Expert answer:read the articles for the journal and write a p
Expert answer:read the articles for the journal and write a personal review, 2 pages double spaced, no plagiarism
evans___shields___nonprofit_engagement_with_policy.pdf
mule___advocacy_limitations_on_activist_organizations.pdf
smith.pdf
3.docx
brock___promoting_voluntary_action_and_civil_society.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127
www.elsevier.com/locate/polsoc
Nonprofit engagement with provincial policy officials:
The case of NGO policy voice in Canadian immigrant
settlement services
Bryan Evans *, John Shields 1
Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 2K3
Abstract
This paper explores the role of nonprofit organizations in the immigrant settlement and integration sector in the public policy
process in three Canadian provinces. Drawing on thirty one (31) semi-structured interviews with nonprofit and mid-level policy
officials (working for a provincial government) in three provinces (Ontario, British Columbia and Saskatchewan), the place of
nonprofit agencies in providing input and voice to policy issues in the area of settlement and integration services is presented. Issues
regarding the willingness to use advocacy/voice with government funders, the usefulness of government consultations, strategies
used in approaching government, the role of research in making evidence-based cases regarding policy and program change, among
other considerations are examined. The assessments provided by key nonprofit actors and government policy officials are used to
bring better understanding of the perceived roles of nonprofit organizations in the daily work of policy.
# 2014 Policy and Society Associates (APSS). Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction: research context
This article explores the role of nonprofit organizations in the immigrant settlement and integration sector in the
public policy process in three of Canada’s provinces.
Using semi-structured interviews with non-government and mid-level provincial government policy workers in
three provinces (Ontario, British Columbia and Saskatchewan) the real influence of non-governmental agencies in
providing input and voice to policy issues in this policy field at the sub-national level is presented. This study seeks to
critically examine the assumption of New Public Governance (NPG) theory that frames policy work as a multi-actor
exercise through an exploration of advocacy/voice by nonprofit agencies, the effectiveness of government policy
consultations, strategies used by nonprofit agencies in opening policy dialogue with government, and the role of
evidence-based research in policy and program change. The assessments of key non-governmental actors and
government policy officials of these policy advocacy activities are used to bring better understanding of the role of
NGOs in the daily work of policy engagement with provincial governments.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 416 979 5000×4199.
E-mail addresses: b1evans@politics.ryerson.ca (B. Evans), jshields@politics.ryerson.ca (J. Shields).
1
Tel.: +1 416 979 5000×6167.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.05.002
1449-4035/# 2014 Policy and Society Associates (APSS). Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
118
B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127
2. Immigrant settlement and integration services
The focus of this case study is immigrant settlement and integration services provided by the province but delivered
by nonprofit service providers. This makes a particularly compelling case study because there has been a long
relationship between government in Canada and nonprofit organizations in the provision of supports for newcomers to
this country. This Canadian model of settlement services has generated considerable interest internationally, and has
often been seen as a case of best practice. The reshaping of this NGO-government relationship, within the context of
New Public Management (NPM) reforms, has in more recent years placed more strain on this form of NGOgovernment ‘partnership’ (Halligan, 2011; Richmond & Shields, 2005). Historically this policy area (settlement
services) has been the primary domain of the Federal Government. Even though immigration is one of those
constitutionally shared areas of jurisdiction the federal government has led the development of settlement services. A
more substantive provincial role, beyond the special role the Province of Quebec has assumed beginning in the late
1960s, in direct support for immigrant settlement within their territory is of more recent origin (Atkinson et al., 2013,
14–15). The greater provincial presence in this policy area has emerged for a variety of reasons. Primary among these
have been the impact of neoliberal governance models which have centered on devolving responsibilities. The
provincial involvement in these services has however developed unevenly and the place and impact of immigration
varies considerably across provinces. Both Ontario and British Columbia have been long standing traditional locations
of newcomer settlement, particularly the metropolitan areas of Toronto and Vancouver which continue to receive the
largest share of incoming immigrants. In fact, more than 70% of the foreign born population in Canada is found in
these two provinces (Statistics Canada, 2013, 9). By contrast, Saskatchewan, until recently, struggled to maintain even
its domestically born population base, has begun to attract a newcomer population and has undertaken more aggressive
recruiting to feed the province’s rapidly expanding labor market. Its share of the annual landings of newcomers, while
still very modest, increased from 1.5% (4835) to 2.7% (6890) of Canada’s total between 2007 and 2009 (Saskatchewan
Ministry of Advanced Education, Employment and Immigration, 2009, 4). Overall, Canada according to our latest
2011 Census enjoys the highest proportion of foreign born population among the G8 rich nations at 20.8% (CBC,
2013).
