Subsector Forestal:

9

Immigrants and Social Services in the Suburbs

Lucia Lo

Introduction

Canada ranks among the most important immigrant-receiving countries in the world. The large numbers of newcomers from around the world have contributed to the social complexity in Canadian metropolises, especially in Toronto, which receives over 40 per cent of all arrivals to Canada (44 per cent in 2001 and 45 per cent in 2006).1

Immigrants face multiple challenges on arrival and require access to various social services to help them settle in their new home. However, their recently decentralized and deconcentrated residential patterns prove particularly testing for social service providers, who have a responsibility to respond quickly to newcomer needs (Wilson, 2006). The economic restructuring that started in the 1970s and the neo-liberal principles adopted by all higher levels of government since then have only worsened the situation. In particular, government underfunding has created a two-tier system of service provision in which large multiservice immigrant servicing agencies (ISAs) depend on state contracts for the bulk of their operating capital and small ethnospecific ISAs that, due to insufficient resources, are unable to compete with larger agencies for state contracts depend on the multiservice ISAs for resources and funding (Richmond and Shields, 2004; Sadiq, 2004). Social control and legitimation subject small ISAs to the terms of reference of government contracts, as well as to the regulations and practices of their larger partners. Such unequal power sharing often manifests mistrust and other conflicts that put the quality and availability of services at risk and undermine any efforts to build strong and inclusive communities (Ahmed, 2006).

In an inclusive society, immigrants, especially the recent arrivals or newcomers, should have equal access to basic capabilities such as the ability to be healthy, well- fed, housed, employed based on their foreign-trained credentials, integrated into the community, welcomed as participants in community and public life, and afforded the

1 _{Acknowledgements: The data reported in this chapter was mostly collected for a project titled}

“A Geomatics Approach to Immigrant Settlement Services: The Integration of Supply and Demand over Space and Time,” which was jointly funded by the GEOIDE NCE (Geomatics for Informed Decisions) and the Ontario Administration of Settlement and Integration Services (OASIS) of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Special thanks are due to Harvey Low, Community and Neighbourhood Services Department, City of Toronto; Cheryl May, Community Information Toronto; and fellow project team members Philippe Apparicio, Qiuming Cheng, Brian Klinkenberg, Robert Murdie, and Shuguang Wang. Some of the tables and figures in this chapter were adapted from those reported in Lo et al. (2007).

132 Lucia Lo

social bases of self respect (Anisef and Lanphier, 2003). Any barriers to such imply social exclusion, “the dynamic process of being shut out … from any of the social, economic, political or cultural systems which determine the … integration of a person in society” (Walker and Walker, 1997, 8). Currently, we observe the growing social exclusion of immigrants, particularly of racial minorities, in the form of elevated poverty rates, labour and housing market difficulties, higher risks related to schooling and health, weak representation in the political system, and tensions with the criminal justice system (Chiu and Tran, 2003; Kazemipur and Halli, 2000; Murdie, 2005; Ornstein, 2000; 2006). Yet, with just a few exceptions (Denton and Spencer, 2001; George et al., 2004; Leung, 2000; Truelove, 2000; Truelove and Wang, 2001; Wang and Truelove, 2003), little attention has been paid to settlement service provision as an area of academic and policy inquiry in Canada and beyond.

In this context, this chapter examines the relationship between the service needs of and service provision for the newly arrived immigrants. Using the Toronto region as a case study area and official language training for illustration, my purpose here is twofold: to identify the disparities in service provision and to show how unevenly distributed service infrastructure can accentuate the vulnerability faced by one of the least advantaged societal groups. Conceptualized within an inclusivity framework, this chapter uses the concept of spatial mismatch as a guiding principle to investigate the demand for and supply of settlement services in both the older central city and the geographically peripheral suburbs, as well as in the spaces in between. After outlining the literature background, this chapter will report on the Toronto situation by examining the pattern of immigrant suburbanization, constructing the profiles of some recent immigrant groups to determine the types of settlement service most needed for integrating these immigrants into the Canadian society and economy, and discussing the provision of settlement services. A case study on official language training will illustrate how well newcomers are served within the Toronto region and help to conclude what needs be done. The particular challenges presented by the in-between city will also be addressed.

Literature background

Social exclusion and inclusion

Compared to other social science concepts, the discourse on social exclusion and social inclusion, in recent decades, exerts the utmost influence on how we understand, or attempt to change, our world. On the academic front, it has inspired a vast research and publication output. More impressive, however, has been the official adoption by governments of social exclusion and inclusion perspectives as guideposts for state policy agendas. Originating in France as a response to growing signs of socio- economic strains, such as resurgent unemployment and deepening poverty in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, the concepts of social exclusion and inclusion are concerned with the barriers or access people encounter in gaining a share of society’s resources.

Generally, exclusion is seen as the problem and inclusion as the solution (Roeher Institute, 2003). Social exclusion refers to the denial of the right and to the inability of individuals or communities to participate fully in their society because of any socially determined disadvantage (Willett, 2003). Multiple and changing factors result in people being excluded from the normal exchanges, practices, and rights of modern society (Percy-Smith, 2000). Conversely, social inclusion requires that every member of society has access to its central goods, to the satisfaction of basic needs, and to a reasonable quality of life (Gray, 2000; Lucas, 2004). Social exclusion involves both process and outcome. Relations of power and powerlessness, arising from and embedded in economic globalization, technological change, population migration,

Immigrants and Social Services in the Suburbs 133

public service restructuring, and discrimination, produce deprivation, disadvantage, and exclusion among certain groups in our societies. The outcome of social exclusion is multidimensional. Linkages are typically drawn between poverty and such issues as housing, health, education, crime, neighbourhood space, and access to services. Research in Canada documents the social and spatial patterns of inclusion and exclusion within and across urban areas (Anisef and Lanphier, 2003; Kazemipur and Halli, 2000; Lee, 2000; Ley and Smith, 2000; Li, 2003; Ornstein, 2006). Omidvar and Richmond (2003) specifically talk about immigrant settlement and social inclusion in Canada, and recent comparative research (Murie and Musterd, 2004) confirms that welfare policies and public infrastructure promote social inclusion by facilitating the participation of all members of society regardless of income, social identity, and residential location.

Social vulnerability

Originating in risk assessment studies, the social vulnerability literature focuses on inequalities in the experience and impact of natural and technological hazards (Beck, 1993; Cutter, 2003). Vulnerability refers to the inability of people, organizations, and societies to withstand the adverse effects of disasters and hazards to which they are exposed. There are two faces of vulnerability, and resilience to it is uneven. Externally, different groups of a society may be similarly exposed to a specific physical hazard or social risk. Internally, different socioeconomic groups deal with the exposure by means of various strategies or actions. The hazard or risk would thus have varying consequences for groups with diverging capacities and abilities to handle the impact (Blaikie et al., 2005). In this regard, the social context in general and the social processes and structures in particular are important. The most important are perhaps the economic, demographic, and political processes that affect the allocation and distribution of resources between different groups of people.

Some social groups are more vulnerable than others. Disadvantaged individuals such as seniors, the poor, the disabled, and visible minorities are particularly vulnerable. Recent immigrants are often bearers of multiple vulnerabilities. Today, many of them are visible minorities; with their origin credentials and work experience often not recognized, they earn much less than the Canadian-born and established immigrants, and they are characterized by higher unemployment and poverty rates. This discrepancy has been widely reported in the Canadian literature (see, for example, Frenette and Morissette, 2003; Hiebert, 1999; Hou and Picot, 2003; Ley and Smith, 2000; Ornstein, 2006; Picot and Hou, 2003; Preston Lo, and Wang, 2003). Although some recent immigrants may break through the socially vulnerable or vicious cycle, vulnerability itself can persist because structural influences inherent in social interactions, political institutions, and cultural values often reinforce it. Government devolution and the continual process of downloading financial and logistical responsibility for social services is a case in point (Basu, 2004; Hackworth and Moriah, 2006; Keil, 2002). Accessible social service infrastructure is a crucial means for reducing social inequalities in exposure to risk and its impacts (DeBresson and Barker, 1998).

