Bridging Newcomers in The Neighbourhood Scale:
A Study on Settlement/Integration Roles & Functions of Neighbourhood Houses
in Vancouver
Miu Chung Yan, Ph.D.Sean Lauer, Ph.D.
UBC School of Social Work and Family StudiesResearch on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis
March 25, 2006
Background
Vancouver: (2001 Census) Residents of over 10% of neighbourhoods have arrived to
Canada in the 1990s. Some even higher than 25%. Only a few neighbourhoods have residents of less than
30% visible minorities The legacy of settlement house – bridging not only
the poor and the rich but also new and old residents Neighbourhood house = multi-service, community-
based, non-profit, self-governing 9 NHs in Vancouver
The Study
Research question: How effective NHs in Vancouver is in bridging newcomers to the community?
Participatory approach: Letters of support from the the Association of Neighbourhood Houses of Greater Vancouver and three free-standing NHs
Multi-method approach to understand this issue from different stakeholders: Interview: Executive Directors (N=9) Interview: Key informants from governments and other
settlement service organizations (N=5) Focus groups: Frontline worker (N=7)and board of directors
(N=4) Survey: Service recipients (N=350)
Results of Qualitative Data Settlement/bridging/integration: a continuous process Programs to help integration: Multi-service for multi-
generation – drop-in, skills and language, classes, community kitchens, cultural events, information referral, settlement counseling, volunteer opportunities…
Strengths: Geographically convenient, flexible to meet local needs, free environment, source of referrals and information, community development/building, multilingual staff connected to the community, volunteers
Limitations: Lack of funding, over-demand on the multi-tasking staff, not well known in the community, changing demography and changing need, unmet needs beyond their capacity
Survey Results
N=350 Focus on social capitals of the service recipients
and how NHs in helping them to establish social ties Profile of respondents:
Means: 4.4 years in Canada 60% Chinese 83.8% women Mean age: 42 Most unemployed and have one or more children
Close Personal Ties
Gender Homogamy On average, networks 85% gender homogenous and
64.6% exclusive gender homogamy Ethnic Homogamy
On average, 71% ethnic homogenous and 57.5% exclusive ethnic homogamy
Newcomer Homogamy On average, 37% newcomer homogenous and 17.5%
exclusive newcomer homogamy
Extensive Social Ties
On average, 3.31 extensive ties (Hi: 13)
Overall, Non-family ties contribute more to extensivity
36% have Extensive Ties through Family 81% have Extensive Ties through Non-family
Exchange of Favors
Relatives are important social resource 48% both give and receive favors with relatives
Ethnic community important resource 45% provide help for friends and neighbours of the
same ethnic group. Slightly fewer receive help (37%)
Crossing ethnic boundaries rare Over 40% never exchange favors outside ethnic groups Just over 50% cross ethnic boundaries occasionally
Neighbourhood Houses and Social Capital
Crossing ethnic community boundaries 37% Strongly agree that houses facilitates crossing
ethnic boundaries (45% Agree) Extensive ties
57% have one Extensive Tie associated with Houses 14% have Extensive Ties exclusive to Houses 40% of all Extensive Ties linked to Houses
Exchange of favors 20% of exchanges with another associate of the houses
THANKS!
Contact: [email protected]
Acknowledgement: This project is funded by the
Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis.