by

Janet McLellan, Ph.D.

Research Associate

Centre for Refugee Studies

York University, Toronto

2000

This paper provides an analysis on the collaborative process of undertaking research into newcomer youth settlement issues. It is based on data from the "Settlement Research Monitoring Project", a nine-month project funded by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), Ontario Administration of Settlement and Integration Services (OASIS). The issues addressed include an identification of collaborative models found within the Settlement Research Monitoring Project and the impact of collaboration on youth research outcomes. The collaborative process illustrates numerous substantive issues on settlement research, as well as the interrelationship between the various agencies as they work toward common research agendas and protocols. The collaborative process is presented as an ideal of integrated settlement research, planning and program implementation, bridging differences among disparate groups (direct service agencies, newcomers, community health centres, independent research units, and academics) and enhancing understanding of settlement needs and issues.

From July 1999 through April 2000, the Settlement Research Monitoring Project coordinated and monitored eighteen projects concerned with research into some facet of settlement. All projects were funded by CIC, Settlement Directorate, Ontario Region, now referred to as OASIS (Ontario Administration of Settlement and Integration Services), as part of an overall one-time only funding for fifty-nine projects whose objectives were to identify or develop improvements in settlement service delivery and access. The research projects were one of the eight thematic categories identified by CIC. Dr. Howard Adelman was director of the Settlement Research Monitoring Project, assisted by Dr. Janet McLellan, research coordinator/monitor, and two graduate students, Sacha Chan Kam and Atif Durrani, through the facilities of the Centre for Refugee Studies (CRS) at York University. Dr. Adelman was part of a CIC appointed panel to initially appraise 39 research-based applications from a variety of agencies and organizations (community-based, direct service and academics). Many of the proposals demonstrated significant weaknesses, ranging from unclear research methodologies (if surveys, interviews, focus groups, and so forth would be utilized), poor clarity of objectives, no indication of the qualifications of the personnel who would conduct the research, and a questionable feasibility of the overall research given the limited time constraints. As such, CIC's final approval of eighteen of the research proposals entailed each project's participation in the Settlement Research Monitoring Project. This framework was considered necessary to enable more projects to be funded than might otherwise have been. The monitoring responsibility was to report on whether the agencies and persons contracted to carry out the research were doing so according to the methodologies, timeline framework, and objectives that were set out in their contracts.(1) The eighteen agencies involved in the settlement research monitoring are as follows:

Access Action Council (AAC)

African Community Services of Peel (ACP)

Centre for Research and Education in Human Services (Kitchener-Waterloo) (CREHS)

Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto (CUCS)

Centre of Excellence in Research in Immigration and Settlement (CERIS)

Coalition of Agencies Serving South Asians (CASSA) & South Asian Women's Centre (CAWC)

Coalition of Visible Minority Women (CVMW)

Community Social Planning Council of Toronto (CPSC)

Ethiopian Association of Toronto (EAT)

Family Service Association of Metro Toronto (FSA)

Lebanese and Arab Social Services Agency of Ottawa-Carleton (LASSA)

Naylor McLeod Group Ltd. (Guelph)

Pinecrest-Queensway Health and Community Services (Ottawa)

St. Joseph Immigrant Women's Centre (Hamilton) (SJIWC)

Social Planning Council of Peel (PSPC)

South East Asian Services Centre (SEASC)

World University Service of Canada (WUSC)

York Community Services (YCS)

The agencies/organizations can also be identified as to whether they provide direct services or not:

A: DIRECT SERVICE AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS:

1. Settlement Service Agencies:

Ethiopian Association in Toronto

Lebanese and Arab Social Services Agency of Ottawa-Carleton (Ottawa)

South-East Asian Services Centre (research through U. of T. Social Work Department)

St. Joseph's Immigrant Women's Centre (Collaborative partnership, McMaster University Faculty of Health Services, System-Linked Research Unit)

York Community Services

African Services of Peel (linked with Peel SPC)

Family Services Association

South Asian Women's Centre (Collaboration with CASSA)

Coalition of Visible Minority Women

2. Community Health Centres - Pinecrest Queensway Health and Community Services; Action Research Project

3. Private research/service Organizations - Naylor McLeod Group

B. NON-SERVICE PROVISION/INDIRECT SERVICES:

4. Community-based research agencies - Centre for Research and Education in Human Services

5. Social Planning Councils - Community Social Planning Council of Toronto (Consortium) Social Planning Council of Peel

6. University research centres - Centre of Excellence in Research in Immigration and Settlement (CERIS); Centre for Urban and Community Studies

7. Other: World University Service of Canada

Access Action Council (Advocacy group for equitable access to community services)

The eighteen research projects were divided into three thematic clusters - youth, management and gaps. The youth cohort involved Centre for Excellence in Research in Immigration and Settlement (CERIS), the Centre for Research and Education in Health Services (CREHS - Kitchener/Waterloo), Council of Visible Minority Women (CVMW), Family Service Association of Metropolitan Toronto (FSA), Pinecrest-Queensway Community Health Services (PQCHS - Ottawa/Carleton), Council of Agencies Service South Asians (CASSA) & South Asian Women's Centre (SAWC), and World University Services of Canada (WUSC). The management cohort, focusing on coordination and effectiveness in service delivery involved Access Action Council (AAC), Community Social Planning Council of Toronto (CSPC), Centre for Urban and Community Studies (CUCS), and the Social Planning Council of Peel (PSPC). The youth and management cohorts were placed into two collaborative research frameworks.

The gap cohort was clustered for administrative purposes but they were stand-alone projects for research purposes. This cohort included the African Community of Peel (ACP), Lebanese and Arab Social Services Agency (LASSA) and Naylor-McLeod Limited focusing on inadequate settlement services, and the Ethiopian Association of Toronto (EAT), South East Asian Services Centre (SEASC), St. Joseph's Immigrant Women's Centre (SJIWC), and York Community Services (YCS) focusing on needs assessment. The collaborative process was not thought to be possible for those agencies in the gap cohort as undertaking research in needs assessment or inadequate services were specifically focused on a particular group. Further, the time line circumstances would not allow for the design of a research model that would require facilitative planning rather than coordination.

Collaboration is a complex process involving the application of a disciplinary approach, integrating political theory, organizational theory and behaviour, small group theory, leadership and administration, dispute and conflict resolution, adult education, program evaluation and technology assessment (O'Looney 1994:63). The social service community has long identified collaboration (shared leadership, consultation and coordination, consensus building, negotiation, etc.) as the key strategy to address system delivery problems and promote improved integrated services (ibid). Reitz (1995: 4/ch.4) has also noted that inter-agency coordination and collaboration between ethnospecific and mainstream agencies is a promising settlement service delivery model and management strategy, providing that the "optimal use is made of each type of agency" and that "agencies are aware of cultural dimensions of services provided by other agencies, to facilitate appropriate referrals." As an inter-disciplinary and inter-organizational phenomenon, collaboration is "designed to achieve the desired ends that no single organization can achieve unilaterally" (Wood & Gray 1991:140). In the mid-sixties, Emery and Trist (1965) argued that organizations collaborate in order to reduce and control environmental uncertainty and turbulence. Although collaboration can occur under any circumstances, "it is more likely to be problem motivated and occur during difficult times" (Urwin and Haynes l988:23). Gray (1985:914) argues that collaboration is necessitated by the inability of individual organizations to adapt to environmental turbulence, due to their failure to conceptualize problems and organize solutions at a domain level. Graham & Barter (l999:7) distinguish collaboration from other familiar terms such as cooperation, coordination, and partnership:

"Cooperation, for example, facilitates support and assistance for meeting goals that are specific to an individual stakeholder, whereas collaboration insists on goals that are mutually agreed upon based on an established value base to which all stakeholders have a commitment."

Part of the rationale for collaboration within the youth and management cohorts of the Settlement Research Monitoring Project was to avoid duplication of research, for example, each project doing their own literature surveys on specific areas (such as service coordination, newcomer youth), or to centralize this facet of the research rather than have it become a significant part of any one individual project. Agencies were requested to combine their efforts so that each participating project would be enhanced and tangible research benefits could result. The ideal of the collaborative framework was to facilitate inter-agency consultation and communication, to share information regarding their particular progress and problems in the development of their respective research projects, as well as to merge project goals, especially when the research objectives overlapped considerably, for example, to undertake a survey of services available to youth. The collaborative framework was also thought to provide a higher level of analysis on the process of research, beyond the benefits of sharing research methodologies and avoiding research duplication. Several of the agencies felt that the reasons for collaboration appeared more for "convenience", to facilitate progress under constrained conditions, rather than a process of coming together to work towards shared goals and a common research design. They were unaware of limitations or difficulties inherent in many of the proposals.

Several of the projects concerned with youth, for example, were considered to have serious weaknesses in methodology, whereas others had an excellent methodology but would have difficulties in finding focus group participants. The collaborative ideal was to have the youth groups coordinate among themselves to work out the details of how to best combine the assets of each participating agency. In theory, the merits of collaboration would outweigh the complications involved in coordinating the process. The decision to promote collaboration was based on a belief about research, that each participant (whether academics or direct service agencies) would have limitations, and that the synergy of working in conjunction with one another was very valuable and important. The youth cohort had numerous areas in which they could undertake integrated work. Consequently, coordinating the meetings, balancing very different research objectives, developing focus group protocols, and deciding how to integrate research findings became an involved and complicated process. The collaborative process encouraged participants to focus on the degree of coherence, coordination and integration within each of their specific research projects in respect to the larger context, and to view it, as well as their own assessments, in a different way. In so doing, several collaborative difficulties needed to be overcome. Initial difficulties included concerns about information being coopted, about ownership of material, and the role of academics vis a vis agency personnel. Variations in research standards emerged when the groups got together and the ideology of particular participants questioned the validity of the collaborative process.

The primary issues initially involved in the participant=s response to the collaboration concerned time-line reduction and the imposition of a new framework. Participants not only had less time to do their own particular research (time-lines were reduced from one year to nine months), but also had to meet unexpected demands, such as altering defined goals and objectives of their particular research, arranging and attending meetings, establishing new roles and relationships. The following comments indicate some of the initial responses concerned with reduced time-lines and collaboration:

Time-line restrictions have hindered team interaction beyond the work criteria. Still, group dynamics has been excellent in training and in the production."

"Some of the frustrations go back that first of all we didn't get the money in April but not until July or August, three or four months late. But also, all our time-lines had to be readjusted. But the problem is that we have to spend the money by March 31, the fiscal year of government and that really puts the crunch on things."

"Enormous time has been taken with the collaboration, for example, when agreeing on documents, you have to phone first and then send by fax or E-mail, then everyone has to read and comment, and then the document gets sent out again for final approval."

"The biggest problem is that we are pushing this project so quickly. When difficulties arise, such as not having the computer compatible with the printer's machine, this really causes anxiety. The time-line reduction reduced the amount of editions we could produce."

Gray (1985:931) identifies several conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration: the stakeholder set clearly identifies the problem and reflects on its complexity; it is expected that collaborative benefits will outweigh the costs; stakeholder autonomy is ensured through independent decision making powers; there is a shared perception of stakeholder and convenor legitimacy; information searches and direction setting are jointly decided; power is dispersed among several rather than held by a few; the value of interdependence is recognized; there is an effective structure for negotiations; geographic proximity enables easy attendance for meetings; and the changes that arise within (as an interactive process) and beyond the collaborative effort are monitored. These conditions arise through three phases: the initial problem setting phase (acknowledging common concerns and issues), the direction setting phase (identification of shared purposes and vision or outcomes), and the structuring phase (to create long-term problem solving activities) (Gray 1985:917).

Tjosvold's "reiterative model" of dynamic interdependence emphasizes tasks, roles, reward distributions, perceived goals, interdependence, patterned behaviour, fair distributions and exchanges, and values and attitudes all forming interactive casual loops which reinforce either positive or negative results (O'Looney 1994). Wood and Gray (1991) note that the facilitation of the collaborative process is aided by the presence of a convenor who establishes, legitimizes, and guides the alliance. The convener's role is established through influence and intervention (which may be mandated rather than arising through choice, for example control over "resources" to encourage participation); legitimation (the convener possesses authority and innate biases are seen to contribute to the collaborative process as long as they are perceived to be fair by all parties); and the convener's credibility and knowledge, as well as personal charisma, is used to negotiate shared understanding and continued participation (Wood & Gray 1991:150-153). Indeed, the convener's ability to foster dialogue and enhance personal contacts within interagency cooperation and collaboration is seen as a significant benefit (Reulback & Tewksbury 1994:17).