Suburbanization and public infrastructure

Suburbs are diversifying and growing faster than the city (Kopun, 2007; Kopun and Keung, 2007; Lo et al., 2007; Statistics Canada, 2007). Between 2001 and 2006, the growth rate of peripheral municipalities that surround the central municipalities of Canada’s 33 census metropolitan areas (CMAs) doubled the national average (11.1 per cent versus 5.4 per cent), whereas the central municipalities grew more slowly (4.2 per cent) than the Canadian population and less than half as fast as the peripheral municipalities. The Toronto region is a most telling example. In the same period, while

134 Lucia Lo

population in the City of Toronto grew by 0.9 per cent, some surrounding suburban municipalities grew upwards of 23 per cent or more (for example, 33 per cent in Brampton, 31 per cent in Vaughan, 27 per cent in Whitby, and 25 per cent in Markham). This pattern of development in urban centres is typical of urban spread, presenting many challenges for metropolitan centres, especially for their suburbs, in the areas of transportation infrastructure, public services, and the environment.

With a shorter history of development, suburbs are particularly vulnerable to the full impact of fiscal constraint by all levels of government in the past two decades. Without the historical legacy of infrastructure investments found in older parts of metropolitan areas, suburbs suffer an even larger shortfall in infrastructure than other locations (Bunting, Walks, and Filion, 2004; Clutterbuck and Howard, 2002). Meanwhile, infrastructure demands are increasing rapidly in suburban areas where there are growing vulnerable populations (Alba et al., 1999; Lo, 2008b; Marcelli, 2004; Murdie and Teixeira, 2003). Yet the auto-oriented, low-density, and highly segregated land-use patterns in the suburbs exacerbate infrastructure needs. Residents often have to travel long distances using slow and infrequent public transportation to reach a limited number of services (Graham, 2000; McLafferty, 1982; McLafferty and Preston, 1992). Recent immigrants are especially hard hit due to their reliance on public transit (Blumenberg, 2008; Blumenberg and Evans, 2007; Heisz and Schellenberg, 2004)

We learn from this brief review of the literature that vulnerable groups such as recent immigrants are more likely to be exposed to the risks and impacts of inequalities in public service infrastructure. Because public infrastructure can promote social inclusion, adequate and reasonable access to services is crucial to immigrants’ successful integration in Canadian society. How well, currently, are immigrants to Canada’s largest metropolis, especially those settling in the suburbs, being served?

Suburban settlement of recent immigrants

In the past, Toronto’s immigrants were relegated to certain parts of the city, the so- called immigrant reception corridor in downtown Toronto. However, during the last three decades, the region’s immigrant settlement pattern is noticeably changing. Immigrant groups such as Chinese, Jews, Greeks, Italians, and Portuguese who arrived prior to the 1970s tended to settle in the traditional inner-city immigrant enclaves in and around the Kensington Market. These enclaves are compact sociospatial units where a large number of immigrants from the same ethnic background live and where most of their cultural and religious institutions, businesses, and services are located. The spatial assimilation model predicts that, upon achieving upward mobility, these groups would move to the suburbs and become spatially integrated. However, these groups more often resegregate, especially the Chinese, the Italians, and the Jewish. The newer groups that came after the 1970s do not necessarily follow the same path. Many circumvented the traditional corridor and settled directly in the suburbs. More often, the affluent settle in the outer suburbs and the more disadvantaged in the inner suburbs. The overall pattern of immigrant settlement is characterized by increasing segregation.

Figure 1 chronicles the settlement patterns of recent immigrants over the last three decades. (Note that, depending on the census year, the term “recent immigrants” refers to those who arrived in Canada within either three or five years of the census day. This inconsistency is unfortunate. Nonetheless, the available data depict interesting trends.) The location quotients highlight where the new arrivals settled. In 1971, the majority settled in the traditional inner-city corridors, forming an uneven V shape on both sides of the core of the City of Toronto. The suburbanization of newcomers became obvious in 1981. The concentration of recent arrivals was more dispersed, forming a dotted circle

Immigrants and Social Services in the Suburbs 135

around the economic heart and the affluent neighbourhoods of Metropolitan Toronto, as it was then called. (This region amalgamated into the current City of Toronto in 1998). While the traditional immigrant corridors retained their presence, suburban settlements took place both along the railway path on the west side, which hosts some of the poorest, most derelict neighbourhoods of the city, and in the new subdivisions in Scarborough in the north-eastern part of Toronto. Since 1991, the declining role of the inner city as an immigrant gateway and the increasing importance of the suburbs as new gateways were apparent. In 1971, recent immigrants made up 47 per cent of the immigrant population in the traditional gateways (here defined as those census tracts whose share of recent immigrants is at least twice as much as the CMA share). Their share dropped to 23 per cent in 2001.

