity, and ability to use digital training tools with a view to optimize digital inclusion in their resettlement journey."
What did the researchers do?
Researchers used a mixed-method approach. They "surveyed 326 refugees over the age of 13 (the age eligibility requirement for COA) who had received their travel bookings and would soon resettle to Canada. The survey was translated from English into 15 languages and piloted across a test group of 18 participants to test for clarity and flow before being rolled out across all 12 COA permanent sites over a four-week period in February 2021." The survey was conducted over the phone "across 22 countries due to COVID-19 restrictions and enumerated by COA facilitators and interpreters who received training prior to administering the survey."
What did the researchers find?
Researchers found that "while 80 per cent of survey participants own mobile phones, ownership of other types of digital devices such as a laptops, desktop computers or tablets is comparatively low. Despite 70 per cent of survey participants having reliable access to internet, barriers such as cost and lack of digital literacy and skills, combined with factors related to disability, location, individual context, and gender need to be carefully considered and addressed to avoid the risk of excluding the most vulnerable as more digital approaches are adopted. The research also found that there are critical human elements needed to support COA participants that technology cannot replace, and that this reality should remain at the forefront of programme design and execution.
The report recommends awareness-raising, investment, and continued research and evaluation, in combination with capacity-building to enhance the digital literacy of refugees coming to Canada. This will help ensure that digital tools are accessible, impactful, and inclusive alongside the continued provision of the in-person pre-departure training."
Researchers made 8 specific recommendations for COA to implement:
Researchers asserted that "the move to digitization should not come at the expense of continued investment in-person group training which remains fundamentally important for refugees as they prepare for their new lives in Canada. The range of benefits provided by in-person training should not be underestimated. These include the opportunity to socialize and meet other people on a similar journey, developing confidence through immersive learning and role-playing and a group-based environment that can be tailored to psychosocial, learning and literacy needs. These and other benefits cannot be fulfilled by a virtual environment alone. There are critical human elements needed to support COA participants that technology cannot replace, and this reality should remain at the forefront of programme design and execution."
How can you use this research?
This research complements other recent research, including From Silos to Solutions: Toward Sustainable and Equitable Hybrid Service Delivery in the Immigrant & Refugee-Serving Sector in Canada (2021), Settlement 2.0 Project: Innovation is in our DNA (2020), and other related research focused on digital service provision.
The research should be viewed through both its common or overlapping recommendations and insights along with what is unique to refugees and digital service delivery.
In-Canada service providers can learn about refugees who are destined for their services to further their understanding of their clients' digital literacy strengths and challenges, to incorporate this learning into service and communication planning.
Policy makers must look at this report in its larger context, breaking the policy issues contained within out to the larger sector, and larger IRCC mandate and future vision of a hybrid service delivery model. As the Settlement Sector & Technology Task Group recommended, IRCC should, sooner rather than later, establish a hybrid service delivery lead. This lead needs to focus on cross departmental coordination that bridges current funding and efforts for immigration processing modernization with required investments in other program/department areas, such as settlement, language, refugee resettlement, innovation funding, and more.
What is this research about?
This report from the Settlement Sector and Technology Task Group presents findings, insights, and recommendations generated through a comprehensive exploration of hybrid service delivery over 6 months in the immigrant settlement sector in Canada. The report analyzes the unique experiment in digital service delivery created by the pandemic and reviews sector innovation and collaboration while providing a roadmap for the sector and its largest funder, Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) towards a hybrid service delivery model.
What do you need to know?
The Settlement Sector and Technology Task Group was tasked to discover, examine, and learn about the Settlement sector’s needs to successfully implement digital and hybrid service delivery models. The themes outlined in this report were identified through direct consultation with the settlement sector and beyond. Exploration of those themes was built upon through secondary research including an extensive survey of reports, evaluations, and publications produced by a variety of public, private, and third sector initiatives; universities; and other relevant academic research.
Recommendations for IRCC and the sector are ambitious. However, in order to move an entire sector together towards a hybrid service delivery model, they are also practical. What is outlined in our recommendations is not unique to the sector. These recommendations are centred in both the sector perspective, as well as promising practices, evidence, evaluations, frameworks, and models active already in our sector and beyond.
