As a group, the "leavers" interviewed in this study have provided us with a fairly clear explanation of why they left. Employment/education opportunities were most often the "pull" factors attracting them to larger cities. A better quality of life, the desire to live near to family/friends/compatriots, and dissatisfaction with services in the original community were somewhat less common reasons for moving. How do these explanations for leaving compare to those provided by individuals working in refugee-settlement and other agencies offering services to refugees in Alberta?
Examination of the comments made during interviews with representatives of service providers (see Appendix II, Volume 2) reveals that virtually all of them thought that the availability of jobs was the most important determinant of refugees staying in or leaving a host community. Some service providers also mentioned the importance of having family/friends/compatriots nearby for determining whether refugees would leave their city of destination. In addition, some of these individuals commented on the need for the residents of the host community to be supportive and welcoming, and on the need for support services for refugees. Thus, the explanations service providers gave for why refugees leave their original city of destination generally correspond to the explanations provided by refugees who had left their first host community.
It is interesting to note that most service providers in the seven host communities reported that relatively few refugees left their communities. In fact, this study has demonstrated that a large number (40%) of the refugees who arrived in these cities between 1992 and 1997 had left by 1998. Some service providers believed that refugees who left did so quite soon after arrival (between 2 and 10 months). However, Table 5-2 revealed that only 53% of the "leavers" had left within the first nine months of arriving. Thus, to some extent, service providers under-estimate the number of refugees who leave their initial host communities, and some also under-estimate the length of time "leavers" actually stay before moving on to another city.
Respondents in the public opinion survey were asked: "Do you think refugees and other immigrants would adjust to Canada more easily in larger cities like Edmonton or Calgary, smaller cities, or smaller towns?" Combining responses across the seven host communities, we observe that 56% of all respondents recommended large cities, 24% said smaller cities, 13% said small towns, and 8% volunteered other answers (e.g., it makes no difference, it depends on the person/community).
Figure 5-6 presents the responses broken down by host community. Not surprisingly, Edmonton and Calgary residents were somewhat more likely to indicate that refugees and immigrants adjust more easily in larger cities, and least likely to mention smaller cities.
Residents of the three mid-sized host communities (Lethbridge, Red Deer and Medicine Hat) were somewhat more likely than survey respondents in the other four cities to state that smaller cities were better for refugee/immigrant adjustment. Nevertheless, a majority in all of the cities except Medicine Hat felt that newcomers to Canada adjust better in larger cities.
When asked why they felt this way, respondents who recommended larger cities were most likely to comment on the greater likelihood of other people from the same ethnic/cultural background living in larger cities (Table 5-7). The next most common type of response mentioned the greater number of job opportunities in larger cities. Those who recommended smaller cities or small towns typically focused on "quality of life" issues, particularly the presumed greater friendliness of people in smaller communities and the slower pace of life.
Thus, in general, residents of the host communities tend to emphasize social factors when speculating about why refugees and immigrants adjust better in different-sized communities. Material factors, particularly employment opportunities, were mentioned much less often (only 120 of a total of 866 responses provided by 723 individuals). In contrast, refugees themselves are highly concerned about employment issues when settling in their new cities, and "leavers" most often provide employment/education related reasons for moving to a new city. These very different perspectives on refugees’ adjustment to life in Canada suggest that many residents of the Alberta host communities may not be all that aware of the employment-related problems faced by refugees.
Forty percent of the total sample of 956 refugees destined to the seven host cities in Alberta between 1992 and 1997 had left these communities by the time this study took place in mid-1998. Compared with the Alberta population as a whole, on first arriving in the province refugees appear to have a somewhat higher five-year mobility rate. Six out of ten "leavers" (61%) in the refugee sample had moved on within a year, and 83% had left within two years. However, when asked about their future mobility plans, only 14% of the adult refugees indicated that they planned to move to another community within the next five years. Thus, after an initial period characterized by relatively high mobility, refugees do appear to "put down roots" in the province.