While historically immigration and settlement policy in Canada has been largely set nationally, settlement and
integration remains inherently a process that takes place at the sub-national level (Vengroff, 2013) this helps to explain
why locally-based NGOs have taken the lead in settlement provision. The density and range of NGO settlement
service providers in BC and Ontario, particularly in the larger urban areas, have been considerable and the
development of settlement infrastructure took strong roots in these provinces by the 1970s (Biles, Tolley, Andrew,
Esses, & Burstein, 2011; Hiebert & Sherrell, 2011). Saskatchewan developed much later in this regard and are only
now building capacity (Garcea, 2011). Sector wide umbrella organizations in settlement formed at the provincial level
in BC (Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of BC (AMSSA)) and Ontario (Ontario Council of
Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)) in the late 1970s and took a decade longer to emerge in Saskatchewan
(Saskatchewan Association of Immigrant and Settlement Integration Agencies (SAISIA)). Their role in research,
policy development and direct mandates for political advocacy varies as well. OCASI embraces all three roles,
AMSAA does not do political advocacy, and SAISIA does not have a mandate for either research or political advocacy,
although they all do engage in other collective voice and government engagement functions (OCASI & CISSA, 2014:
32, 2–6).
The Province of BC was one of the earlier sub-national governments to take on a greater role in settlement and
immigration. This was greatly facilitated by an agreement between BC and the Federal Government which started in
1998 to devolve with funding settlement services to the province (Hiebert & Sherrell, 2011, 82–83). Currently however,
as part of wide ranging set of Federal reforms to immigration policy this agreement has been canceled and settlement is
being ‘repatriated’ back to the national government. This has caused considerable anxiety and confusion among
settlement organizations in the province. The Province of Ontario also got a settlement devolution agreement with the
Federal Government but the national government has refused to renew this 5 year arrangement. Ontario has had for a
considerable period of time a separate department, Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration (MCI), which handles
immigration issues (Biles et al., 2011). Saskatchewan by contrast has never had a settlement agreement with the Federal
Government and the immigration portfolio has regularly shifted between different ministries (Garcea, 2011).
Settlement services are about providing various forms of support and assistance to immigrant populations which
help newcomers get established in, and meet their core needs/requirements, for their integration into their new
B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127
119
homeland. The goal of settlement services is to support immigrants’ short and longer-term needs to make the
transitions toward being able to fully participate in the economy and society. Immigrant settlement and integration,
and the services associated with these goals are characterized by the following:
– Adjustment: acclimatization and getting use to the new culture, language, people and environment or coping with the
situation.
– Adaptation: learning and managing the situation without a great deal of help.
– Integration: actively participating, getting involved and contributing as citizen of a new country (OCASI & COSTI,
1999: Chapter 2, 1).
Settlement services tend to be focused in the areas of: (1) language acquisition and proficiency; (2) employmentrelated services; (3) housing; and (4) information workshops and settlement counseling services. Settlement and
integration policies are more than just administrative decisions, they are also established programs and practices that
provide a general reflection of what the society believes should be the place of immigrants in their communities
(Siemiatycki & Triadafilopoulos, 2010). Moreover, these policies point to the warmth of the newcomers welcome
(Reitz, 1998) to their new society, and the policies provide something of a blueprint regarding how and by what paths
immigrants will be supported in their journey toward accommodation, acceptance and integration. Given that
newcomers constitute a vulnerable population, especially since some 70% of them are identifiable minorities,
nonprofit organizations and frontline agencies that service this population have a special role to play in giving voice to
newcomer concerns and interests to government policymakers.