It is both tempting and difficult to provide a recommendation of particular technologies. What makes the most sense is to identify baseline competencies and capabilities for SPOs in all areas such as critical literacies, capacity, skills, infrastructure, leadership, technical development, organizational models, technical choices, etc. Throughout this report the authors identify existing baselines, as well as promising models that the sector should explore to adopt or adapt.
What did the researchers do?
The Task Group's work had two phases.
Phase 1:
Interviews and focus groups were carried out between October 2020 and March 2021 using Zoom and then transcribed verbatim before being thematically analyzed. In the first phase of work (October - December 2020), the Task Group sought to gain an understanding of the sector’s experiences, challenges, and promising practices related to digital service delivery. A national bilingual survey, interviews, and other submissions provided narratives of settlement practitioners’ interactions with digital technologies and adaptation of remote/digital service delivery. For management, findings emphasize organizational difficulties and successes in digital transformation, institutional evaluation and measurement of digital transformation, as well as needed training and support in future settlement work.
Researchers interviewed 25 people and conducted one focus group with 20 people. Interviewees were selected to offer a diverse range of experiences and perspectives with and about digital service delivery. Interviewees represented a variety of immigrant and refugee-serving sector agencies (settlement as well as language services), from midsize to large, urban and rural, frontline practitioners and management, from cities across the country. Interviewees also included academics (n=3) and technology coordinating representatives (n=4).
The survey received a total of 366 responses with responses from frontline practitioners and management/leadership, in English (329) and French (37). The survey was made up predominantly of open-ended questions to provide spaces for details and comments.
A Settlement Sector and Technology Task Group Preliminary Report (2020) was released in December 2020 summarizing survey findings, online form submissions, interview, and focus group findings.
Phase 2:
In the second phase of their work (January - March 2021), the Task Group moved from challenges to solutions. Researchers confirmed that their preliminary report themes were comprehensive and reflected the sector’s experience. They probed for information, themes, successes, and challenges we had not yet identified. Most importantly, they sought sector input on what needs to come next. They conducted 17 1.5 hour focus groups with 166 participants representing stakeholder groups from across the country. Secondary research included an extensive survey of reports, evaluations, and publications produced by a variety of public, private, third sector initiatives, universities, and other relevant academic research.
What did the researchers find?
A number of key themes that emerged to guide the creation of a hybrid service delivery model. Our themes are organized into three broad categories: Digital Inclusion, Institutional and Sector Resilience, and Baseline vs Technology Recommendations. In each key theme, the authors provide an introduction, sector perspectives (from interviews and focus groups), a number of useful tools and practices we have found to help guide their recommendations to help the sector and IRCC develop the themes into practice, and then a list of specific recommendations that are relevant to the theme.
Six core recommendations were made:
Each has a number of sub-recommendations categorized in a Now, Next, Later framework. Now means work should begin immediately, within the next 6 months. Next suggests a medium-term focus (6 months to 2 years). Later means longer-term (2 years up to the next IRCC CFP). Intense and evidence-based work such as that generated by upcoming IRCC Service Delivery Improvement-funded projects is likely required, which will take more time. It is essential that the Now short-term steps be taken immediately.
How can you use this research?
The report can be used as a basis for discussion between IRCC and the sector. IRCC needs to show the sector that it has listened and is taking action. The sector must also centre this conversation in a future-focused, collaborative, inclusive strategic process.
Downloads:
What is this research about?
This survey provides a snapshot of the Canadian immigrant and refugee-serving sector at during the first month of working remotely as a result of COVID-19. It looks at what is working, sector challenges and concerns and sector successes and failures from both the front-line and management perspective.
What do you need to know?
Like everyone, the immigrant and refugee-serving sector became #suddenlyremote. Agencies had to make decisions quickly to respond to the ever-changing environment. They have been learning, exploring, managing differently.Immediately, there seemed to be an opportunity to check in to see how the sector is doing. How are front-line workers? How are leadership (managers, EDs, Boards)? How easily have they been able to transition your administration infrastructure to remote and virtual work? How are newcomers doing?We created a survey to check in with our immigrant and refugee-serving sector colleagues across the country.