Of greater importance perhaps, is the building of trust between joint partners. Without a fundamental foundation of trust, inter-organizational conflict over autonomy, rules, policies and procedures, authority and negotiation patterns, expertise, resources, risks and willingness to cooperate will be exacerbated (Alter & Hage 1993). Hague & Malos (1998:381) note that many inter-agency initiatives and projects are "slow in getting off the ground," due, in some cases, to difficulties in achieving effective communication and liaison. A mitigating factor is that smaller agencies may have a lack of time or staff to devote to a collaborative initiative and may feel marginalized or isolated within, especially if larger agencies appear to "take over." They caution that consistent attendance at meetings is difficult for smaller agencies who can not spare staff and even if present, participants from women's organizations and other grass roots groups may feel that their "voices were not heard" (Hague & Malos 1998:382). Further difficulties arise when the "ownership" of the inter-agency work done is not clear, when there is no equality of opportunity, and when there is no participatory inclusion of those most affected by the problem-solving collaborative initiative, namely the clients (ibid:384).

The weaknesses of the general social service system can be applied to the delivery of settlement services. They include fractured, categorical programming, duplicative casework, uncoordinated service delivery that may be confusing to families or working at cross purposes, inflexible processes and organizational structures, lack of client involvement or participation in service plans, competition in referrals, incongruent, and cumbersome paperwork and eligibility processes, and the lack of prevention and early intervention services (O'Looney 1994:62). Settlement services are delivered by a range of agencies and organizations that includes ethnospecific agencies (services created by and for a particular ethnic community or sub-ethnic component such as a particular faith-based organization); multiethnic agencies that may have started as ethnic specific but now serve a range of multicultural, multiethnic multi-racial clients; specialized agencies which respond to specific needs within newcomer communities, such as victims of torture; and larger specialized organizations who serve newcomers as one part of their mandate, such as women's centres or community health centres. As responsibility for the administration and funding of settlement services to immigrants and refugees in Canada remains in flux due to uncertainties in downsizing and transferring of resources between federal and provincial ministries, expectations on direct service agencies, umbrella organizations and academic institutions to create coordinated and collaborative models of integrated service delivery increases. Theoretically, collaboration would reduce this context of environmental uncertainty and turbulence, especially through the establishment of shared rules governing settlement service delivery and by securing public policies that reward organizations who effectively improve their efficiency. The issue of collaboration within settlement service delivery is, however, contentious. Owen (1999), identifies several areas of dissension associated with shared standards or expectations in settlement services:

1. The difference between smaller locales who provide a one service delivery system to different ethnic communities, and the Greater Toronto Area in which certain identifiable newcomer communities (Chinese or South Asian) have enough demographic strength to provide their own service structure.

2. The potential of umbrella organizations for service planning and coordination.

3. The limitations of small direct service agencies to deploy increased measures of fiscal accountability or develop appropriate evaluation systems.

4. The absence of agreed upon service standards (minimum expectations of effective service to clients).

5. The strenuous demands on agencies (especially smaller ones) to receive funding (short time frames to draft a proposal).

6. The increasing requirement to prove organizational capacity for service delivery.

7. Questionable benefits to the smaller agencies who become weaker in the process, i.e., by playing a junior role, or who must implement lower cost practices which may not be the most appropriate for their particular client needs.

In general, short time frames, heavy administrative detail, and funder expectations of service and delivery especially impact on smaller agencies who join into partnership with larger, better established agencies (Owen 1999). Owen's concerns correspond to those raised by previously cited collaborative theorists (Alter & Hage 1993; Hague & Malos 1998). Similar concerns were also cited by participants at the Settlement Research Monitoring Project's Seminary, January 19, "STRATEGIES FOR COOPERATION IN SETTLEMENT SERVICE." 

Issues regarding collaboration/cooperation among different types of agencies included the extra demands placed on already overloaded and underpaid settlement workers at ethnospecific agencies. Further, the qualifications of settlement workers are often not recognized, and this can impact on their ability to work effectively with larger organizations whose workers are paid better and have professional credibility. Larger organizations are perceived to have a greater ability to delegate responsibility, and in shared projects, the larger organizations frequently have fiscal control and ultimate authority over the project, yet expect the smaller agencies (frequently ethnospecific) to do most of the work. Another common impression was that while collaborative partnerships directly benefit the larger mainstream organizations, especially in sensitizing them or the funders to the specific needs of newcomer clients, smaller agencies only benefit indirectly by demonstrating their ability, responsibility and accountability in settlement service delivery. Collaborative partnerships were also perceived as being inherently unfair if mainstream agencies controlled the project yet the smaller agencies did the bulk of the work, for less money. One executive director stated: Awe do this under extremely constraining circumstances, both financial and physical. Voluntarism in our community is an euphemism for exploitation essentially@ (December 1 seminar).

To counter the potential for inequity, smaller agencies must be especially vigilant in the collaborative process as indicated in this advice from Elaine Prescod, executive director of the Coalition for Visible Minority Women:

"We are told by funders that we have to look at partnerships. Partnerships to us now have become the buzz word. However, we have to assess what does it really mean. Behind all this in reality the question often arises, "Who wants to partner with you?" You call on someone, you have to go to their board, you have to sit down with them, you have to figure out what is the mandate, who is going to be doing what...Until we can understand that partnership is partnership and we work it together, then it is not going to work. It will be a failure if there is one side pulling this way and one side pulling the next way. We have to look at this issue to include skills, responsibilities, fairness, who is recognized and for what, accountability, accessibility, and equity. There must be fairness to bring about a good partnership...First of all, state the organizational capacity of small agencies who are volunteer based. We need time to plan projects and services...We can only come up in a good partnership with a partner who will understand that we are a small organization or look at small organizations and really understand their mandate, understand their terms of reference, and be able to work within the confines of what is presented...The people you are working with must realize your capacity as against their capacity. In coming to partnership, small agencies need extra resources, people and money to compensate for those that are a larger size to work with them. That doesn't happen. So within the small organization partnering, the person with the most staff and the most money says "you are under me"." (Seminar, January 19/00)

Despite these collaborative concerns, inter-agency coordination between ethnospecific and mainstream agencies is a popular model proposed by researchers and agencies working on the delivery of social services. Cutbacks in government funding and increasing competition for limited financial resources creates the climate in which agencies focus on fund-raising and survival, and survival is perceived as being enhanced through partnerships. Reitz (1995:2/ch.3) cites Makovec's (1988) survey of 193 Ontario agencies (177 mainstream and 16 ethnospecific) which demonstrated that one in five mainstream agencies had formal referral relationships with an ethnospecific agency. Reitz (1995:7/ch.4) quotes Jenkins and Sauber (1988) to argue that "linkages between ethnic associations and the formal service structure not only exist but are essential for appropriate access by newcomers to services." There is, however, a lack of material available regarding collaborative partnering, especially the evaluation of models currently being utilized among agencies, as well as assessment of other forms of inter-agency cooperation. Reitz's (1995:6) review of more than 400 publications in Canada, the US, Britain and Australia indicates that most academic research on human service utilization involving coordination, collaboration and sharing of information is from the US and Britain, despite the growth of collaborative activity in Canada and Australia.

Within the Settlement Research Monitoring Project, collaborative models were identified and evaluated in terms of their effectiveness for settlement research, both within specific projects and among various projects.(2) The following analysis on the different models of collaboration found within particular agency projects and the youth collaboration, demonstrates the overall benefits of collaboration for settlement research. The various models illustrate how successful collaborations are influenced by shared consensus on the identification and agreement of concerns, equitable design and implementation practices, strategies for negotiation, and joint-decision making on supervisory and accountability structures.

Among the youth-identified research projects and the larger collaborative framework, three different models of collaboration were observed.(3) They are identified as complementary, commonality, and mandated models.

Complementary collaboration involves two or more distinct organizations who devise and implement a shared project. One example of collaborative research involved Pinecrest-Queensway Health and Community Services and the Youth Services Bureau of Ottawa-Carleton in implementing an innovative outreach program, a youth-created newspaper, to effectively address and identify needs among newcomer youth. Trish Roche, community services manager at Pinecrest-Queensway, comments on the incentive to work collaboratively:

"One of our big goals at Pinecrest-Queensway is to coordinate the activities for youth and to help pull the youth funding together because there is so little of it available. There are many short-term projects all over but we would like to have enough of a resource base to really coordinate and consolidate those programs within the various centres and in the community. If you look at how we do services for youth here, we don't have a core funding base for them. A positive aspect of this is that we work collaboratively with a lot of other agencies...Because all of these populations get very tired of being consulted about issues and concerns and not having any change, things happen. We are looking that OASIS as part of their public policy make youth issues a mandate in settlement funding, a focus in and of itself. That would be an outcome of the information, maybe having three or four years funding to really develop services." (Interview October 20, 1999)

Another example of complementary collaboration is the methodological approach utilized by the Centre for Research and Education in Human Services within their project. Using a "participatory action" approach, the Centre's research was guided by a stakeholder-based committee which included youth representatives, the Kitchener-Waterloo Multicultural Centre, the YMCA of Kitchener-Waterloo, the Waterloo Regional Community and Health Department, Laurentian Public School, Lincoln Avenue Public School, and Westvale Public School. This steering decided the protocols for holding youth focus groups, the selection criteria, youth issues, and how to develop the project into a model available for the wider community. Joanna Ochocka, coordinator of the Centre for Research and Education in Human Services, comments on their collaborative research strategy:

"In this approach we are very much concerned with the process, of giving the control and ownership of the whole process and the results of the research to the participants, to the stakeholder groups. At the same time we are trying to do our research in a very useful way that will make sense to the people being involved and bringing forth the results of the research, during the process, not only at the end, is part of the overall research. There are a lot of feedback loops in our methodology and in our research designs for our projects, so that people understand what we are learning and that they can shape their interventions, or the evaluation process according to the information being gathered...This is the balance and this is the whole thing about participatory action research if we move to the research part. It is a whole balance of how to work with diverse groups of people and how to make them work on a common issue. Very often if you only ask people to come to the table and represent different perspectives, it is very difficult to move from their perspectives to something more common. So our approach is to identify and appreciate the differences but also work toward common issues." (Interview October 14, 1999)

2. Commonality:

Project partners who share similar characteristics are identified as a collaboration based on common concerns and interests. The South Asian Women's Centre, a front-line service agency, collaborated with the Council of Agencies Serving South Asians (CASSA), an umbrella agency for research and advocacy for the diverse South Asian community. Uzma Shakir, CASSA executive director, described this collaboration as "exciting and empowering and can lead to results beyond the single group" and noted:

"It makes sense to go to an organization who is my member agency or someone outside who does deal with those people [South Asians]. I provide the research part of it, they provide the actual contact with the people they are going to be dealing with. This type of collaboration is just a natural partnership that develops out of our common experiences. We look around and see who has got the best expertise in this field, and we go and get them...South Asian Women's Centre has two youth groups. They provide direct service to South Asian youth and they are our member agency. We feel that we should be doing a research project on youth, and it makes sense to go with one of our member agencies that is already dealing with youth. They will provide us with their clientele, with their client contacts, to help create the focus groups and so forth" (December l seminar, CRS).

Following the terminology in academic assessments of collaboration typologies, a mandated collaboration is identified as an external imposition on disparate groups to accept a collaborative framework as a condition to receive funding (O'Looney 1994). CIC mandated collaborative partnerships to avoid duplication in research methodologies, to support the sharing of information and resources, and to use the synergy of participating agencies to enhance the overall research. Collaboration also extended the number of agencies funded due to the limitations in their initial proposals. Within the mandated youth collaboration, the CERIS project was chosen to coordinate the collaborative effort, develop focus group protocols, include the research results (ideally in the form of draft reports and focus group summaries) from each particular project into their final report, and organize the amalgamated report. CERIS involvement in managing the collaboration entailed a reduction in the number of focus groups they initially had planned for. CERIS responsibility was to "ensure quality control of the research component", set up a minimum of three meetings during the year, and be "involved in providing input to the agencies on the revision to their proposal as it relates to meeting adequate levels of methodological standards and helping them to expedite their projects" (E-mail correspondence June 9, 1999).

The first youth collaboration meeting on July 7, 1999 brought many of the participants together to meet one another. The purpose was to establish common themes across the groups, to discuss how information could be shared an analysed for comparative assessment, and to discuss features of each proposal and design strategies for protocol. The next meeting, September 13, 1999 further discussed how to share parts of the research, such as focus groups and a common questionnaire, and provided a forum to share information, such as how to access youth through the Toronto Board of Education. Collaborative difficulties also manifested with several groups expressing concern as to how to retain the specific focus of their particular project, and comparing one group's requirements and funding for focus groups with another. Further, different conceptions of what the research entailed or what was the more appropriate area for emphasis became a matter of contention. In one instance, CERIS academics suggested changes in a project by reducing their particular focus on a specific geographical area to a specific national group. This suggestion was vigorously opposed by the particular project and as their research progressed it became clear their initial proposal was accurate in its geographical emphasis. Comprises and negotiations of who would cover what, and working out shared definitions of terms and categories utilized by each project were also demonstrated. Consensus was given, for example, on what is the specific age to focus on for newcomer youth or what defines "best practices."

The third meeting September 29, 1999, involved considerations of research ethics and the protocol for focus groups. Participants raised concerns over the focus group format (length of time), the diversity of areas to be covered, the lack of specific key issues such as gender, the order of questions, and the role and training of the facilitator. The broad-ranging discussion clearly indicated the equal participation of all groups and their willingness to cooperate to make the focus group format amenable. Another significance in the discussion was the amount of time involved in raising the issue of research ethics, and the difficulty in creating a consensus between the different requirement of academics and service providers. Following lunch, the collaboration participants viewed a sample focus group (at York University's Small Groups Lab) and discussed their observations throughout the afternoon. Clear distinctions arose as to the role of the facilitator and the type of information expected from a focus group.

The final meeting of the youth collaboration was April 25, 2000 during which partnering agencies discussed their findings both in terms of their individual research and in terms of settlement services in general. Also developed was the template for each agency to write a summary report of their research as part of the amalgamated report (including introductory chapter, process chapter and seven case study chapters, each written by the participating agencies/organizations). Another outcome of the collaborative process was to present a multi-faceted presentation of the needs of young immigrants through a workshop format at the Fifth International Metropolis Conference (Vancouver, November 13-17, 2000). Papers on newcomer youth settlement needs, services and >emerging best practices' were presented by a representative from the funder (Ontario Settlement Directorate of Citizenship and Canada) and partners in the collaborative process. Originally, a representative of the community-based groups, chosen by the groups themselves, would present outcomes from the service sector perspective. The community-based groups, however, were unsuccessful in choosing an agency representative to participate in the panel workshop. The imposed model of one representative was rejected and participants agreed that if all could not go then CERIS must make the choice. Dr. Kilbride and Dr. Anisef decided the best solution required two presentations from the community. They selected the Centre for Research and Education in Human Services, as their project on youth in Waterloo/Kitchener (which involved youth, parents, schools, and service providers) complements CERIS's focus on the Greater Toronto Area. Jacqueline Scott, researcher for the Coalition for Visible Minority Women project, provided a detailed analysis of a specific issue among youth from English-speaking African and Caribbean and was chosen as the second representative to give depth to the broad-based CERIS overview.

In retrospect, the youth collaboration involved enormous time and effort to initiate and structure the collaborative process. Initially, no additional time was allocated for developing the collaborative process, although issues concerning methodological consistency, protocol, and shared research goals could only be addressed through several meetings. The particular concerns of some groups, such as how can they could include a common focus group questionnaire and still address the specific research issues reflecting their own project, were raised in each meeting. Further, in terms of a common process of data gathering through the focus group, each project retained their own approach to the role of facilitators and the quality or type of expected information, thereby complicating an integrated overview. Trish Roche, community services manager at Pinecrest-Queensway in Ottawa, also noted her difficulties in attending collaboration meetings:

"Attending the collaboration meetings are stressful. Because of bad weather conditions I was held up in Toronto and could not get back in time for my son's birthday, he's only six. Also because I have responsibilities to the CHC here, taking a whole day to go to Toronto in my week is a lot. We are very comfortable with the collaborative process though. The fact that by our collaboration there will be more information of value on youth and what issues occur around helping youth integrate is good. Youth are one of our highest "at risk" groups. What we hope is that the research that comes out of the collaboration will actually be put to use, that it will have an impact on youth programs. That is an expectation that we want you to put forward, loud and clear. We don't want this information sitting on a shelf somewhere. Because if it does sit on a shelf then people lose energy to do the kind of collaboration. And youth need energy to want to participate." (Interview October 20, 1999)

Another member of the youth collaboration felt that although the meetings were useful and provided an interesting approach to many issues, after participating in four or five meetings though, he was not sure "if all participants have a clear picture of what's going on" or if they shared a common consensus on the "final look at outcomes." (Interview October 12, 1999). Other difficulties addressed included whether the collaborative framework was based on a "voluntary or necessary" participation (as some groups came regularly and others did not), the lack of methodological organization in data collection (focus groups) and analysis, the uncertainty of what to submit to CERIS (ultimately only one group submitted focus group summaries on time), the lack of clarity in defining the roles and expectations of the participants, including that of the funder and the Settlement Research Monitoring team, and no definitive notion of the outcome until after the projects ended and the idea of the amalgamated report was introduced. Another concern which arose through the collaboration was the perceived inequity of the research budgets given to different groups. CERIS, for example, budgeted $30.00 for each focus group participant, while other agencies did not take into consideration this expense in their initial proposal. In consequence, some of the participants requested more funds from CIC to enable a similar form of payment.

The sharing and "ownership" of knowledge was also a contentious issue as evident in the following comments:

"The report is to highlight emerging trends, what has been done, a composition of our analysis. Why should we hand in summaries at the same time - this sounds like intellectual monitoring, who decides that this particular issue or that is significant. What CIC is doing to all, CERIS is doing to us. Monitoring the data, our summaries, is second guessing our own report, our own analysis." (Meeting September 13, 1999)

"As agreed [we] will submit to you a draft report so that CERIS can write the report for CIC on behalf of the whole group (all seven partners). However, the summary of all the focus groups will be available to you for any book project that we agree to embark on as co-authors. You must understand that we have no issue with sharing of information, the only concern is limitation of time for this project, and that as community based agencies we have to protect our intellectual rights in terms of any knowledge that we produce, especially in partnership with mainstream academic institutions. It would be naive of us to think that issues of power do not impinge on knowledge production. Hence, in the spirit of equity and cooperation we will be happy to share the summaries for the book project." (E-mail correspondence October 27, 1999)

Many of the participating partners had other related projects and service programmes within their agencies that needed to be conducted simultaneously, thus necessitating a selective mechanism to determine where their primary obligations and responsibilities were and how much time and energy was to be allocated into the externally imposed demand of collaboration. For some, this meant only nominal cooperation could be given for collaboration. Others resented the entire process of being forced into an imposed model. One executive director stated: "what is bothersome is someone sitting in a fancy office telling us how we should be collaborating and with whom and how." (personal communication).

Overall, several benefits occurred through the collaboration. During the initial meetings information concerning research was provided to those participants who were unfamiliar with an ethics review process, developing consent forms, or the process of contacting youth through the Toronto Board of Education. The survey of 150 service providers undertaken by CERIS included particular organizations suggested by collaboration participants, as well as specific questions that reflected their research concerns. Comments and suggestions from the partners were included in both the focus group protocols and the questionnaire. Evidence is not available to assess the extent to which the protocols or common questionnaire were actually adhered to, but their existence did provide an initial framework for participants to share their research strategies and discuss practical considerations When CERIS had difficulty in contacting a specific group for focus group consultation, they requested and received help from one of the collaboration participants. In turn, participants asked CERIS for help in providing bibliographic information, research information, and data assessment. The most obvious benefit of the collaboration is the amalgamated report, a unique format in which CERIS contributes the academic perspective on particular issues and concerns among newcomer youth and the other participants provide the community and direct service perspective.

Using Wood and Gray's (1991) theoretical perspective, several preconditions, processes, and outcomes of a successful collaboration can be identified. These include how the collaboration is initially defined, the auspices under which the collaboration is convened and the role of the convener, and the relationship between individual agency participants= self-interest and the collective interests of all involved. Within the typology of collaborations observed within the youth cohort, the complementary and commonality ones were successful according to the literature criteria, while the mandated faced several challenges. Within the complementary and commonality collaborations, stakeholders mutually identified and acknowledged the issues that concerned them and agreed to the time and effort commitments; they shared similar values and assumptions; they clearly defined roles, joint tasks, and assignments indicating a high degree of interdependence and a fair distribution of leadership, decision-making and authority; and they shared the expectation that the collaborative relationship was positive, beneficial and most likely to continue in future. The sense of common purpose brought them together initially and provided the foundation to govern their interaction, as well as the shared outcome. Further, among the complementary collaborative projects, a previous working experience among some of the partners enabled building upon already established bonds of trust, confidence, comfort and understanding.

The mandated collaboration, however, did not have the necessary partner compatibility at the beginning, and the limited nine month time-frame was barely adequate to address, as well as overcome, issues of trust, competition and unequal power relations. The mandated framework severely limited the initial problem setting or direction setting phase and their structuring phase was curtailed by time line restrictions, different research goals and objectives, mediating the lack of familiarity with one another, and the legitimacy of the process. Legitimacy was influenced by historical relationships among the stakeholders (academics vis a vis advocacy groups; mainstream vis a vis small agency) and the auspices under which the collaboration was convened, i.e., the condition that projects would lose their funding if they did not participate. It is commendable that given the time-line reductions and the limited opportunities to engage in initial goal setting discussions and structural designs, the youth collaboration developed clearly defined outcomes of the joint research and initiated a sense of trust in the process. Within the youth collaboration, the balancing of participants= self-interests with the collective interest was continually negotiated, illustrating the positive outcomes that Browne (1999:8l) identifies:

"Through the strategic alliance, investigators and partners have learned that there can be more amid less; balance without compromised quality; simultaneous delivery without homogenization. Rigour can co-exist with relevance; impartiality can co-exist with advocacy. Agencies can participate in joint ventures without one threatening to take over the other."

The collaborative framework provides an effective and beneficial model for research in settlement issues. Although collaboration may originally arise through necessity and agency survival strategies, relationships among partners continue to exist beyond specific project funding. Each model of collaboration among the youth projects has resulted in the identification of new cooperative ventures within their community and has strengthened links among settlement service delivery agencies, newcomer youth, researchers, government levels and funding bodies. Collaborative initiatives and their assessment have demonstrated how and to what extent settlement service delivery and access to settlement services can be improved among newcomer youth.

APPENDIX A - BRIEF SUMMARY OF AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS AND PROJECTS INVOLVED IN THE YOUTH COLLABORATION

Located in Kitchener and established in 1982, the Centre for Research and Education is an independent nonprofit organization specializing in community-based research. Their model of research is through a "participatory action-oriented" method in which a variety of stakeholders participate in the process of identifying the nature, goals and objectives of the research, develop research questions, design research instruments, collect information, inform intervention decisions, and evaluate in terms of problem solving and the generation of new knowledge. The maximum participation of stakeholders as co-researchers is for the express purpose of enhancing their ability to take action and make change as well as to ensure their control and ownership over the research process and research findings. Several of the participatory action research projects initiated by the Centre have facilitated the building of partnerships among professionals, family members, service providers and service consumers; provided patient-controlled alternatives to the mental health system; expanded self-help/mutual aid support for the elderly and their communities; and detailed improvements in refugee and immigrant services across Ontario. Much of the research is collaborative, involving community members, academic researchers, community developers, service providers, and policy members.

The Centre's research project is titled: "Enhancing Services and Supports for Youth in Waterloo Region." To date, the diverse settlement issues of immigrant and refugee youth (aged 16-20) in the Waterloo region are not clearly understood, especially by service providers and older family members. The Centre's research identifies existing services and supports for newcomer youth, the barriers youth face (employment, family violence, cultural adjustment, language), where the youth turn to for help, the type of support they prefer, and the obstacles they face in getting help. As Waterloo has a broad spectrum of newcomers, the identification of youth needs, improvement of existing settlement services, and development of innovative service and support models, will have application elsewhere in the province.

The Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement, Toronto (CERIS), established in March 1995, is a consortium of Toronto-area universities and community partners, including: Ryerson Polytechnic University, University of Toronto, York University, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, the Community Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the United Way of Greater Toronto. It is one of four such research centres across Canada; others are in Montreal, Edmonton and Vancouver. Core funding for CERIS is provided by several federal department and agencies in collaboration with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and Immigration and Citizenship Canada (CIC). Others include Health Canada, Human Resources, Canadian Heritage, Status of Women Canada, the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the Solicitor General's Office. Statistics Canada is also supporting CERIS through contributions of data and expertise. The Centre's Management Board is responsible for its overall direction, and is accountable to the sponsors, institutions and partner organizations. The Management Board includes representation from all of its consortium members. The Centre's administrative structures also include the Partnership Advisory Council (PAC), Standing Committees (Data, Communications and Fundraising), and Adjudication Panels in each of the research domains. The Centre attempts to 'foster research collaboration among universities, between universities and community agencies, and across disciplinary boundaries" emphasizing interdisciplinary research and recognizing "the contribution of different methodologies including archival study, ethnographic investigation, statistical analysis of existing data sets, case studies, epidemiology and community surveys" (CERIS web-site). The centre's primary focus is research covering the impact of immigration on the Greater Toronto Area and on the integration of immigrants into Canadian society. CERIS also provides training opportunities and disseminates policy and program relevant research information.