3. Context setting: NGO advocacy and developments in governance and public administration – a brief
overview
Advocacy is one of the key roles that nonprofit NGOs play within modern society. Providing a voice to the
communities they serve, especially vulnerable ones, is important for democracy and, in the case of immigrants, for
their effective integration into society (Evans & Shields, 2010; Richmond & Shields, 2005; Shragge, 2013, 47).
Laforest (2001, 8) has defined advocacy broadly as ‘‘the act of voicing the concerns and needs of the constituency,
conveying their opinion and representing their interest to the state’’. Carter, Plewes, and Echenberg (2005, 6) have
categorized the policy voice role of nonprofit organizations as involving the following categories: ‘‘(1) identifying
issues on the policy agenda; (2) developing policy solutions through research and analysis, i.e. policy-ready research;
and (3) promoting particular policy solutions’’ which includes mobilizing, protesting and demonstrating, lobbying
government and other forms of advocacy including dialoguing with government.
One useful way of thinking about nonprofit advocacy is what Creese has called ‘big advocacy’ versus ‘small
advocacy’. Big advocacy involves employing a more public form to addressing policy change which includes
‘‘challenging government programs and policies that affect immigrants, refugees and settlement workers’’ (1998, 28).
‘Small advocacy’ concerns activities that involve more ‘behind the scenes’, day to day interface and ‘consultation’ that
occurs between state officials and NGO personnel (Creese, 1998, 27). The advocacy on the part of nonprofits that takes
place here means taking on something of an insider role where educating officials rather than confronting the state
becomes the focus. Of course, as Gormley and Cymrot note, the effectiveness of insider strategies rests on the
presumption that meaningful access to government exists and that the NGOs are listened to and have a reasonable
ability to actually influence the policy and programming (2006, 104). This study is particularly centered around
examining the ‘small advocacy’ role of nonprofits in settlement and integration policy.
Wayland reminds us that nonprofit advocacy is about relationships that involve engagement with the state resulting
in ‘‘both collaboration and conflict’’ (Wayland, 2006: 1). Insider strategies rest upon a collaboration focus. Jedwab, for
one, maintains that in the immigration field that the best and most successful relationships between nonprofits and
governments have been constructed upon the foundations of consultation and consensus building rather than
competition and conflict (Jedwab, 2002, 77). This, however, presupposes openness and the state accepting nonprofit
organizations as partners in a larger policy process. Numerous analysts do not see such an approach as matching
current reality (Caragata & Basu, 2013, 329–330; Shragge, 2013), while others see more openness in the Canadian
policy process (Burstein, 2010; Tolley, Biles, Vineberg, Burstein, & Frideres, 2011).
120
B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127
Clearly the dominant governance paradigm concerning state–society relationships, policy development and state–
nonprofit relationships are important for determining the kind of interaction that is likely to shape nonprofit voice.
Contemporary Canadian public policy has been guided by neoliberalism which has structured public administration
through the adoption of NPM (Shields & Evans, 1998). One significant result has been a marketization of the state–
nonprofit relationship where noprofits have been recast as an alternative service delivery agent (Alford & O’Flynn,
2012; Kelly & Caputo, 2012; Shields & Evans, 1998). This relationship has been particularly governed by the state’s
use of short term contract financing of programs which nonprofit organizations are compelled to compete for. The
relationship between the state and nonprofit service providers is reframed less around policy co-production (Alford,
2002) toward one built on vertical control and accountabilities which actually extend the government regulation of the
sector (Phillips and Smith, 2011, 3). Thus, government-funded nonprofits have been characterized as the ‘shadow civil
service’ (Laforest, 2011, 37). The use of contract financing has created competitive quasi-markets for service delivery
(Mclaughlin, Osborne, & Ferlie, 2002). While this has succeeded in restructuring the nonprofit service sector along
quasi-market lines, from a community perspective, many negative consequences have resulted entailing unintended
and undesirable outcomes. Examples include competition that leads to significant fragmentation of services;
insufficient nonprofit providers to promote effective competition (Phillips & Smith, 2011, 3); the short-term nature of
contracts and their under-financing which compromises the ongoing viability of delivery organizations (Eakin, 2005);
and excessive accountability rules that result in more compliant agencies, at the price of excessive administrative costs
and the stifling of innovation; all of which seriously compromises optimal service provision. Problems of
administrative ‘red tape’ have been identified as helping to ‘kill the nonprofit golden goose’ (Smith & Smyth, 2010).
Such administrative accountability challenges have been forcefully raised by the Federal Government’s Blue Ribbon
Panel on Grants and Contributions which is supported by the nonprofit sector (Burstein, 2010: 3) but little in the way of
adoption of these reforms have yet been forthcoming, especially at the national level.
A significant consequence of the contract funding regime for settlement services is that nonprofit NGOs have very
limited resources with which to take on their advocacy role. The agencies are further required to engage in competitive
bidding against each other in order to win a contract. And there is the additional tension created where there is a
‘‘desire to engage in effective advocacy, with the government as their primary target, yet they depend heavily on
government funding’’ (Wayland, 2006, 3). This can result in ‘advocacy chill’. At the Federal level in particular there
has been evidence of such a chill and even threats to the charitable status of some vocal NGO advocates (Douglas,
2012; Tides Canada, 2012). Andrew Griffith, a former CIC senior official, makes note of how political staff in Ottawa
have been looking closely at nonprofit service providers to ensure that they are not misaligned with the policy priorities
of the government (Griffith, 2013).
The economic crisis of 2008 which has brought forward a wide ranging austerity agenda has placed additional
stress on the NGO settlement sector. Rising levels of unemployment and social dislocation among newcomers has
increased demand for services at the very time that settlement funding is being cut (Shields, 2014). This is promoting a
widespread restructuring and ‘rationalization’ of government settlement support (Burstein, 2010: 2) which has further
taxed the capacity of the sector.
Thus the neoliberalization of the nonprofit sector discourages traditional advocacy roles which become framed by
government as special interest activities (Evans & Shields, 2010). But the decentralization and devolution of the state
has opened up gaps which NGOs can fill. Specifically, as the state’s research capacities have been diminished and the
state may be compelled to rely upon more outside input in developing public policy.
Within public administration, the limitations of NPM have spurred the promotion of the New Public Governance
(NPG) model of an emerging pluralist relationship between the state and non-governmental actors (Osborne, 2010).
NPG identifies the need for a shift to horizontal accountability and co-governance while moving away from narrow
command and control, rule compliant structures. The end result is policy co-production marked by collaborative
relationships in which power is shared and where the advocacy role of nonprofit providers is recognized as an
important function (Baldwin & Black, 2008). NPG includes enhanced and more flexible funding supports that have
longer time horizons and which promote networks over cut-throat competition (Phillips & Smith, 2011, 4–6). A
consequence of the shrinkage of state policy capacity is the need for a more collaborative and inclusive practice of
policymaking (Baskoy, Evans, & Shields, 2011).
Partnerships within the nonprofit sector are based on mutual trust and power sharing. However, competitive
contractualization and the resulting marketization of the sector has transformed this culture. The movement toward
NPG would go some distance in constructing more equitable partnerships and more meaningful and less disruptive
B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127
121
Table 1
Distribution of settlement services policy officials interviews.
Government officials
Ontario
British Columbia
Saskatchewan
Total
Nonprofit officials
5
5
4
6
6
5
14
17 = 31
accountability measures. The question remains as to whether there is evidence of such a shift toward this NPG
paradigm. Examining the nature of the interaction between mid-level government policy officials and NGO policy
actors, and the scope given to nonprofit voices in policy, is the focus of this study. The extent and quality of policy
intera …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades