1. By: Blair Cullen, MA Candidate, Trent University

2. 1. Limited interest from Regional Municipality 2. Lack of a Regional Approach 3. Disconnected governance between sectors involved in settlement and integration 4. No Welcome Centers 5. Minimal settlement and integration infrastructure

3. 1. Fully Committed Regional Municipality 2. Region-Wide Settlement Strategy 3. Connected governance between sectors involved in settlement and integration 4. Two Welcome Centers 5. Multi-dimensional settlement and integration infrastructure

5. Local Immigration Partnerships (LIPs): “the mechanism through which CIC supports the development of community ‐ based partnerships and planning around the needs of newcomers. LIPs seek to engage various stakeholders in a locally ‐ driven strategic planning process including employers, school boards, health centers and networks, boards of trade, levels of government, professional associations, ethno ‐ cultural organizations, faith ‐ based organizations, and the community and social services sectors. The partnership council’s main goal is to oversee the development of a local settlement strategy and targeted action plan to produce a more welcoming and inclusive community (CIC 2011, 6).” Distinguishing Features: Upper-Level Government Funding, Municipal Involvement, Mandate

6. Libraries School BoardsMunicipalities Faith Organizations Settlement Service Agencies Health Local Training Boards Economic Development Local Immigration Partnership Council

8. MunicipalityPopulation Durham Region608,124 Pickering88,721 Ajax109,400 Whitby122,022 Oshawa149,607 Clarington84,548 Uxbridge20,623 Scugog21,569 Brock11,341 Source: Statistics Canada 2011

9. Source: Statistics Canada 2006

10. 51 Interviews (May 2012-August 2012) with the following sectors: 12 Ethno-Cultural Organizations 8 Municipalities 8 Libraries 5 Employment Service Organizations 4 Faith-Based Organizations 3 School Boards 3 Consultants 1 Settlement Service Agency * In some organizations, multiple people interviewed

11. ILLUSTRATION OF CHANGE IN COMMITMENT LEVEL 2007-2013  Resisted addressing diversity for decades, should be “community-based rather than government driven.”  Committed to Diversity Committee in December 2007  Shortly after (Feb. 2008), applied for a LIP, citing demographic change & changing economy  Regional Government reports demonstrate availability of upper-level government funding played significant role in commitment level to diversity

12. Outdated Ethno-Cultural Directory Multi-Media Web Based Portal Short-Lived Multicultural Durham Newspaper The Citizen Quarterly Newsletter Regional Infrastructure Supported by Upper-Level Government Funding

14.  Infrastructure development has helped ease governance between and within sectors  Breaking down Sectoral and Municipal silos  Increased interaction between ‘specific’ and ‘non-specific’ organizations  Height of collaborative governance is CIC Modernization Proposal Process Different Colours Represent Sectors Collaborating

15.  Durham Region Consortium of Partners Serving Immigrants submitted application in 2007, denied in 2008  Re-submitted during CIC modernization process, successful  Success in part attributed to ‘maturity,’ development of LDIPC illustrated  According to participants, LDIPC played a fundamental role in acquisition

16.  Majority of participants noted a noticeable increase in attention/profile of immigration & diversity issues  Increased Awareness 2-Fold: 1. Awareness of other services 2. Self-Awareness to address diversity inter- organizationally  “Its about no longer relying on settlement organizations to put out settlement fires (participant from leading settlement service agency)” Settlement AgenciesMunicipalities Employment Services Faith- Based/Ethnic Organizations Local Training Board System of Organizations Role in Settlement/ Integration

18.  Ethno-cultural organizations reported the lowest awareness rates and have received fewest benefits from LDIPC  Reasons for this unknown especially given role they play in settlement process (Cullen & Clow 2011)  One participant believed it was because of LDIPC’s focus on ‘service providers’

19.  Regional representation has been achieved.  Regional participation and awareness has proved more difficult.  Complicated by regional/local municipal framework, LDIPC has brought together suburban municipalities, semi- rural/rural remain a challenge

21. FROST CENTRE FOR CANADIAN STUDIES AND INDIGENOUS STUDIES, TRENT UNIVERSITY