Centre for Applied Social Research

Faculty of Social Work University of Toronto

Principal Investigators

Usha George, Ph.D.

Wes Shera, Ph.D.

Madalena Silva

Joanne Daciuk

Mary Steen

Darina Vasek

November, 1999 – June, 2000

This Evaluation Report consists of four separate reports:

1. SEPT Evaluation Report : November, 1999 –

June, 2000

2. Interim Evaluation Report : March, 2000

3. Brief to the SEPT Steering Committee and Summary of the Recommendations : June, 2000

4. SEPT Summer Project Evaluation Report : July – October, 2000

Executive Summary

The Settlement and Education Partnership in Toronto (SEPT) Project emerged in 1998 as a result of a province-wide consultation on newcomers' settlement needs. The SEPT Pilot Project is an innovative project designed to assist newcomer students and their families with their settlement needs. To this end, settlement service workers are employed to provide settlement services to newcomer students and their families in some schools in the Toronto District School Board (TDSB). The SEPT Project was initiated in September 1999 after being planned for over a year and is funded by the Ontario Administration of Settlement and Integration Services (OASIS), Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). The expected outcomes for the project are outlined in the Operational Guidelines.

The project is overseen by a Steering Committee that consists of a representative from a lead agency of each of the eight clusters, the Liaison Team, CIC, representatives of the TDSB, and a representative from the City of Toronto. The Steering Committee has the mandate to identify and recommend changes to the project. There is also an evaluation committee and an ad hoc committee of the Steering Committee to examine the roles of the settlement workers in schools.

The Management Committee, co-chaired by a representative of the settlement sector and a representative of the TDSB, handles pressing administrative matters and also consists of a representative of CIC and the Liaison Team.

To facilitate the development of collaboration between the TDSB and the settlement sector a Liaison Team was created. One staff member of the Liaison Team was hired from the TDSB and the other from the settlement sector to provide a forum for negotiations in each sector and to share perspectives from each sector.

The project is a unique and timely one, especially because many newcomers to Toronto do not directly access settlement services upon arrival. The education system is a point of entry for almost all newcomers. Thus, this project is accessible to both newcomer students and their parents. The project is also innovative in that it has brought together the immigrant settlement sector and the TDSB to provide services to newcomers to Toronto. The project has a complex structure to enhance participation and to provide opportunities for the voices of stakeholders to be heard. Almost all participants who were interviewed indicated that the project is working well and that its status as a pilot provides opportunities for improvement.

The evaluation process commenced in November 1999. The purpose of the evaluation was to recommend changes to the operationalization of the service delivery model, or to the model itself, that would result in more efficient and effective service delivery to newcomer students and their families.

This evaluation was carried out by a research team from the Centre for Applied Social Research, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto. The principal investigator was Usha George, Ph.D and the co-principal investigator was Wes Shera, Ph.D. The data analyst was Joanne Daciuk and the project coordinator was Madalena Silva. Mary Steen and Darina Vasek worked as research assistants for the SEPT Evaluation.

The Evaluation Team utilized a stakeholder service model of project evaluation. Therefore, ongoing consultation was provided by the Evaluation Team to the SEPT Project. One of the major strengths of this model was that it allowed the Evaluation Team to develop rapport with the stakeholders, and thus, be informed of sensitive issues that might not have been brought to the attention of reviewers using another evaluation model.

The evaluation process consisted of a formative evaluation of the project’s implementation and a summative evaluation of the project’s outcome. It should be noted that these were not entirely discrete phases in the evaluation. The knowledge gained during the formative evaluation informed and deepened the analysis that is being provided in this final report.

An interim evaluation report was tabled at the completion of the formative evaluation phase, and this final report has been prepared for the summative phase of the evaluation. At the request of the Steering Committee, a brief of the tentative research findings was presented at the Steering Committee meeting in June 2000. Copies of the interim report and the brief to the Steering Committee can in Appendix 10 and Appendix 11 of the report.

According to the Evaluation Team’s proposal for the evaluation of the SEPT Pilot Project, the framework for the evaluation consisted of administrative audits, time and motion studies, and social accounting. Administrative audits examine the management and structure of a project. Time and motion studies concentrate on the use of staff time and resources. Social accounting refers to an in-depth examination of the records of a project. All of these activities were interrelated and were accomplished through extensive reviews of project documents, interviews and focus groups with stakeholders, on-site observations, and an examination of project statistics and documentation.

It is important to note that the mandate of this evaluation was to examine the first year of the SEPT Project. The Evaluation Team has made recommendations for the improvement of the SEPT Project, but realizes that external changes, such as the restructuring of the TDSB, are not under the control of project stakeholders and may prompt changes other than the ones suggested in this report.

The main findings of this evaluation are detailed in the report in the following sections: The Planning of the SEPT Pilot Project, Structure of the SEPT Project, Methodology of the Evaluation, Nature of Services, Functioning of the SEPT Project Structure, Day-to- Day Implementation of the SEPT Project, Tracking Form Data Analysis, Outcomes, Recommendations and Concluding Notes.

We have identified certain steps that would enable the project to function in a more efficient manner. The following recommendations are based on the data that was collected during the evaluation process.

The following recommendations are not ordered according to importance.

Recommendation One: A retreat/brainstorming session should be held for key stakeholders to decide issues such as the delivery and nature of SEPT services should be held. It would be important to decide on a set of core services and general standards for the SEPT Project at that time.

Recommendation Two: A framework to provide consistent services across clusters should be developed.

Recommendation Three: The roles for the school settlement workers should continue to be clarified. These roles should be made clear to school settlement workers, cluster coordinators, school principals and TDSB support staff and other project stakeholders during orientation sessions. There should be improved coordination to ensure that there is no significant overlap between the activities of community liaison staff and school settlement workers. Co-operation between these two groups would be facilitated by holding joint planning sessions with community liaison staff and school settlement workers and/or cluster coordinators.

As soon as they are finalized, the final recommendations of the Roles Sub-Committee of the Steering Committee should be disseminated to all stakeholders in the SEPT Project. The Evaluation Team believes that a checklist for easy reference as to the respective duties of school settlement workers and TDSB support staff would be desirable.

Recommendation Four: Clear guidelines should be established by the TDSB for referrals to the school settlement workers by school staff. The Evaluation Team recommends that registration forms be given to school settlement workers as soon as possible after each registration.

Recommendation Five: TDSB policies that affect the SEPT Project, such as the requirement to obtain licenses for after-school activities, should be examined and if possible streamlined for the more efficient functioning of the SEPT Project.

Recommendation Six: Clubs that are facilitated by school settlement workers should be multicultural/settlement activity or support groups rather than ethnic students’ associations. This would encourage the formation of broad-based groups that promote integration and cross-cultural harmony. It is also recommended that groups that are led by school settlement workers focus on activities that will encourage the settlement and integration of newcomer students.

Recommendation Seven: Communication systems should be standardized across clusters. This would include the distribution of local advisory committee/cluster meeting minutes, Steering Committee minutes, monthly progress reports, meeting notifications and regular phone contacts to partner agency staff, school contacts and other local advisory committee members.

Recommendation Eight: Cluster partnerships should be reviewed and re-negotiated at the cluster level, so that only those agencies who can commit to being active participants for the next year of the project are included in the cluster partnerships.

Recommendation Nine: Partner agencies should be provided with ongoing opportunities to make their views known to the funder and to project management. This would ensure that partner agencies and the communities they represent are adequately represented in project decisions. A formal mechanism for such input should be developed.

Recommendation Ten: Clear guidelines regarding reporting responsibilities of members of the various committees to their constituencies should be developed. In particular, the responsibility of the coordinators to report project management decisions to the executive directors of lead agencies should be clarified. The Evaluation Team also suggests that the principal representative on the Steering Committee be made a representative of the Principals’ Association, thus ensuring that principals across the TDSB are informed of the decisions of the Steering Committee.

Recommendation Eleven: A decision-making process for the Steering Committee should be established as soon as possible. Such a process would include equitable agenda-setting and rules of order.

It is recommended that agendas be distributed at least three days before every Steering Committee meeting. It would also be advisable to distribute briefs or policy documents to be discussed at Steering Committee meetings well in advance of the meetings in order to facilitate full participation at those meetings.

The Evaluation Team suggests that the Steering Committee adopt pre-established rules of order, making adaptations to these established rules if the committee members desire.

These rules of order should include voting procedures.

Recommendation Twelve: The Evaluation Team recommends that a new position in the SEPT Project be created. We recommend that a SEPT Project Coordinator be employed to maintain systematic communication with the settlement sector and the TDSB. The Project Coordinator would provide leadership in the project and ensure that there are consistent standards of service delivery throughout the project.

Recommendation Thirteen: Although the evaluation only covered the first year of the SEPT Pilot Project, the Evaluation Team is aware of the re-organization of the TDSB and other changes to the SEPT Project. Therefore, the number, composition, structure and continuing realignment of the clusters to the four administrative areas of the TDSB should be reviewed by an Ad Hoc Committee of the Steering Committee. Any reorganization of clusters should be based on more efficiently meeting the needs of newcomer clients and communities.

Recommendation Fourteen: An equitable process for the inclusion of new schools in the SEPT Project should be established as soon as possible.

Recommendation Fifteen: All school settlement workers should have a workspace in which they can meet privately with clients. School settlement workers should have access to a telephone, desk, secure filing cabinet and to a computer with e-mail and Internet access. Their offices should also be easily accessible to newcomer parents and students.

Recommendation Sixteen: Starting salaries, increments, allowances and benefits for SEPT personnel should be standardized across clusters. This may include harmonizing remuneration with the Immigrant and Settlement Adaptation Program (ISAP) salary levels.

Recommendation Seventeen: The group service tracking form should be reviewed and restructured in order to more accurately capture the data emerging from the project. Specific topics must be identified on the form to eliminate bias and confusion.

School settlement workers should be told to fill out one form for each group activity, including each meeting of an ongoing group. As well, school settlement workers need further training on the proper reporting of group data. In terms of data analysis, the information should be organized by cluster.

Recommendation Eighteen: The individual service tracking form and the guide to this form should be reviewed and restructured on an ongoing basis according to the needs of the project.

Recommendation Nineteen: The number of schools that some school settlement workers visit each week should be decreased and in cases in which there is high client demand, school settlement worker hours should be increased to full-time hours.

High client demand is a function of client need; therefore, the Evaluation Team can give no general guideline for the number of clients that each school settlement worker should serve. Therefore, the Evaluation Team recommends that ongoing review of the appropriate placement of school settlement workers be undertaken by cluster coordinators, local advisory committees and school personnel.

Recommendation Twenty: Concrete guidelines for cross-cluster exchanges should be instituted. Such guidelines should include timelines for service delivery and a request form that could be faxed between coordinators so as to keep track of such exchanges. These guidelines should be developed by the coordinators and the SEPT Project Coordinator.

Recommendation Twenty-One: Training on confidentiality issues, the proper handling of client information and proper follow-up procedures should be given to all SEPT personnel. A training session on TDSB policies regarding discrimination and harassment should also be given to all SEPT personnel. Human rights training should also be given and this training should include components on cultural sensitivity.

Recommendation Twenty-Two: A resource kit for school settlement workers’ orientation should be developed and distributed. This resource kit should include the policy and procedures manual, immigrant service resource directories and/or lists, school policies and other relevant protocols.

Recommendation Twenty-Three: Orientation sessions on the SEPT Project should be held for all principals in SEPT schools and TDSB support staff. The SEPT Project should also be included as an item in teachers’ professional development.

Recommendation Twenty-Four: Maps of each cluster with participating schools, community resources and government agencies should be developed by each cluster and distributed to newcomer clients.

I would like to acknowledge Ontario Administration of Settlement and Integration Services (OASIS), Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) for providing such a large range of programming for newcomers to Canada. In particular, I would like to thank Elizabeth Gryte, Manager of Programs, Ontario Region, for making the evaluation of the Settlement and Education Partnership in Toronto (SEPT) possible. I would also like to thank Virginia Trevurza and Lynn Murrell, Program Consultants, who provided essential feedback to the Evaluation Team.

I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of the members of the Evaluation Team: Madalena Silva (Project Coordinator), Joanne Daciuk (Data Analyst), and Mary Steen and Darina Vasek (Research Assistants). As well, we are grateful for the excellent administrative support of Michele McDonell and Cita de los Santos.

This study would not have been possible without the assistance and collaboration of the SEPT Lead Agencies, the SEPT Cluster Coordinators, the School Settlement Workers, the Liaison Team, SEPT Steering Committee, SEPT Management Committee, SEPT Evaluation Committee, SEPT Partner Agencies, principals of participating schools and other members of the TDSB Management Team. Your valuable time and assistance are very much appreciated.

Most importantly, I would like to extend my gratitude to the newcomer parents and students who participated in the focus groups and shared their time, knowledge and insights into the experiences of newcomer families.

I would like to thank all of those who participated in the evaluation of the SEPT Project; your enthusiasm and knowledge were instrumental in the completion of this evaluation.

