Seeking refuge: rethinking Canadian settlement policies and programs, and how to imporve access to housingfor refugee claimants in the City of Toronto
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
"In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of people applying for refugee status, from within Canada or at the border, rising from around 15,000 claims to over 50,000 claims each year. The reasons for this growth are difficult to know, but geopolitical trends and recent changes in refugee policies in the United States have undoubtedly had an impact on the increase in refugee claimants coming to Canada. Refugees face many challenges related to physical and emotional trauma, uncertain immigration status, and financial insecurity. A positive and supportive settlement process upon arrival in a safe country is extremely important. For the most part, in Canada, refugees come to this country through a sponsorship program that involves applying for refugee status before arrival. Refugee status is confirmed, and when the refugees arrive in Canada, financial and social assistance as well as certainty in the immigration process are provided. For asylum seekers who apply for refugee status upon arrival in Canada, usually termed 'refugee claimants', supportive services and certainty of immigration status are not granted at first. With no defined or official program in place at the federal or provincial levels, the responsibility of supporting the settlement of refugee claimant households has by default fallen to municipal shelters and non-profit organizations, causing unsustainable pressure on local services and funding. Access to services and adequate housing can be limited, increasing the vulnerability and uncertainty experienced by refugee claimants in Canada. In this study, key-informant interviews and policy research have illustrated that there have been a variety of consequences of having no dedicated supports or programs for this population. There have been growing tensions regarding which level of government should cover the costs of refugee settlement, challenges for refugee claimants in accessing important settlement and immigration information when they arrive in Canada, as well as an overeliance on municipal shelters and nonprofit organizations to provide settlement support services and initial temporary housing. Complicating this situation, most refugee claimants have settled in only a few municipalities in Canada, leading to an uneven distribution of the costs of providing these supportive services. Specifically, the majority of refugee claimants have come to Toronto, Ontario due to it being a major arrival city for immigrant populations and it having a high concentration of employment opportunities. Unfortunately, the city is in the midst of a housing crisis with few affordable housing options. Many refugee claimants are relying on non-profit organizations and shelters, potentially displacing the existing homeless population. Indeed, as of 2018 over 40% of those using the shelter system were refugee claimants. This additional demand on shelters has led to the need to use short-term emergency measures, such as contracting hotels and student dormitories to be used as additional family shelter space. In general, the responses have been reactionary and expensive, while providing only temporary solutions with limited lasting community benefit. After examining the trends in immigration, the roles of stakeholders and their responses to this increase in refugee claimants, this report examines several potential strategies that could assist with improving the supports available to refugee claimants and help reduce stresses on local service providers when demand increases. In the short term, federal and provincial funding is needed to relieve the added pressure on the City and non-profit organizations that provide temporary shelter and supportive services. In the longer term, there should be a focus on investing in housing options that allow people to exit the shelter system, having the added benefit of producing lasting affordable housing infrastructure in Toronto. Strategies could include protecting existing affordable units and expanding the housing typologies on shelter sites to include transitional and non-profit affordable family housing. These interventions will have the long-term benefit of improving the ability of the city to respond to sudden changes in demand for housing as there would be less overall strain on the system. By taking a long-term approach that invests in community infrastructure rather than focusing on short-term emergency responses, government and civil society stakeholders can develop strategies that support improved access to housing in a more adaptive housing ecosystem that can respond to the changing needs of society. "@eng
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,027 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,030 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».