The CERIS project, titled Best Practices for Supporting the Integration of Newcomer Youth, is under the direction of Dr. Paul Anisef, York University and Dr. Kenise Murphy Kilbride, Professor at Ryerson. The project examines the integration of newcomer youth immigrants from various cultural and racial backgrounds, into Canadian society. CERIS utilizes both qualitative and quantitative techniques, to identify the issues, needs and problems which organizations confront when they serve newcomer youth. The information was collected through survey interviews and focus groups. Participants included, 15 key informants, 150 agencies and 25 paid focus youth groups. The research identifies best practices from the perspective of service delivery organizations and youth and parents. CERIS also works collaboratively with six other CIC youth focused research projects, including World University Service of Canada, South Asian Women's Centre, Family Services Association of Metropolitan Toronto, Pinecrest Queensway Health and Community Services in Ottawa and the Centre for Research and Education in Human Services in Waterloo.

The Coalition of Visible Minority Women is a non-profit organization established in 1983 . The Coalition acknowledges and affirms not only visible minority women, but also newcomers to Canada and their families, refugees, and youth as full participants and contributors to Canadian life. On their behalf, the Coalition engages in advocacy, lobbying, orientation, education, settlement and support services.

Their current project is tentatively entitled: "Research on Youth 16-18 at risk of chronic unemployment due to gaps in LINC." It is part of the youth focus sector within the Coalition. The project identifies gaps in programs for youth who are suffering chronic unemployment due to communication and language skills and other integration barriers. Research is focused on youth from the West Indies and African English speaking countries who speak a dialect of English which has notable differences in pronunciation, rhythm and tone and may not be easily understood, but its recognition has negative consequences for them in Canada. Although language and communication dynamics enhance workforce difficulties and barriers, the youth are ineligible for ESL training. Recommendations are made on how to identify and address the gaps these youth face.

The South Asian Women's Centre (SAWC) has been working with Toronto's South Asian community for the past 15 years. SAWC offers a variety of settlement programs and services to the diverse South Asian community which represents over twenty-eight languages and an almost equally large number of cultural and religious groups. Working with the community, SAWC has implemented a number of projects focusing on violence prevention, community and economic development, health promotion and social, cultural and recreational support. SAWC services over 7,000 clients with over 15,000 units of service each year.

The Council of Agencies Serving South Asians (CASSA), is an umbrella organization, set up to bring together a number of member agencies servicing the South Asian community. The mandate of CASSA is to advocate and support its own membership and the South Asian community at large. CASSA is involved in research, community development, training, volunteer development, information and referral and advocacy, in addition to support to the settlement sector. CASSA came into existence in 1988 and was incorporated in 1991. Its current membership includes approximately 60 agencies and groups.

The CASSA/SAWC collaborative project is titled "Bridging Gaps: South Asian Youth and their Families". It has elicited responses from immigrant South Asian youth from different linguistic, ethnic, religious, and socio-economic groups within the community about their needs, issues, and desired forms of service delivery. The project design had two major components: to find out the needs/help seeking methods of the different South Asian community youth, and to provide an opportunity for facilitated dialogue between the youth and their families. In this manner the project not only documents the voices of South Asian youth but also provides an opportunity for bridging the gap between youth and their families as part of its pro-active research methodology. The project utilized a facilitated focus group format.

Family Services Association has been serving families, individuals and communities in Toronto for more than 85 years. It is a non-profit, social service agency helping more than 20,000 individuals and families each year. FSA provides a variety of counseling, education, intervention and community support programs to individuals and families struggling to cope with various challenges ranging from depression, physical abuse, marital and children=s issues, and developmental disabilities to elderly needs. FSA also works in partnership with various groups to help build the capacity of communities to provide care and support for their members. Since 1994, FSA has initiated research studies and numerous programs for refugees and immigrants, facilitating their settlement and adaptive process.

FSA's current project is titled Factors Affecting the Settlement and Adaptation Process of Canadian Adolescent Newcomers 16-19 Years of Age. Particular emphasis was given to the psychological dimension, one of the most important areas in the process of adolescent newcomers' settlement and adaptation process. The project examined psychological distress, different types of adaptation reactions, personal satisfactions, satisfaction with parents/guardians, classmates, school and teachers, attitudes toward Canadian society, and settlement and adaptation outcomes. The analysis of these factors was geared to inform both settlement providers and policy debate relevant to immigrant adolescents' settlement, mental health, academic success, and their general integration into Canadian society.

Pinecrest-Queensway Health and Community Services (PQHCS) has provided health and social services to disadvantaged individuals and families in the low-income communities of west-end Ottawa since 1979. As a community health centre, Pinecrest-Queensway works collaboratively with a variety of health service components (primary health, mental health, health promotion, crisis intake, community health), community services (parental support groups, nursery schools, local school boards) and development, and social agencies (Children=s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton, Home Management Services, Program Against Abuse). Newcomer Centre-based programs include an immigrant woman=s program, LINC and employment orientation. Staff composition reflects the range of services and activities offered, as well as the diversity of people in the community. Pinecrest-Queensway has developed two projects concerned with youth.

The larger project is tentatively titled: "DYG: A Multicultural Youth Newspaper Project (Diverse Youth Workers)." It is a collaboration between Pinecrest-Queensway Health and Community Services and the Youth Services Bureau of Ottawa-Carleton to publish four newspapers, targeted to newcomer youth between the ages of 16-20. The newspapers, distributed in local schools, youth drop in centres, and community health centres, are written and produced by eight youth workers representative of high-risk newcomer youth populations in the Ottawa area (Somali, Arabic, Farsi, Bosnian, Cambodian). Youth workers underwent an innovative leadership training module with local media personnel, Health Promotion Workers and Youth Workers. Through outreach and talking to newcomer youth, focus groups and personal interviews (with youth, teachers, parents and service providers), the youth journalists identified barriers to integration, availability and access to existing resources and/or youth services, and youth strategies utilized to cope with their issues and concerns. As such, the project can be described as "action research." The information from activities, focus groups, and interviews are included in the newspaper (via articles, stories, poems, lists). This information enhances outreach and knowledge of youth services among newcomer youth, provides a forum through which youth can articulate their concerns, and provides service delivery personnel with increased awareness of unmet youth needs, the relevance of existing services and suggestions for improvement. A manual outlining the process, strategies and outcomes of the project is made available to organizations, service providers and youth working with newcomers and their families.

Their second project which only received funding in December 1999 is titled "Work for Youth Research Project". This research examined the issue of unemployment and newcomer youth through identification of reasons for high unemployment and its impact on youth. Key informant interviews, focus groups, and survey questionnaires with newcomer youth contributed to data collection. Despite the extremely reduced time-line framework available for this project, several strategies and recommendations were made on addressing newcomer youth employment issues.

The World University Service of Canada (WUSC) is a network of individuals and post-secondary institutions. Through an umbrella agreement with the Government of Canada, WUSC has been sponsoring student refugees from around the world for 50 years, and privately sponsoring refugee students for 20 years. Each year approximately 35 student refugees enter Canada through the WUSC Student Refugee Sponsorship Program. Over the past 20 years WUSC has sponsored more than 500 student refugees through 55 WUSC Local Committees on university and college campuses. The campuses are spread across Canada, but 40% of student refugees are in Ontario. Student refugees have been sponsored from over 11 countries including Ethiopia, Uganda, Zaire, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Burundi, Sudan, Burma, Bosnia, Somalia and most recently Liberia. WUSC's refugee support activities are just one part of its international development program. WUSC is also involved in a number of international initiatives aimed at promoting development, eradicating poverty and promoting Canada's humanitarian efforts across the world. WUSC Local Committees form the backbone of their work; these committees are located in over 70 Canadian universities, CEGEPs and colleges.

WUSC's project is titled Evaluation of the Integration of WUSC Student Refugees into Canadian Society. It evaluates its current Student Refugee Sponsorship Program (SRSP). The Project has used a participatory results based approach, incorporating both a survey of past sponsored refugees and focus groups with survey participants to assess the success of integration of SRSP participants into Canadian society. The evaluation focused on students from 1985 to 1994. The project is the second part of an evaluation, which began last year. The study determines difficulties encountered by student refugees in their incorporation into Canadian society and possible solutions to assist refugees in obtaining successful incorporation.

ENDNOTES

1 The Settlement Research Monitoring was not involved in assessing aspects of settlement challenges or the validity of the project undertaken by the various agencies. There was no direct interference with the conduct of the research process, except in initial cases where the contract specifically called for the agreement of Howard Adelman on a particular item, such as the appointment of the researcher. Any discrepancies observed were discussed with the agency representative most involved in the research (executive director, research coordinator, or principal investigator), and assistance from the monitoring team was offered (such as advice on methodology, communication with other research projects, coordination of research). If a situation concerning the research could not be resolved, or involved administrative or financial issues, it was brought to the attention of CIC. Every agency participating in the Settlement Research Monitoring Project had at least one on-site visit, and regular telephone contact was maintained to develop the monthly progress reports which detailed specifics of their research progress or noted instances in identifying and resolving unexpected research challenges. Most of the agencies involved gave full cooperation in providing information on their particular research process as well as their collaborative efforts.

2 Another facet of the Settlement Research Monitoring Project was to arrange three seminars on settlement issues relevant to the projects, to put the research into a larger context and to allow the researchers to communicate on their progress and with one another. The first seminar, "Gaps in Settlement Services," was held December 1, 1999, with a morning session of four guest speakers from the different agencies, followed by a general discussion. The second seminar, 'Strategies for Cooperation in Settlement Services," was held January 19, 2000, with four guest speakers and a general discussion in the morning, and an afternoon session on qualitative data analysis with two specialists, Dr. Darla Rhyne of the Institute for Social Research, York University and Ms. Christine Vanditelli, a Nudist Data Processor. The third seminar, "Extending the Process of Research Beyond Groups Into Policy Areas," was held March 24, 2000, to enable the participating agencies to communicate their research findings or key critical concerns of the settlement process to CIC Minister Elinor Caplan, her assistant Jamie Springer, and OASIS Managing Director Elizabeth Gryte.

3. Additional models of collaboration were identified in the Settlement Research Monitoring

Project, as well as several distinctions between the youth and management collaborations.

Alter, Catherine and Jerald Hage. 1993. Organizations Working Together. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Browne, Gina Bohn. 1999. AEvidence That Informs Practice and Policy: The Role of Strategic Alliances at the Municipal, Provincial and Federal Levels@. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research 31 (1):79-94.

Emery, F., and Trist, E. 1965 AThe Causal Texture of Organizational Environments@. Human Relations, l8, 21-32.

 

Graham, John R. and Ken Barter. 1999 (January-February). ACollaboration: A Social Work Practice Method@. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, January-February 1999:6-13.

 

Gray, Barbara. 1985. AConditions Facilitating Interorganizational Collaboration@. Human Relations 38 (10):911-936.

 

Hague, Gill and Ellen Malos. 1998. AInter-agency Approaches to Domestic Violence and the Role of Social Services@. British Journal of Social Work, Volume 28:369-386.

 

O=Looney, John. 1994. AModeling Collaboration and Social Services Integration: A Single State=s Experience with Developmental and Non-Developmental Models@. Social Work 18 (1):61-86.

 

Owen, Timothy. 1999. AThe View From Toronto: Settlement Services in the Late 1990's@ Presented at the Vancouver Metropolis Conference, January 13- 16.

 

Rietz, Jeffery G. 1995 (November 30). AA Review of the Literature on Aspects of Ethno-Racial Access Utilization and Delivery of Social Services.@ Report was prepared as a joint project of the Multicultural Coalition for Access to Family Services, Toronto and the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. Available online at http://ceris.metropolis.net/Virtual%20Library/other/reitz1.html

 

ASettlement Research Monitoring Project@ April 2000, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Ontario Administration of Settlement and Integration Services (OASIS).

 

Urwin, Charlene A. and Dennis T. Haynes. 1998. AA Reflexive Model for Collaboration: Empowering Partnerships Through Focus Groups.@ Administration in Social Work 22 (2):23-39.

Wood, Donna and Barbara Gray. 1991 (June). AToward a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration@. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27 (2):139-162.