Usha George, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator
Faculty of Social Work
University of Toronto

Table of Contents

Executive Summary *

Recommendations *

The Nature of SEPT Services *

Structure of the SEPT Project *

Day-to-Day Implementation of the SEPT Project *

Acknowledgements *

Table of Contents *

List of Appendices *

Introduction *

Background *

The Planning of the SEPT Pilot Project *

History *

Structure of the SEPT Project *

Overview *

Overall Management of the SEPT Project *

Cluster Management *

SEPT Project Organizational Chart and Lines of Communication *

Lines of Communication and Accountability *

Methodology of the Evaluation *

Overview *

Interview Schedule/Focus Group Script Development *

Data Collection *

Data Collection for the Interim Report *

Table 1 Summary of Data Collection Methods for the Interim Report *

Data Collection for the Final Report *

Newcomer Sample Selection and Recruitment Methods *

Data Analysis *

Limitations of the Methodology *

Findings *

Nature of Services *

Services Provided by the SEPT Project *

General Overview *

Services to Newcomer Parents *

Services to Newcomer Students *

Services to Schools *

Variability of Services and Non-Mandated Services *

Critical Issues in Service Delivery *

Direct Service Versus Information and Referral *

Language-Specific Versus Generic Services *

Education-Related Services Versus Settlement Services *

Elementary School Versus High School Service Delivery *

Client Volume Versus Client Need *

The Role of School Settlement Workers *

Service and Personnel Policies *

Overview *

Handling of Client Information and Confidentiality *

Personnel Policies *

Cross-Cluster Exchanges *

Functioning of the SEPT Project Structure *

Partnerships *

Institutional Partnerships *

Cluster Partnerships *

Role of the Funder *

Functioning of Various Committees *

Local Advisory Committees *

Steering Committee *

Management Committee *

Common Themes in the Analysis of the Functioning of SEPT Committees *

Communication *

Cluster Communication *

Project Communication *

Day-to-Day Implementation of the SEPT Project *

School Settlement Worker Facilities and Working Conditions *

School Settlement Workers’ Training *

School Settlement Worker Scheduling *

Staff Supervision *

Tracking Form Data Analysis *

SEPT Service Tracking Form *

Analysis of Data from SEPT Service Tracking Forms *

Referral Source to the School Settlement Worker *

Table 12 Settlement Service Area by Language Category *

Type of Settlement Services *

Referrals to School Services, Community Agencies and Settlement Programs *

Settlement Service Area, Service Type and Referral to Other Services by Cluster *

Settlement Service Area *

Type of Settlement Service *

Summary of SEPT Service Tracking Form Analysis *

Group Service Tracking Forms *

Limitations of the Group Tracking Form and Group Tracking Form Analysis *

Outcomes *

Client Satisfaction *

Newcomer Parents *

Newcomer Students *

Outcomes for Stakeholders *

Outcomes for Newcomer Parents *

Outcomes for Newcomer Students *

Outcomes for Lead Agencies *

Outcomes for Partner Agencies *

Outcomes for Schools *

Recommendations *

The Nature of SEPT Services *

Structure of the SEPT Project *

Day-to-Day Implementation of the SEPT Project *

Concluding Notes *

Best Practices *

Cluster Coordination and Communication *

Staff Training/Professional Development *

Services to Newcomer Parents *

Services to Newcomer Students (General) *

Services to Newcomer Secondary School Students *

Appendix One: Interview Schedules/Focus Group Scripts for Interim Evaluation

• Interview Schedule for Key Informants
• Focus Group Script/Interview Schedule for Partner Agencies
• Focus Group Script for School Settlement Workers
• Interview Schedule for School Principals

Appendix Two: Interview Schedules/Focus Group Scripts for Final Evaluation

• Interview Schedule for Key Informants
• Focus Group Script for Coordinators
• Focus Group Script for Newcomer Students
• Focus Group Script for Newcomer Parents
• Focus Group Script for School Principals
• Focus Group Script for Executive Directors of Lead Agencies
• Telephone Interview Schedule for Partner Agencies

Appendix Three: Questionnaire for School Settlement Workers

Appendix Four: Analysis of Questionnaire for School Settlement Workers

Appendix Five: Consent Forms

• Consent Form for Focus Group Participants (general)
• Consent Form for Key Informant Interviews
• Consent Form for Newcomer Focus Group Participants
• Consent Form for School Settlement Worker Focus Group
• Consent Form for School Settlement Worker Interviews

Appendix Six: Recruitment Materials

• Script for Recruitment of Newcomer Parent Focus Group Participants for School Settlement Workers
• Script for Recruitment of Newcomer Student Focus Group Participants for School Settlement Workers

Appendix Seven: Study Information

• Study Information Sheet
• Summary of the Evaluation Proposal
• What is a Program Evaluation?

Appendix Eight: Services Offered by the SEPT Project

Appendix Nine: Participants in the SEPT Project

• List of Participating Agencies
• List of Participating Schools

Appendix Ten: Interim Evaluation of the SEPT Project

Appendix Eleven: Brief to the Steering Committee of the SEPT Project and Summary of the Recommendations

Appendix Twelve: Tracking Forms

• SEPT Service Tracking Form
• Group Service Tracking Form

Appendix Thirteen: SEPT Operational

This report outlines the findings of the independent evaluation of the Settlement and Education and Partnership in Toronto (SEPT) Pilot Project. The purpose of this report is to provide constructive feedback on the functioning of the project over a nine-month time-frame, with a view to enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the project.

An Interim Report was tabled to the Steering Committee in March 2000. This phase of the evaluation has focused on the outcomes of the SEPT Project. However, the consultative and collaborative nature of this evaluation has continued throughout the entire evaluation process.

The Settlement and Education Partnership in Toronto (SEPT) Pilot Project is an innovative project designed to assist newcomer students and their families with their settlement needs. To this end, settlement service workers have been employed to provide settlement services to newcomer students and their families in some schools in the Toronto District School Board (TDSB). The SEPT Project was initiated in September 1999, after being planned for over a year. It is funded by the Ontario Administration of Settlement and Integration Services (OASIS), Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). The expected outcomes of the SEPT Project, according to the Operational Guidelines, are as follows:

1. The partnership between parents, schools and the community will be strengthened.
2. Newcomer families will become aware and enabled to access the full range of community and institutional services and resources available to assist the family members to settle in Toronto.
3. Clients will have one-stop referral to a full range of services in the wider community.
4. Schools will have one-stop referral to settlement services for children and their families.
5. School staff and settlement staff will be more informed about each other's needs and resources.
6. There will be a bridge between parents and students; between parents and the school; and between students and the school.
7. Parents will have an understanding of how to become involved in their children's education.
8. Parents will be empowered to affect the education system/process on behalf of the child.
9. School staff will be better informed about the needs of the newcomer population.
10. Cultural interpretation will be available on site and will be accessible to parents and staff.

The SEPT Project emerged as a result of a province-wide consultation in 1998 on newcomers’ settlement needs. A strategy group, the Developmental Phase Steering Committee, was formed to work out the mechanics of the project. The Steering Committee representatives consisted of settlement service providers, the TDSB, the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, the Ontario Ministry of Education, the City of Toronto, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI), and the Ontario Administration of Settlement and Integration Services (OASIS), Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). The Developmental Phase Steering Committee was responsible for generating the Operational Guidelines that are presently directing the SEPT Project and for the hiring of the Liaison Team. The Developmental Phase Steering Committee was disbanded after this hiring.

CIC subsequently presented an Invitation for Proposals to the settlement sector, outlining the criteria for participation in the SEPT Project. Two information sessions with interested school principals and settlement sector representatives were held in December 1998. Settlement service provider organizations and TDSB schools in certain geographical areas were asked to form partnerships and to submit the name of one agency that would be the lead agency in each cluster. The lead agencies agreed to be accountable to CIC for the management of the project in their cluster. Each cluster was to include settlement service providers that would be able to deliver comprehensive and culturally sensitive services to newcomer students and families. Schools with large concentrations of newcomer students were identified and invited to participate voluntarily. Proposals were to be received by CIC in January 1999.

The SEPT Project officially started service delivery in September 1999. According to the data received by the Evaluation Team in May 2000, sixty-nine schools were participating in the SEPT Project at that time. There were forty-seven school settlement workers and eight cluster coordinators. Forty-five agencies, including the eight lead agencies, were involved in SEPT in May 2000. These numbers may have changed due to program changes, staff changes and turnover, school closings and other logistical issues.

Structure of the SEPT Project

This section of the report aims to give an overview of the structure of the project. The Operational Guidelines, the original requests for proposals for the SEPT Project, the request for proposals for the SEPT evaluation, the communications protocol and the information collected through interviews and focus groups were all utilized for this section of the report. This section shows how the SEPT Project is structured. It is not meant to show how the structure has evolved over time, nor to comment on how efficiently the structure is working. For a more comprehensive view of the structure, please refer to the organizational chart in the following section of the report. The functioning of the structure will be examined later in this report.

The Steering Committee consists of a representative from a lead agency of each of the eight clusters, representatives from CIC, representatives of the TDSB, and the Liaison Team. The City of Toronto and other provincial and federal departments were invited to join the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is co-chaired by a representative of the TDSB and a representative of the settlement sector. The Steering Committee has the mandate to identify and recommend changes to the project.

The Management Committee, which is co-chaired by a representative of the settlement sector and a representative of the TDSB, also includes a representative of CIC and the Liaison Team. It sets the agenda for Steering Committee meetings and handles pressing administrative matters of the project. All of the members of the Management Committee sit on the Steering Committee.

The Liaison Team was created to facilitate the development of collaboration between the TDSB and the settlement sector. One staff member of the Liaison Team was hired from the TDSB, and the other was hired from the settlement sector. The Liaison Team is supported by administrative staff, who assist in communicating with the various organizations involved in the project and in compiling project data.

The Evaluation Committee is responsible for the activities related to the external consultant’s evaluation of the SEPT Project. There have also been ad hoc committees of the Steering Committee as needed.

The SEPT Project is administered locally in eight geographic clusters across the city of Toronto. Each cluster consists of participating TDSB schools and settlement service provider organizations. Each cluster has a lead or trustee settlement service agency that administers the funding for the project, and a group of one or more partner agencies that perform other duties, including the provision of input into the management of the cluster and the acceptance of referrals from the project.

Each cluster has a local advisory committee, which raises issues and suggests improvements to the implementation of the SEPT Project. According to the Operational Guidelines of the project, the local advisory committees should consist of at least one newcomer parent, one newcomer secondary school student, one secondary school student council representative, the executive director of a settlement service provider, a TDSB administrator and the cluster coordinator.

Within each cluster, there is a team of approximately five or six school settlement workers. These school settlement workers are supervised by a cluster coordinator, who is also responsible for liaising with TDSB staff, settlement service agencies and other SEPT personnel, and for coordinating the collection of data on the project from the front-line staff.







































Within the SEPT model, communication is supposed to be filtered in a bi-directional manner between the various players. SEPT News, which is produced by the Liaison Team, was designed to ensure that all stakeholders receive regular updates on the status of the project. Both the Liaison Team and the cluster coordinators are the primary conduits of information from the project management level to the front-line level of the project.

The Liaison Team reports to the Steering Committee. The reporting relationship of the cluster coordinators is unclear in the Operational Guidelines of the project, but in practice, these individuals report to the executive directors of the lead agencies. The school settlement workers are directly supervised by the cluster coordinators and frequently liaise with principals, vice principals and other TDSB staff.

The local advisory committees in each cluster provide an opportunity for communicating with stakeholders in the clusters and for initiating program improvements. The local advisory committees are also designed to ensure that the project is accountable to the stakeholders in each cluster.

The evaluation process commenced in November 1999. The purpose of the evaluation was to recommend changes to the operationalization of the service delivery model or to the model itself, that would result in more efficient and effective service delivery to newcomer students and their families.

This evaluation was carried out by a research team from the Centre for Applied Social Research, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto. The principal investigator was Usha George, Ph.D, and the co-principal investigator was Wes Shera, Ph.D. The data analyst was Joanne Daciuk and the project coordinator was Madalena Silva. Mary Steen and Darina Vasek worked as research assistants for the SEPT Evaluation.

The Evaluation Team utilized a stakeholder service model of project evaluation. Therefore, ongoing consultation was provided by the Evaluation Team to the SEPT Project. One of the major strengths of this model was that it allowed the Evaluation Team to develop rapport with the stakeholders, and thus, be informed of sensitive issues that might not have been brought to the attention of reviewers using another evaluation model.

The evaluation process consisted of a formative evaluation of the project’s implementation and a summative evaluation of the project’s outcome. It should be noted that these were not entirely discrete phases in the evaluation. The knowledge gained during the formative evaluation informed and deepened the analysis that is being provided in this final report.

An interim evaluation report was tabled at the completion of the formative evaluation phase, and this final report has been prepared for the summative phase of the evaluation. At the request of the Steering Committee, a brief of the tentative research findings was presented at the Steering Committee meeting in June 2000. Copies of the interim report and the brief to the Steering Committee can be found in Appendix 10 and Appendix 11 of this report.

According to the Evaluation Team’s proposal for the evaluation of the SEPT Pilot Project, the framework for the evaluation consisted of administrative audits, time and motion studies, and social accounting. Administrative audits examine the management and structure of a project. Time and motion studies concentrate on the use of staff time and resources. Social accounting refers to an in-depth examination of the records of a project. All of these activities were interrelated and were accomplished through extensive reviews of project documents, interviews and focus groups with stakeholders, on-site observations, and an examination of project statistics and documentation.

It is important to note that the mandate of this evaluation was to examine the first year of the SEPT Project. The Evaluation Team has made recommendations for the improvement of the SEPT Project, but realizes that external changes, such as the restructuring of the TDSB, are not under the control of project stakeholders and may prompt changes other than the ones suggested in this report.

Semi-structured interview schedules were used for all interviews, and semi-structured focus group scripts were used for all focus groups. As a result of the complexity of the project and the different constituencies involved, a number of interview schedules and focus group scripts were developed for the different stakeholder groups. As well, different interview schedules and focus group scripts were developed after the interim report to capture the evolution of the SEPT Project.

A semi-structured questionnaire with a combination of open-ended and close-ended questions was designed for school settlement workers. To review all interview schedules, focus group scripts, and the school settlement worker questionnaire, please consult Appendix 1, Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 of this report.

The data collection methods utilized for the Interim Report are summarized in Table 1.

Seven key informants were interviewed individually for the interim report. Key informants included members of the Management and Steering Committees. A focus group was also held with the Evaluation Committee for the interim report.

Seven of the eight executive directors of lead agencies were interviewed individually at the beginning of the evaluation. All of the cluster coordinators were interviewed for the interim report.

Ten principals were interviewed individually for the interim report. Two focus groups with school settlement workers were held with a total of twenty-two participants. One individual interview was conducted for this phase of the evaluation.

Two focus groups were held with partner agencies, with a total of eight participating agencies. Individual interviews were also held with the SEPT contacts of seven partner agencies for the interim report.

Since newcomer data was to be utilized mainly as data on satisfaction and outcomes, the Evaluation Team decided to defer the newcomer focus groups until the following phase of the evaluation.

Document analysis began during this phase of the evaluation. The documents that were analyzed included, but were not limited to the following:

• Operational Guidelines of the SEPT Project;
• Letter of Agreement between CIC and the TDSB;
• Invitation for Proposals to take part in the SEPT Project;
• Request for Proposals to perform the evaluation of the SEPT Project;
• SEPT News;
• Communication Protocol for the SEPT Project;
• Terms of Reference of the Steering Committee;
• Steering Committee minutes and minutes of the Developmental Phase Steering Committee;
• School settlement worker training plans and agendas;
• Cluster coordinator reports and minutes of coordinator meetings;
• Job descriptions and schedules of SEPT personnel;
• Some general correspondence and promotional materials of the SEPT Project; and,
• Individual tracking form data.

The data collection methods utilized for the final evaluation report are summarized in Table 2.

Eight key informant interviews were conducted for the final report. All of the members of the Steering and Management Committees were interviewed at least once throughout the evaluation process, and the majority of the members were interviewed twice.

Telephone interviews were conducted with the SEPT contacts of eleven partner agencies who had not previously participated in the evaluation process.

A focus group with the executive directors of lead agencies was held, and the executive directors of six agencies attended. An individual interview of one lead agency was also arranged. A focus group was conducted with all of the SEPT cluster coordinators.

Three focus groups were conducted with TDSB principals for the final evaluation, and a total of thirty-two principals attended these focus groups. A survey was administered to school settlement workers, with forty-three questionnaires completed and returned. Eight site visits were also conducted by members of the Evaluation Team.

Eight focus groups with newcomer parents were organized. One focus group was held per cluster, and a total of forty-two parents participated. The newcomer parent focus groups were conducted with interpreters in the following languages: Dari, Somali, Farsi, Cantonese, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Urdu and Russian.

Seven focus groups with newcomer students were organized, with a total of fifty students participants. Cluster Four did not hold a newcomer student focus group because of logistical reasons. Three of the student focus groups were conducted with interpreters in the following languages: Tamil, Urdu and Farsi. Students from several other ethno-cultural groups also participated in the focus groups, but interpreters were not utilized for those focus groups.

Document analysis continued and was completed during this phase of the evaluation. Documents reviewed included, but were not limited to the following:

• Operational Guidelines of the SEPT Project;
• Invitation for Proposals to take part in the SEPT Project;
• Letter of Agreement between CIC and the TDSB;
• Communication Protocol for the SEPT Project;
• SEPT News;
• Terms of Reference of the Steering Committee;
• Steering Committee minutes and Developmental Phase Steering Committee minutes;
• Lead Agency Discussion Document;
• Lead Agency meeting minutes (some not available);
• Cluster letters of agreement (some not available);
• Sector meeting minutes (some not available);
• Local advisory committees’ minutes, membership and terms of reference (some not available);
• School settlement worker training plans and agendas;
• Cluster coordinator reports and minutes of coordinator meetings;
• Job descriptions and schedules of SEPT personnel;
• Some general correspondence and promotional materials of the SEPT Project;
• Individual tracking form data; and,
• Group service tracking form data.

The organizing of the newcomer focus groups was very complicated. During the first attempt at selecting schools randomly, the Evaluation Team was informed that services to students or families were low or non-existent in four of the schools that were on the list of participating schools. When the Evaluation Team proceeded with the random selection of schools, they were told that an additional four out of eight schools that had been randomly selected were inappropriate for focus groups. The reasons given as to why these schools would not be appropriate schools for focus groups ranged from low frequency of services to staff changes at the cluster and school administration levels.

It became evident that the Evaluation Team could not select the schools randomly. Therefore, the Evaluation Team had to make changes to the methodology for newcomer participant recruitment. In order to avoid bias in the selection of schools for the focus groups, the following approach was selected: schools were selected on the basis of number of clients, language of service provision in the school and age of newcomer students. Selecting schools that had more students provided more opportunity to randomly select family codes of students and parents. Through utilizing the language of service provision as a category for the focus groups, the majority of the languages groups across clusters were encountered. Finally, age was an important criterion for newcomer student groups. The Evaluation Team decided that ten years of age was the youngest group that would be interviewed.

Once schools were selected, the school settlement workers sent all of the family codes to the Evaluation Team. The Evaluation Team selected participants on the basis of language, and sent the codes back to the school settlement workers. To minimize the chance of upset to the clients, and because of issues around the availability of client data, the Evaluation Team was asked to allow school settlement workers to telephone potential study participants. The Evaluation Team provided a script for school settlement workers to follow when recruiting study participants. No remuneration was provided to participants, but TTC fares and refreshments were provided. Copies of the scripts that were used for the recruitment of study participants are included in Appendix 6 of this report.

Data analysis was conducted by examining common themes that emerged from the interview and focus group data. All of the administrative documents concerning the project and the monthly statistics of service delivery were also examined during the data analysis phases of the evaluation.

The Evaluation Team recognises that there were certain limitations to this research. One major limitation was the fact that it was not possible to randomly select newcomer clients for the focus groups. Another limitation was that the actual calling of newcomer clients was not under the control of the Evaluation Team, which made it impossible for the Evaluation Team to ensure that there was no bias regarding which newcomer clients were contacted. As well, the late introduction of the group service tracking form and certain problems with the collection of group service tracking form data make it difficult to judge the reliability of that data.

The following section reports the findings of the evaluation. This section is divided into five sub-sections: nature of services, functioning of the SEPT Project structure, day-to- day implementation of the SEPT Project, tracking form data and outcomes of the SEPT Project. These sections are interrelated and there may be some overlap.

A wide range of services is currently being offered by the SEPT Project. Common activities of school settlement workers in all clusters include providing information, assessing the settlement needs of newcomer clients, providing consultations, orienting newcomer clients to the health, social service and education systems in Canada, making referrals to social service and government agencies, problem-solving with clients, providing cultural interpretation, organizing and/or facilitating settlement-related events and groups within the schools, conducting outreach, and providing support to clients. For a more complete list of services, please consult Appendix Eight.

