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 Studies Research 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: Acknowledgement: This project is funded by the Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis.