Presentation to the National Resettlement Assistance Program Conference 2007
“Group Processing & a Client Centred Approach”
Feb 23, 2007
I am here to offer the perspective of the Sponsorship Agreement Holder I represent (The
United Church of Canada) re the private sponsorship of refugees within a group
movement of refugees.
It is fitting because my work with refugees began with Group Processing / Designated
Classes–Vietnamese, Lao, Cambodian- launched Private Refugee Sponsorship in 1979.
At that time, Canada accepted 60,000 refugees DC1 Government Assisted & Privately
Sponsored DC3. The number of “VOR” sponsorships exceeded the gov. matching
formula). The purpose of this resettlement was to keep asylum prospects in the region
alive.
More recent group processing (Kosovo, Sudanese & Somali) has also involved the
private sponsorship communities.
Group processing allows for faster movement (airlifting of Kosovo) and greater
efficiencies. Accepting refugees by their groups can move greater numbers of refugees
more quickly; it can relieve the pressure of hosting long term refugees; it eliminates time
spent on individual refugee status determinations; it can be used to assist destitute
populations (long stayers); it can maximize transportation & reception efforts if carefully
coordinated; it does allow for easier meeting of quotas. As well, asking the sponsorship
community to offer private sponsorship to some of the refugees in the group expands the
Canadian resettlement capacity.
More efficient planning and management of resettlement is worthwhile, but what are the
costs? Increased numbers should not be achieved at the expense of the ability to respond
to individual needs. And are we sure we are bringing in refugees who may not meet the
eligibility criteria that we are demand of other refugees? As a SAH – encouraging both
response to VOR of refugees in a group movement and named sponsorship –I see there
are some inconsistencies that need to be worked out.
One obvious area for improvement is SAH inclusion early in the planning stage of any
movement that might include requests to the sponsorship community to offer private
sponsorship to some of the group. For instance, we hear there may be another 200 or 300
cases for whom the CIC is requesting private sponsorship, but there hasn't been any in
depth discussion and such a commitment would require much more public promotion.
Canada’s experiments in Group Processing involve CIC, SPO and SAH- and the groups
of people on whom we are focusing come as either Government assisted Refugees, or
Visa Office Referred refugees in need of a sponsor. It would be great if CIC, SPO and
SAH were also involved in planning for the group movement. I would hope that SPO
have participated in the planning discussion because you are one of the implementing
1
partners. From my perspective, that of the SAHs (another implementing partner) it seems
plans are being made for us - the expectation is of course that we will react, (positively).
But here is an important distinction: SAHs are not under a contract to deliver services; we
do not need to respond. When we do, we bring great flexibility to a program – but we
operate and are motivated differently. We are not funded. SAHs are independent players
who do not need to field a team for every event called to stay in the games.
Bottom line: We can take our toys and go home.
SAHs are 89 very diverse, independent community organizations deeply committed to
the resettlement of people – people who normally must meet the criteria of “refugees in
need of resettlement”. We are ethnocultural and humanitarian organizations, (some of us
have been involved in receiving refugees since the 1920’s) who respond to community
and protection needs. In response to human need - some of us operate out of home
offices; others out of sophisticated, bureaucratic structures. We are motivated by
humanitarian and faith principles. We represent the ordinary private citizens who want to
respond to refugees in need of protection. Because we want to help – we are easily lured
on to the playing field.
We so want to make a difference –for even one person. This is exactly why the principle
of additionality – bringing in additional people, over and above the government quotamatters so intensely to us. The flip side is we will not respond if/when we know we are
not needed –e.g. when we know the refugees being profiled will come as GAR, without
our intervention.
We cannot respond when the government acts without consultation and independently
pre-determines Visa Office Referred numbers and destining. There needs to be proactive
discussion and a far more collaborative approach.
As I intimated earlier – we are probably too easily lured into the game, hooked by the
cause. We SAH are a very committed and reasonable group of people who have
information to share and who do want to make programs work. Inevitably, as a national
SAH, I know how this can work for our organization in ways the CIC has not considered.
The point being: I have 3000 potential resettlement sites to offer –if the people to whom I
am accountable- want to engage. The United Church is not a hierarchical structure; our
congregations will NOT be told what to do. Yet the strength of the program lies in its
volunteers. Response will not be instant – we who work with volunteers need lead time
and our volunteers need consistent nurturing.
A caution: In the UCC experience, the off and on tap re VOR availability (our post pilot
position) has seriously hurt our denomination’s willingness to play the game and
certainly raised concerns about more appropriate allocation of staff time.
Private Refugee Sponsorship is not just an excellent voluntary program – it is the civic
engagement that allows for public support of all immigration & settlement programs. Not
2
involving both SAH and SPO up front in the planning for any Visa Office Referred group
processing exercise is a mistake and sells it short.
When we know what the other is doing /is capable of doing we can better coordinate
efforts. An obvious added benefit would be the community resource sharing and shared
orientation that could happen.
Critical Observations
For instance, the UCC is working as part of a cluster. We have 2 sponsoring groups
working closely with a 3rd Baptist group to resettle a large extended Karen family in
Prince Albert. The whole community seems to be involved – it is great; it allows for peer
support of sponsors and refugees. However, PA was not on the destining map. It may
well be different in Regina and/or Toronto where we have other VOR destined (these
cities are on the designated list) but SAH involvement (VOR profiles) in a mixed flow
invites/ requires greater flexibility on the part of CIC and btw SAH and SPO. Flexibility
is a strength. Appropriate communities & appropriate resources cannot be reduced to a
list.
Repeatedly, we have seen that even a little media attention encourages public
engagement and the public lives across Canada, not only in designated communities.
An instance of frustration: a determined sponsor in Midland, Ontario whose home town
was not considered an appropriate destination –not easily defeated, he instead submitted a
sponsor-referred application for a Karen family in another camp.
Now, it appears that the named Karen family, whom the Midlander met while teaching in
the refugee camp, will travel with VOR and GAR and that is causing new confusion. The
big question is since they are traveling together will GAR and VOR (with RAP support in
up front/ with sponsor support up front) Karen refugees receive the same orientation,
clothing for the journey etc – will they receive identical departure, transit and reception
treatment?
One benefit of group processing is supposed to be that whole families can travel together
– to the same country. I realize the UNHCR has put good effort into family registration –
but we are still hearing of families being split up; some among countries. One extended
VOR family is being told to leave their newly married daughter and son-in-law behind –
“to follow later”. Those words, the concept strikes fear into my heart! We are hurriedly
trying to submit a named or “sponsor-referred” sponsorship for the young couple – to
ensure they can travel together or follow later.
This to me seems a very appropriate strategic use of PRS – to respond to the echo effect
within the recognized VOR group – now my example predates travel / distance, so it is
rather a simultaneous echo? But I know more echoes will be heard – and that we need to
determine a sound response.
3
Perhaps the Cost Sharing Incentives should apply to these “echo” people as well –
because they really are part of the same group process?
If we persist in group processing, I do believe reasonable cost sharing should be
available. Some sponsoring groups will not touch it ($ can be disempowering to future
engagement); others find it essential to their support of large extended families. For a few
cases, JAS might be appropriate.
But really cost sharing is how the PSR program started. (4 months of subsidized language
training/ 8 month of sponsorship support) The important thing is to agree to & clarify
cost-sharing elements up front (a negotiated template) so people know how to proceed.
(This does imply discussion/ deliberation btw CIC & Private Sponsor)
I would be so very happy if we had more complete profiles – so I had many fewer
questions/concerns raised by sponsors. As I see it - the system is simply not set up to be
responsive to the needs of groups in Canada for information; it is set up instead to have
contracted RAP SPOs be ready to receive them whenever they arrive. SAH don’t have
clients but even for SPO, more information needs to flow I question if this is truly a client
centred approach. It would be great if we had more RSTP workshops happening across
the country. (March 30 at St. Phillips in Vancouver)
Apparently, an individual needs assessment will be made available with the NAT. Sounds
great. And we know about the January TB induced delays – but there is much we do not
know. Is the IFH funded physical available to GAR on their arrival also available to
VOR? Can VOR access the life skills training? Are we involved in the same program we don’t seem to feature in the CIC news releases either?
In summation, VOR group processing / group processing – this mixed movement is still
very much a work in progress and refinement will be needed IF this is found to be
worthwhile way to continue.
Of the 810 Karen cases, only around 71 are VOR. Few have as yet arrived. (the United
Church is involved in the Regina arrivals.) I am not ready to assess the strengths and
weaknesses in this VOR program based on 2-3 family’s arrivals.
I do know –if the UCC national office stays involved in refugee sponsorship- I would
recommend: up to 20% of our submissions be for group processing VOR; 30% be for
individual VOR from diverse Visa Offices; 50% be for named cases in response to
church partners referrals and/or strategic support around the edges of group processing. I
would not recommend all our resources be tied up in any large one movement. There
needs to be a balanced approached. That is incidentally why I would like to know what
percentage of the GAR quota will be given over to Group Processing.
The United Church wants to respond to refugees in need of protection or resettlement and
would take great comfort in the knowing that the same basic selection or eligibility
4
criteria were being applied – to those in group processing; to the regular resettlement
program; to the in-land claimants.
We had signaled our willingness to take 20 VOR individual cases a year, but not through
the website auction. Instead, we need adequate lead time, fuller profiles (information),
good communication, regular intake and reliable flow of refugee arrivals to allow
appropriate matching with receptive communities or to make a VOR program work.
That being said…we are not able to invest heavily in the Karen movement.
Because, there is the PSR Inventory - at the rate, it is being processed it could take 8-10
years to clear. Add that to the current PSR processing times of 3-4 yrs and it would seem
that very soon all refugees in the inventory could be classified as “vulnerable, long
stayers” and perhaps be eligible for group processing.
Heather Macdonald
Refugee & Migration Program Coordinator
The United Church of Canada
SAH Representative
5