Many newcomer parents indicated that the school settlement worker had been a bridge between themselves and the school, resolving misunderstandings between themselves and school staff. Other common services that newcomers reported were cultural interpretation and orientation to the Canadian education system. Some parents mentioned that they had received services that are not in the SEPT mandate, such as being escorted to community resources.

The majority of the newcomer parents who were interviewed reported that their school settlement worker had provided them with information and had referred them to a community or government resource, especially to ESL/LINC classes and/or health services. The majority of those who were referred to a service did visit that resource. Many newcomer parents also reported that they had received support and encouragement from the school settlement workers.

In many schools, newcomer students were involved in clubs that were either organized or facilitated by school settlement workers. Sometimes school settlement workers assisted in clubs or student associations that had already been formed prior to their arrival. Many newcomer students took part in multicultural activity groups or newcomer support groups. Some of these groups were ethnic student associations. Although there certainly is value for newcomer students to connect with other students in the same situation, there is a potential for ethnic student associations to divide the student body within a given school, rather than to help students integrate. This point was raised by some newcomer student focus group participants, who reported that they thought that the focus of clubs should be to facilitate cultural awareness and cross-cultural harmony.

School settlement workers also organized or assisted in clubs that were more academically or recreationally based. Many newcomer students reported knowing the school settlement workers from the organization of cultural events or other presentations. As well, when a newcomer student was having school, behaviour and/or adjustment problems, the school settlement worker was often called on to talk with them and/or the school staff and/or the newcomer parents. Some students reported that they received a great deal of support and encouragement from the school settlement worker during a very difficult time of transition.

Generally, elementary school students were involved with the school settlement worker through cultural events or clubs/groups. High school students tended to elicit and receive more information from the school settlement workers, especially on topics such as orientation to Canadian schools, summer and part-time employment, post-secondary education and recreation. As well, services were quite different from elementary schools as many high school students spend more time apart from their parents than do younger children, and thus, outreach to their parents can be more difficult.

School settlement workers often provided cultural interpretation at school events such as teacher-parent interviews, school registrations, parent information nights and open houses. School settlement workers conducted outreach to newcomer parents and encouraged them to participate in school events and meetings, including school council meetings.

School settlement workers were frequently called on for support and problem-solving in cases involving newcomer students and/or newcomer parents. Cultural presentations were made by school settlement workers to sensitize teachers and other school staff to their students’ cultures. The amount of these presentations varied by school and by cluster. As was said in the preceding section, many school settlement workers also organized and/or facilitated clubs within the schools for newcomer students and parents.

Variability of Services and Non-Mandated Services

The SEPT Project was designed to meet local needs. Flexibility and innovation have certainly been important components of the SEPT model of service delivery. However, some services and clubs that have been offered are clearly outside of the mandate of SEPT. Reporting these services could identify individual clusters or school settlement workers, and thus, these services cannot be listed here. Several of these activities may raise liability issues for the school settlement workers, schools and for lead agencies.

Interestingly, most of the formally reported activities that have taken place that are outside the scope of the project have involved newcomer students. These non-mandated activities that involve newcomer parents were generally discovered during interviews and informal conversations. They tended not to be reported in project statistics.

The widespread existence of non-mandated activities has created a lack of uniformity within the project and could confuse newcomer clients who move to a different community within Toronto, or who have friends or family in a different community. Such variability has also made it difficult to maintain the consistent standards that are necessary in a project of such size and complexity.

Critical Issues in Service Delivery

A great deal of direct service has been provided rather than referrals to other institutions and agencies. Some school settlement workers indicated they were frustrated that they were not supposed to provide more comprehensive services than information and referral for clients. A few of these workers indicated that when they had time they used their discretion and performed non-mandated tasks, such as escorting clients to community resources.

Some partner agencies have received very few or no referrals from the project. Several different constituencies mentioned that newcomer parents often wish to have their problems solved by school settlement workers because they have developed a rapport with them and because it is generally closer to visit the school than it is to go to a community agency. A few of the school settlement workers mentioned long waiting lists at some social service agencies as a deterrent for referrals.

There has been an emphasis on language-specific rather than generic service delivery, although some generic service delivery has been taking place across the city. Most stakeholders reported that there has been some decrease in the number of cultural interpretation/translation services, but these services were still common at the time that this report was written.

There are several advantages and disadvantages to both language-specific and more generic service delivery. Many newcomer clients reported being very satisfied with the SEPT Project precisely because it allowed them to access important information in their own languages and made them feel more comfortable coming into the schools. Language-specific services were also helpful when conducting outreach to certain communities. However, there were a few instances when clients reported feeling very uncomfortable because their school settlement worker belonged to an ethnic group with a long history of conflict with their own. As well, when services are made primarily language-specific, there is more chance that some school settlement workers will be constantly on-call for a large number of schools. This situation could inhibit them from making connections in the schools in which they are regularly stationed.

A controversy within the SEPT Project has been the provision of education-related services by school settlement workers. This has been a contentious issue because some people felt that the TDSB should have been providing these services itself. A great deal of education-related services have been provided, such as information sessions on report cards and homework clubs.

There has been considerable difference between service delivery in elementary schools and service delivery in high schools. It has generally been more difficult for the school settlement workers to conduct outreach to newcomer parents at high schools because high school students are usually not accompanied to school by their parents, and many youths spend less time with their parents than do younger children. Thus, service delivery in high schools has tended to concentrate more on newcomer students than it has in elementary schools.

In any complex project there needs to be a balance between the number of clients served and the time that it is spent with each client. It is extremely difficult to make any generalizations regarding how many clients each school settlement worker should serve. If one school settlement worker has a caseload of clients with large and pressing settlement needs, the worker could be operating at the same or at a greater level of efficiency as another school settlement worker who serves a greater volume of clients.

In the first few months of the school year, there was a great deal of confusion regarding the role of school settlement workers and where they fit within the school system. The complexity of the school environment, the lack of clear distinction between the school settlement worker role and that of other TDSB support staff, and the lack of clarity regarding the school settlement worker roles and responsibilities resulted in a prolonged orientation and acclimatization period for workers. This lingering confusion meant that a great deal of time and services were lost at the beginning of the school year, which is a critical time for both schools and newcomer families.

Over the course of the year, as cluster coordinators and some members of the Steering Committee worked to educate others, the role of the school settlement worker became clearer for all stakeholders. However, confusion still existed at the time that this report was written as evidenced by continued discussions at various committee levels about what the school settlement worker role entails and how to prevent duplication with the roles of school support staff.