What did the researchers do?
An English-only survey was created and distributed to the sector to be completed between March 30, 2020 and April 20, 2020. Participants were asked to choose a path through the survey, based on their role in their organization:1.Front-line settlement practitioner (any role that is primarily client facing - includes Settlement, Employment, Housing, Health, Childcare, RAP Case worker, Youth,Volunteer Coordinator, Administration (receptionist, assistant), Job developer, etc); 2.Leadership:○Program Coordinator/Supervisor○Manager Level○Director Level/Senior Leadership/VP○Executive Director○Board of Directors.
166 completed the survey. 156 answered the final demographic questions.
Front-line practitioner - 108 started (with some drop-off as they progressed through the survey, some questions had 104, 105, 102 to a low of 95 respondents by the final front-line practitioner question). 97 indicated they work in front-line positions in demographic questions.
Organizational leadership - 58 started and consistently answered questions (only 1 person dropped off in later questions which stayed consistently at 57 respondents). 64 indicated they were in leadership positions, which suggests that some organizational leaders may have followed the front-line path
299 survey participants actually started the survey. 133 left the survey after choosing their role as front-line practitioner or leadership level. The authors were not able to explain this drop off of survey participants, so they chose 166 as their final count of survey participants.
What did the researchers find?
Overall, sector respondents, both front-line and in leadership positions indicate that their agency has been able to make the move online and is adapting to remote work.However, balance was difficult. There is anxiety and stress. Many have families, sharing space and time with them as they attend to home life pressures, while attempting to launch a new way of serving anxious clients using existing and new technologies, and dealing with their own anxieties about the pandemic.
The majority of frontline staff and leadership who participated in this survey are finding coping strategies to make this transition workable. Almost two-thirds of front-line practitioners have been able to make the switch successfully to remote work. Almost 25% even found themselves surprised to be enjoying this way of working.However, almost one-third found themselves struggling. Among leadership an almost equal number were making the switch to remote work successfully,with 52% finding it challenging but that they have been able to adapt. However, almost one-third found it a big shift, with 21% working longer hours.
Most front-line practitioners indicated that making a connection with newcomers was difficult in a digital service environment. In spite of video being a face to face interaction, some workers don’t find video provides the same experience. It would be useful to explore this further to determine if this is a technology, personal comfort, training or other challenge. As well, the real issue of client digital divide came up with some clients simply not having the technology or digital literacy to access technology-mediated remote services. In many cases phone technology was used,but was also found to be a challenge for clients who prefer in-person interactions.
Even when working in offices providing in-person services research and anecdotal evidence have shown that front-line practitioners use personal devices (usually smartphones) and accounts (usually digital messaging) to serve their clients.
Agencies are trying to maintain the service levels that they previously provided to newcomers.In some cases, they have defined for themselves what are core or critical services, which may align or surpass IRCC’s definition.
How can you use this research?
The authors created this survey to document the initial reactions, strategies and feelings about transitioning to remote work, as well as to ignite discussion. The authors encourage organizations to use some of their survey questions to check in with their staff, leadership, and clients. The current scenario individuals and organizations are navigating is a major shift in the way the immigrant and refugee-serving sector works and serves newcomers: "In the coming months, as the sector figures out next steps, we hope this document guides,supports and provokes conversations about what's possible. We hope this survey contributes to these conversations. This document illustrates opinions of a portion of the sector, who self-selected to participate. We hope if you did not participate in this survey you will join these many conversations."
Downloads:
Access to the complete survey data for those interested in conducting their own analysis is available below. The authors are interested in how you might use this data and what conclusions you might draw from it. Access to the data in two forms:
What is this research about?
This report focuses on the future of how the immigrant and refugee-serving sector delivers services to newcomers and communities. The Task Group's work includes looking at infrastructure, privacy issues (e.g. advice and protocols on how to safeguard information), professional development for staff, including digital literacy and addressing the digital divide among newcomers and in our communities.
What do you need to know?
The Settlement Sector and Technology Task Group (coordinated by AMSSA, reporting to IRCC’s National Settlement and Integration Council (NSIC)) is working to discover, examine, and learn about the settlement sector’s needs to successfully implement digital and hybrid service delivery models. Their mandate is to identify multiple digital transformation and hybrid service delivery models (where relevant) rather than aiming at one unique model that may not easily be replicable within our sector.
What did the researchers do?
Researchers sent out a national bi-lingual survey to the sector. The survey had two paths, one for front-line workers, one for management/leadership. The survey was made up predominantly of open-ended questions to provide spaces for details and comments.
They received a total of 366 responses:
Before and and while our survey was open, they also created an online form with 7 high level questions to help us understand sector experiences and ideas. They received 26 submissions, many with detailed answers and information. This form will continue to be available for input.
Sixteen interviews have been conducted involving 25 people. One group interview was conducted with over 12 participants. One focus group was held with 20 participants (with a follow-up conversation to be held in the near future, due to time constraints with the original meeting).
What did the researchers find?
Organizations that appear positive about integrating a digital service framework indicated that COVID-19 expanded and fast-tracked their exploration of digital modes of service delivery. Those who were uncertain about future digital service delivery indicated they are unclear about how to restructure and evaluate which programs should be kept online and which ones should be removed from the online environment.
What researchers found is in part what we already know about the sector from the vast amount of research that has been done on innovation and technology integration and use. There are many innovative practices, teams, and organizations. And there are many who struggle with how to integrate technology effectively in their work.
Even within high performing organizations, there is much work to get done. We’ve also confirmed the sector’s interest to learn from each other. To learn about models of digital and hybrid service delivery. To understand what the implications are for job roles and descriptions, new roles, professional competencies, and how we even define and measure success in digital and hybrid service delivery.
The major themes identified are:
How can you use this research?
This research builds on the vast knowledge and previous research on technology and innovation in the sector (A chronology of technology and innovation research in the Canadian immigrant and refugee-serving sector) as well as knowledge about interesting case studies in digital and blended/hybrid service delivery. This preliminary report was created to share the initial findings of the Task Group and to spur further discussion. Review this report to confirm if it resonates with your own experiences, and contribute to the work the Task Group is doing towards their final report in March 2021.
Downloads:
Settlement Sector & Technology Task Group Preliminary Report
Download and view the full data from our survey
Settlement Sector & Technology Task Group Preliminary Report - Complete Survey Analysis
Rapport préliminaire du groupe de travail sur le secteur de l’établissement et la technologie
Télécharger et consulter les données complètes de notre sondage
What is this research about?
This primer is intended to provide basic information on the history and legacy of refugee resettlement in Canada and to highlight Ottawa’s role in these efforts. It contains basic facts about refugees and Canadian refugee policy, a brief timeline of refugee resettlement in Canada, highlights from Ottawa’s history of refugee resettlement, and a myth buster intended to dispel some of the misconceptions about refugees and refugee resettlement history in Canada.
What do you need to know?
The primer provides a useful snapshot and overview of basic definitions about refugees and their rights, as well as the refugee process in Canada, and a history of refugee resettlement interventions, both formal (through funded agencies) and informal (private/community resettlement efforts).
What did the researchers do?
The primer is a combination of news/media and literature review complemented by interviews with significant actors in refugee resettlement in Ottawa.
What did the researchers find?
The primer provides a global overview of refugee statistics as of 2016, including specific numbers about Syrian refugees arriving in Canada and, specifically, Ottawa. There is a section aimed at dispelling common myths about refugees, refugee protection, and supports refugees get in Canada. The core of the primer provides a historical overview of refugee policy and resettlement in Canada, leading up to the arrival of Syrian refugees starting in 2015. The primer also provides a historical overview of informal (community) and formal (funded) resettlement, inclusion, and support interventions in Canada and those specific to Ottawa.
How can you use this research?
The primer provides a useful model for other communities to outline and document local refugee resettlement interventions and place them within the Canadian context. It includes an overview of Canada's formal commitments to refugee resettlement, as well as the importance of both informal and formal supports and mechanisms to create welcoming and inclusive communities. The primer's format could be replicated quite easily in any community, borrowing sections such as The Basics, Refugees by the Numbers, and Brief Timeline of Refugee Policy and Resettlement in Canada, complemented by interviews with local refugee resettlement actors to provide additional local context and highlights of unique local efforts and interventions.
This research examines diversity on boards and in senior management of health care institutions in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).
In this eighth report of the DiverseCity Counts series examining diversity in senior leadership positions in the GTA, the focus is on health care institutions. Specifically, the author looks at local health integration networks (LHINs), hospitals, and community care
access centres (CCACs).
Along with hospitals, LHINs and CCACs play critical roles in health care in Ontario. LHINs plan, coordinate and fund local health systems, with the aim of making it easier for patients to access health care. CCACs coordinate health care in patients’ homes and in the community as well as access to long-term care homes.
While past reports have focused on visible minorities, this edition broadens the scope of diversity to include sex/gender identity, visible minorities, disability, and sexual orientation.
Background:
DiverseCity Counts has looked at visible minority representation in seven sectors in the GTA since 2009. It has focused on the municipalities with the highest proportions of visible minorities: Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Markham and Richmond Hill.
While some sectors have made progress over the years, as a whole, visible minorities remain under-represented in the leadership of the GTA.
Findings:
Health care leadership is diverse in some respects, but many groups are under-represented
Five LHINs, 28 hospitals and five CCACs in the GTA were surveyed:
Diverse leadership is critical for the health care sector
Senior management teams and governance boards in health care institutions play a critical role in setting mandates and priorities, and shaping services to help meet the needs of patients and providers alike. It is this leadership, for example, that has the influence
and authority to recognize and acknowledge needs, approve systemic changes, and prioritize and commit the resources necessary to respond.
Physical and mental health is a fundamental part of individual, family and community well-being. Good health enhances our ability to be productive and engaged participants in economic, social and political life.
Furthermore, virtually all members of society come into contact with the health care system at some point in their lives. For most of us, health care services are one of a few public services that we use throughout our lives, from birth to death.
Perhaps for these reasons, Canadians are fiercely proud of our public health care system. Access to high quality public health care has become a fundamental Canadian value. It is therefore incumbent on our health care institutions to reflect the public in their services, in their decision-making, and throughout their organizations. In fact, leading health care institutions are doing just that.
These leading institutions recognize the importance of understanding and responding to the diversity of their patients. They have innovated and adapted their services to meet the needs of patients in various demographic groups – for example, by providing
multilingual and/or culturally appropriate services. Similarly, many recognize the benefits of diversity among their staff, and have made great progress in hiring and integrating diverse employees into their institutions.
Increasingly, health institutions are turning their attention to diversity in their leadership – that is, in senior management and on the governing boards of these organizations. Leadership in health care institutions plays a critical role in setting mandates and
priorities, and shaping services to help meet the needs of patients and providers alike. It is the leadership, for example, that has the influence and authority to recognize and acknowledge needs, approve systemic changes, and prioritize and commit the resources necessary to respond.
The authors provide 10 tips to maximize the benefits of diversity:
In the spring of 2013 DiverseCity contracted Nanos Research to conduct a first-time public opinion poll of residents in municipalities across the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) on the topic of diversity in leadership.
Key Insights
Additional findings
Residents are not broadly aware of the influence gap, but when they learn about it, they don’t like it.
Residents want to see more balanced representation by population. And they want to see it not only because it’s “right.” They want to see it because they feel that equal representation will move the GTA toward becoming a “world class city” – defined by people who live in the GTA as a centre of culture that has a well-represented multicultural community.
According to the Nanos report, the low proportion of visible minorities and under-represented immigrant groups among leaders is seen by GTA residents as a cause for concern. Not just because it’s socially risky, but because it negatively affects such things as:
What about the future?
75% thought it likely or somewhat likely that the GTA’s leadership would be reflective of the population sometime in the future (18.9 was the mean number of years it would take).
Nearly two in three respondents (64.5%) identified with statements that called for action on reflective GTA leadership. Half of respondents (49.6%) said that the GTA could move faster on this issue, even though they understood that these things take time. One in seven (14.9%) felt this was an urgent problem that the GTA needs to move forward on now. Respondents from a visible minority group were more likely to say this is an urgent problem (21.4%).
This research examines whether, why and how organizations have embraced diversity in their purchasing and supply chain strategies, policies and practices.
The research focused on organizations that buy goods and services from other organizations that are at least 50% owned and operated by visible minorities. It conducted an electronic survey of more than 165 organizations and a web scan of more than 138 in the Greater Toronto Area that together account for over $100 billion of dollars spent in the region, or approximately 33% of the region’s economic activity.
The research found that while most organizations have employee diversity policies, significantly fewer have supplier diversity programs.
Organizations that do have a supplier diversity program credit much of their success to top management commitment and efforts to work closely with current or future suppliers. Some organizations report difficulty finding qualified minority suppliers or determining which organizations are led by visible minorities. Of those organizations with a supplier diversity program, 29% do not track how much they spend on goods and services provided by visible minority owned companies.
Canadian companies lag behind U.S.
Large GTA organizations with operations in the United States are three to seven times more likely to have a supplier diversity program than those with no American link, depending on whether
they have an American parent or have subsidiary operations in the U.S. (see table below). What’s more, when the largest GTA companies are compared to large Chicago headquartered firms,
Chicago companies are three times more likely to have a supplier diversity program – 77.4% versus 23.3%. This difference can be partly explained by U.S. federal and state policies which
encourage companies to make supplier diversity a priority.
However, even without government encouragement, a growing number of businesses recognize the importance of supplier diversity. Including diversity in the supply chain can help organizations access new markets, enhance their reputation, attract and retain the best talent, and improve their bottom line.
Moving up the supplier diversity ladder
The report describes five stages of supplier diversity and encourages organizations to move from having no program to what the author calls full supplier diversity.
What Is Supplier Diversity?
The supply chain includes every organization that is involved in bringing a good or service to the consumer. In this chain, companies purchase raw materials, products and professional services from other, often smaller organizations. Supplier diversity means that small and medium-sized organizations owned or operated by visible minorities have equal access to these opportunities, allowing them to grow their business and providing benefits to our economy.
Benefits of Supplier Diversity
This research examines board diversity in the nonprofit sector, as well as the impact of this diversity.
This research finds that visible minorities continue to be underrepresented in nonprofit boards in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). While visible minorities make up 40% of the GTA’s population, of the 4,254 board positions examined only 15.6% are held by visible minorities. The research also finds that all sub-groups of visible minorities are under-represented.
The good news is that a large number of organizations appear to recognize the importance and value of diversity. Of the more than 420 organizations that responded to our surveys, 77.9% have at least one visible minority on their board. A full 43.8% report having a formal working definition of diversity, and of these, 83.6% include ethnicity, race and colour, 49.4% include country of origin, and 36.3% include immigrant and refugee status in their definition.
More diversity equals better governance
The survey asked organizations to describe the effects that diversity on boards can have on the board’s performance. Overwhelmingly, respondents to the survey – who were primarily executive directors and board chairs – said that a diverse board contributes to overall board effectiveness by, for example, safeguarding and fulfilling the mission of the organization and
enhancing fiduciary oversight. Board diversity also improves stakeholder relationships, increases the organization’s responsiveness to the community and their clients, and brings fresh perspectives to decision-making.
What’s striking is that the more diverse an organization’s board, the more likely they are to report benefits of diversity. This finding suggests there is strength in numbers. Once a critical mass of
30% is reached, there will be an increase in the benefits of diversity experienced by the organization.
Practical recommendations for a more diverse and effective board
The full report includes a number of recommendations for organizations that wish to diversify their board. These include:
Please take this short survey to help improve the KM4S web site. The survey is anonymous. Thank you for your feedback! (click on the screen anywhere (or on the x in the top right corner) to remove this pop-up)