Figure 1: Settlement Patterns of Recent Immigrants, 1971 to 2001 (from Statistics Canada data)

The suburbanization of recent immigrants did not take place in a vacuum. They were affected by major demographic, social, and economic trends that have transformed the region. These include population growth fuelled by both immigration and internal in-migration, the development of the City of Toronto as Canada’s most important financial and business centre, and professionalization of the Canadian labour force. For immigrants who arrived after 1970, their economic status and the nature of Toronto’s housing market determine their residential location. With population more than doubled from 1961 to 2001, substantial demand has been created for the construction of new and expensive homes on the suburban fringe, many within the financial reach of the more affluent immigrants (Lo and Wang, 1997). In the central city, executive jobs in the financial sector remain as manufacturing activity and routine office functions decentralize to the suburbs. Gentrification of the central city, much

136 Lucia Lo

encouraged by city planning policies since the 1970s, tends to displace low-income households to the inner suburbs where a considerable amount of public and low-cost private rental housing is available (Murdie and Teixeira, 2003).

Divergent settlement needs

A survey completed in 2005 (Oliveira et al., forthcoming) asked users of settlement services an open-ended question: what is the most important thing that the government or immigrant serving agencies could do to make it easier for you or your family and friends to settle in Canada and/or receive newcomer services? Two hundred and forty- seven recent immigrants responded to this question. Their needs are divergent, from employment and training to childcare, legal, and medical assistance. As expected, the majority made reference to the area of employment. In this regard, immigrants mentioned access to employment services and information; finding and arranging employment; assistance with credential evaluation, accreditation, and licensing for foreign-trained professionals; obtaining Canadian experience, job placements, mentoring, and counselling to teach newcomers the dynamics of the job markets; access to training and upgrading supports; labour-market related language training; and education upgrading. English language training is the second area of settlement demand. The newcomers expressed the need for more classes, for courses available on weekends and evenings, and for longer periods of access to language education. In third place is the need for information and orientation. In addition to making a request that more information be given to prospective immigrants in their own countries prior to immigrating to Canada, they asked that information be readily available and easy to access. Housing services is the next need. Respondents noted the need for assistance with finding immediate housing and for information on and access to affordable housing. In addition, many prefer culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This preference is similar to what Guo (2006) found in Vancouver.

These are the most urgent needs of newcomers. An examination of available data on the socio-economic demographics of new immigrants affirms these. The Landed Immigrant Data System (LIDS), an administrative dataset consisting of the landing records for all immigrants who came to Canada since 1980, is one of the best sources. Table 1 examines a few immigrant groups with a sizable presence in Toronto, namely those from mainland China, El Salvador, Iran, Jamaica, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia, and Sri Lanka. With the exception of El Salvador and Somalia, all have been among the top 15 source countries of immigrants to Canada since 1997 (Citizenship and Immigration Canada [CIC], 2010). If one defines newcomers as those who arrived within the last three years, in 2001, mainland Chinese constituted the largest group, followed by Pakistanis and Sri Lankans, whereas El Salvadoreans and Somalis were the smallest. The proportion of newcomers was especially high among the Chinese, Pakistanis, and Russians. Most from mainland China and Russia came as skilled workers, entrepreneurs, or investors; those from El Salvador and Jamaica arrived mostly for family reunification; and many of those from Somalia and Sri Lanka were admitted on a humanitarian basis. As a whole, 11 per cent of the newcomers from these eight regions of origin came as humanitarian immigrants, meaning that over 13,000 individuals from these groups alone are in need of special assistance for settlement. In terms of their presence in Canada, the Chinese have the longest history. Hence, there exist many well- established institutions to assist the Mandarin-speaking newcomers from mainland China. By comparison, the history of the Somalis and El Salvadoreans in Canada is much shorter, and these communities have few established institutions. The newcomers from these eight countries are relatively well educated. Forty per cent came with university education, and those with postsecondary education are mostly from

Immigrants and Social Services in the Suburbs 137

mainland China, Russia, and Pakistan as opposed to Somalia and Sri Lanka. Of the 45 per cent (over 50,000) of the newcomers who, at the time of immigration, had no postsecondary education (i.e., less than 12 years of schooling), we can assume that many are school-aged children. This means that a large number of newcomers need to be accommodated in our school systems and require extra support in ESL classes.