Due to the different understandings across the project around their roles, some school settlement workers were not clear as to what was expected of them in terms of protocol, documentation, direct service provision and referral. Some constituencies reported that this ambiguity caused tension among TDSB support staff. The data collected also indicated that school settlement workers were performing tasks that were not within their role or were not appropriate to their role. It was also found that some school settlement workers were providing a great deal of direct service, as they were uncertain about when to refer clients to agencies. Much of the non-mandated service delivery may have occurred as a result of confusion the project decision-makers’ confusion over the role of the school settlement workers.

The ability to meet local needs has been a strength of the SEPT Project. However, this strength can be a liability in certain situations. There has been a lack of consistency in the policies in different schools and clusters. As this report was being written, a policy and procedures manual was being developed for the SEPT Project. It is hoped that this manual will be able to address the concerns listed in this section.

The provision of a seamless system of service delivery is essential to ensuring that newcomer clients' settlement needs are being met. The Evaluation Team has observed that there were no mechanisms built into the pilot project for assessing the effectiveness of services to newcomer clients. Although many school settlement workers may follow up with clients, there has been no clear guidelines for referrals.

There has been a lack of uniform policies regarding the handling of client information and confidentiality. Thus, some SEPT staff have been unclear regarding whether or not they can reveal personal information about clients, and when required, how this information can be relayed without unnecessarily identifying clients.

There are different personnel policies across the eight clusters, as each lead agency has its own policies. Thus, school settlement workers have not been paid uniformly or given the same benefits across clusters. This has been detrimental to the morale of the school settlement workers.

According to the Operational Guidelines, clients who need language-specific services that are unavailable in one cluster are to be served by a school settlement worker from another cluster. Very few of the school settlement workers who were interviewed had provided this service. Those who had generally said it was a positive experience, but stated that the time and travel involved in such transactions seemed extreme. Although this situation seems to have improved somewhat over the course of the year, some SEPT personnel who were interviewed said that cross-cluster exchanges took a long time to arrange.

Functioning of the SEPT Project Structure

There are different levels of partnerships in the project. At the structural level, the SEPT Project is a partnership between the Ontario Administration of Settlement and Integration Services (OASIS) of Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Toronto District School Board (TDSB). A contract of partnership was signed between these two organizations in the form of a letter of agreement.

At the operational level, this contract has translated into a partnership between the settlement sector and the TDSB. Although the eight clusters of settlement agencies that have participated in the project have had no formal partnership agreements with the TDSB, the entire administrative structure of the project was based on a partnership model. However, there has been a perception among many in the settlement sector that there is an imbalance of power between the settlement sector and the TDSB, which has tended to affect relationships at the Steering Committee level.

Another critical partnership issue is the relationships between the lead agencies of each cluster, the partner agencies and the participating schools. At the planning and implementation phases of the project, there were clear expectations that settlement agencies within a geographic area were to work together and that partnership was the preferred relationship between a number of settlement agencies in the formation of a cluster. As the project evolved through the application process, it became clear that only one agency in a cluster would receive funds from OASIS. Thus the notion of a non-resource sharing partnership between agencies within clusters became a reality. Obviously, this was a major disappointment to many of the partner agencies within the clusters and has led many of the partner agencies to question if they truly have a role within the SEPT Project.

The vast majority of partner agencies interviewed for the report were disappointed with the amount of referrals that they have received from the project. Several agencies have received few or no referrals. Relatively few of the partner agencies frequently received referrals from the SEPT Project. Some participants felt that certain partner agencies do not have the capacity to absorb the additional clients because of existing high caseloads for their settlement workers. However, the majority of the partner agencies have been very committed to the SEPT Project and reported that they wished to participate in the project next year.

The partnership between local schools and settlement agencies has generally functioned very well. After an initial period of orientation, most of the schools and agencies worked well with one another. In fact, the SEPT Project has provided many opportunities for school staff to learn more about the settlement sector, and for settlement agencies to learn more about the workings of the TDSB as well as gain access to client populations that were previously inaccessible.

The amount of cohesion within clusters has varied. The clusters that have seemed more cohesive have tended to have more organized meetings, regular communication within the cluster and roles for all stakeholders. As well, the partner agencies within these clusters have tended to have more regular contact with the school settlement workers and often collaborated in providing information sessions with the SEPT Project.

Some key informants felt that the role of the funder in the administration of the SEPT Project was still unclear to them at the time of their interviews. CIC has been taking more of a hands-on approach to SEPT than it has done for previous programs such as LINC and ISAP, and this has caused some discomfort in the settlement sector.

More than one quarter of the partner agencies interviewed for this report were concerned that they had not had an opportunity to adequately explain their concerns about the partnership to the funder. As well, CIC’s statement at a public meeting that they would be dealing exclusively with lead agencies frustrated partner agencies, as they had previously believed that they would be equal partners within the clusters.

Some partner and lead agencies expressed concern that the SEPT Project has been encroaching on areas that had already been successfully covered by ISAP agencies. As well, there was some concern among settlement agencies that eligibility criteria for ISAP and SEPT are different, especially with regards to the amount of time that a newcomer can be in the country and still receive settlement services. This has created confusion in terms of accepting referrals and gaps or duplication in client services.

Several key informants felt that including new funders in addition to CIC would be an excellent idea. They felt that this would allow the SEPT Project to cover more diverse needs, such as poverty, and immigrants who have been in Canada for longer than three years.

Most clusters did not form their local advisory committees until October or much later in the year. Some clusters amalgamated their local advisory committee meetings with their cluster or ‘partnership’ meetings, as they felt that it was too time-consuming or inefficient to have separate meetings for the two different committees. It should also be noted that some clusters did not provide minutes from all of their local advisory committee or cluster meetings to the Evaluation Team.

Attendance at the local advisory committee meetings varied greatly across clusters and over the course of the year. Attendance in some clusters was high at the beginning of the year, with a steady decrease as the year progressed; other clusters had relatively high attendance at most meetings; and others often had over one third of their committee absent. The provision of agendas for meetings was inconsistent across clusters. Terms of reference were provided for fewer than half of the clusters.

The local advisory committees were used by many clusters as forums to update the various stakeholders within clusters on the SEPT Project as a whole, as well as the project’s progress within their cluster. Some clusters appeared to use their meeting time effectively to raise issues of concern, problem-solve together and decide on courses of action to address the matters at hand. These clusters would often follow up at subsequent meetings to ensure that necessary steps had been taken towards resolution of previously discussed problems. Overall, those clusters that were clear on the role of local advisory committees, were able to use them to their advantage for improving service delivery, trouble-shooting, and building relationships within the cluster.

Other clusters, however, seemed unaware of the purpose of local advisory committees. These clusters appeared to accomplish little in their meetings, and pressing issues were often raised, but not resolved. At these meetings, relatively minor news items sometimes dominated the agendas. Local advisory committee members in these clusters expressed confusion as to the purpose of the committee, yet no explanations were given that were recorded in the minutes.

The observations of the Evaluation Team as well as a number of constituencies indicated that many critical issues were raised at the Steering Committee over the course of the school year, but either they were never resolved or were not discussed again. When decisions were made, there was usually no clear indication of who was responsible for ensuring that the task would be achieved. When sub-committees were formed to address an issue, terms of reference were never developed. The Steering Committee often dealt with issues as they arose or at the last minute, instead of planning ahead. There were a few instances, however, when a decision was made by the Steering Committee and there was follow up at the subsequent meeting.

There was a perception among a few key informants that some decisions had been made behind closed doors and that the agendas for the Steering Committee had not been developed in a consultative manner. In addition, it was felt that if agendas had been provided further ahead of meetings, committee members could have better prepared their responses and ideas, and thus, could have used the meeting time more efficiently. Some key informants reported that the large size of the Steering Committee and having many different voices representing the settlement sector, as opposed to one unified voice, also hindered the decision-making process and the ability of the committee to move forward on issues quickly. Other key informants, however, felt that Steering Committee meetings did not allow enough time for meaningful discussion of issues or processing of important information. Many of the problems experienced by the Steering Committee also seemed to result of a lack from committee members being unaware of the role of the Steering Committee and the purpose of meetings.

A number of constituencies expressed that there was a general lack of understanding across the SEPT Project regarding the role of the Management Committee. According to some key informants, there was a misconception that the committee was a decision-making committee that could finalize decisions when the Steering Committee was unable to do so. Some key informants thought that the committee worked well as an agenda- setting committee. A few constituencies felt that there was no need for the Management Committee, and that it simply created another unnecessary level in an already large bureaucratic structure.

Concerns were raised regarding the decision-making process within the SEPT Project. There has been some confusion regarding which constituencies have the authority to make certain decisions. In particular, there has been confusion regarding the respective roles and responsibilities of the Steering Committee, the Management Committee and the local advisory committees. As this report was being written, a policy manual for the SEPT Project was being developed. The manual is expected to define the mandates and responsibilities of each committee.

Many constituencies felt that there should be more decision-making power at local levels, as some believed that decisions occurred in a top-down fashion within the project. A number of constituencies expressed the desire to shift some of the decision-making to local advisory committees, as this would allow those directly involved in service delivery to play a greater role in project decision-making.

Communication

Although the intended communication protocol was identified previously in this report, the Evaluation Team found that communication in the project has not always followed this ideal type. Inconsistencies have existed within clusters and among most stakeholders of the project. There have been some problems in the filtering of communication to grassroots levels regarding the overall direction of the project.

The primary vehicle for communication within each cluster, as outlined in the Operational Guidelines, is the local advisory committee. Some clusters established their local advisory committees two to five months into the school year, which meant that partner agencies, newcomer clients and principals may not have received the optimal level of communication about the project at its critical beginning phase. Analysis of the principals’ focus groups suggested that many principals did not have a clear understanding of partnership in the SEPT Project. This finding could illustrate the ineffectiveness of some of the local advisory committees and the negative impact of the delayed start-up of the committees. The local advisory committees, which were formed promptly, met regularly and possessed a clear sense of purpose did serve to keep the various stakeholders in their cluster updated on the project.

Cluster coordinators have also played a critical role in cluster communications, as they are responsible for liaising between all of the stakeholders within their cluster, as well as between their cluster and the rest of the project. The focus group with cluster coordinators revealed that most have communicated on an as-needed basis with the executive directors of their lead agencies as well as holding regular meetings with them. Many of the cluster coordinators appeared to have maintained almost constant contact with school settlement workers via telephone, and many of the cluster coordinators have visited the schools on a fairly regular basis. The majority of cluster coordinators have also met with principals quite often.

There has been a lack of uniformity in how information has been communicated to the partner agencies. Some partner agencies have been called regularly and others have not; some have been sent the monthly reports and others have not; and, some have been sent SEPT News, and some have not. The partner agencies that were interviewed also reported that they learned about decisions made at the Steering Committee level in a variety of ways, which were not necessarily consistent within one cluster. Two partner agencies reported that they had not been informed of any such decisions. However, some partner agencies have been well informed about the progress of the project, yet they have not taken part in meetings.

Communicating across a vast and multi-sectoral project such as the SEPT Project is a complex activity that is vital to the project’s functioning. A number of constituencies felt that communication in the upper levels of the project was more problematic than the communication within the clusters.

The coordinators’ meetings appeared to function well as a forum for facilitating communication between the eight cluster coordinators, and between cluster coordinators and the Liaison Team. The meetings were frequently utilized to provide cluster coordinators with an update on activities and decisions of the Steering Committee.

The minutes of coordinators’ meetings also indicated that these meetings were used to exchange information, with the cluster coordinators updating the Liaison Team and vice versa. They did not appear to be problem solving meetings. In some meetings, many difficult issues were raised about service delivery and programming. At times, these issues were not dealt with and/or no action was documented in the minutes.

Some of the coordinators’ meetings were quite lengthy, up to two and a half hours long, yet little information was presented in the minutes. This suggests that either some issues were discussed at great length, or that the minutes did not always reflect everything that was discussed in the meetings.

There are some unclear reporting relationships within the project that are inhibiting clear communication. In particular, the responsibility of coordinators to inform the executive directors of project management decisions has been unclear. As well, the reporting relationship of the principal representative on the Steering Committee has not been delineated.

Although some school settlement workers have appropriate workspaces, a number of different constituencies have reported that several school settlement workers are still working in inappropriate workspaces. In some schools, there is no private office in which school settlement workers can meet with clients. As well, some school settlement workers still lack a telephone, a computer and/or a secure filing cabinet.

Some of the school settlement workers have offices in inaccessible locations in the school, such as at the back of the school or in the basement, which hinders the effectiveness of their outreach to newcomer parents and students.

There is some concern that the lack of standardized salaries and benefits across clusters is having a negative effect on school settlement worker morale, and may be affecting the rate of worker turnover. As well, several workers reported that part-time hours, evening work or being on contract added to their stress level.

One of the innovative aspects of the SEPT Project was the project-wide training of school settlement workers. School settlement workers attended monthly training sessions and were trained in such areas as case management, learning disabilities, mental health issues of newcomers and school report cards.

Generally, the school settlement workers were fairly content with the training that they had received thus far in the project. They also indicated that they felt they could either mention their specific training needs to their coordinators, or include such training needs in their monthly reports.

The amount of time spent in team meetings and receiving in-cluster training varied a great deal across clusters. This means that there was a difference in the amount of professional development that school settlement workers received. This could impact on client service and the morale of the school settlement workers in different clusters.

Although school settlement workers said that they initially needed a great deal of training on the education system to orient themselves, they added that they would benefit from updates on changes in immigration legislation, as well as further training in settlement areas.

Several school settlement workers felt that they would benefit from spending more time in each school, and many felt that part-time hours are insufficient to meet client needs. Several newcomer clients, as well as a number of principals, agr