Edmonton and Calgary had the highest refugee retention rates, while the two smallest host communities – Fort McMurray and Grande Prairie – had the lowest retention rates. Thus, with one exception, this study indicates that the larger the host community, the higher the refugee retention rate. Lethbridge, the largest of the three mid-sized destination cities, had a lower retention rate than either Red Deer or Medicine Hat. "Leavers" typically move to other larger cities, either inside Alberta or in Ontario or British Columbia.
When asked about their reasons for moving, a majority of the "leavers" responded by mentioning better employment/education opportunities in other (typically) larger cities. It is somewhat ironic, then, to observe that unemployment rates among refugees were also higher in Edmonton and Calgary, the preferred Alberta "second cities." Part of the explanation may be that the refugees who stayed in their first host city were those who had been more successful in finding employment. However, the survey data also suggest that some well-educated refugees may move on to larger cities like Edmonton and Calgary hoping to find employment more suited to their training and interests.
Reasons for leaving the first host community also included comments about the quality of life, about a desire to be closer to family/friends/compatriots, and about inadequate services for refugees. Noteworthy in its absence was a separate category of reasons focusing on experiences of racism or discrimination. While other findings in this study indicate that refugees in mid-sized Alberta cities are more likely to report such experiences, few "leavers" explained their move to a larger city with such comments.
Interviews with service providers in the seven host communities suggest that they under-estimate the number of refugees leaving their community. They also under-estimate, to some extent, the length of time that "leavers" actually stay in their first host communities before moving on to other cities. Service providers provide much the same types of explanations for why refugees leave their host cities as do the refugees themselves, that is, they emphasize employment opportunities in larger cities. In contrast, other residents of the host communities tend to place much more emphasis on social factors (e.g., the presence of others from the same ethnic/racial group, the welcome received from local residents) when asked to explain why refugees adjust better in different-sized communities.
These findings have a number of important implications for refugee destining policy. While the two largest Alberta cities have the highest refugee retention rates, the findings certainly do not provide a strong argument for discontinuing the practice of destining refugees to mid-sized host communities. The number of refugees leaving these three cities is relatively high, but we also observed that geographic mobility is quite high in Alberta in general. Furthermore, although a substantial number of refugees have left these communities, a sizeable proportion of those who remained plan to stay indefinitely.
Thus, mid-sized Alberta cities have the potential to become permanent homes for some refugees, and may also serve as a good temporary home for others. The latter may move on to larger cities that offer a wider range of employment/education opportunities and the possibility of more frequent contact with family, friends and compatriots, but they may still benefit from the chance to learn about Canada in a smaller city. Nevertheless, several further comments must be made. Comparisons of the three mid-sized host communities show that Lethbridge had the lowest retention rate, the highest proportion of "leavers" attributing their move to the quality/range of services they received, and the highest proportion of "stayers" (30%) planning to leave in the next five years. Medicine Hat also had a relatively high proportion of "stayers" planning to leave in the next five years (22%), and a very high proportion (53%) indicating that they had experienced discrimination/racism. Thus, while unemployment rates are low among refugees still living in these two cities, the service provision situation in the former, and the community reception received by refugees in the latter, need to be considered if the practice of destining refugees to these cities is continued.
However, the low retention rates in the two smallest host cities (Grande Prairie, Fort McMurray) suggest that the policy of sending refugees to these communities should be re-considered. It may be asking too much of refugees to send them to smaller, northern, natural resource-based cities. In these host communities, refugees would be least likely to be able to maintain contact with family, friends, and compatriots, would have the smallest range of employment and education opportunities and would experience the greatest difficulty adapting to the climate. Furthermore, because they are smaller cities, these host communities simply cannot be expected to offer as wide a range of refugee settlement services.
That said, this study also indicates that more could be done for refugees in all host communities. Survey findings discussed in the next chapter indicate that many refugees would have appreciated more assistance in finding satisfactory employment. Refugees living in Calgary and Edmonton were more likely to use a range of different settlement services after their first year, possibly because these two larger cities offered a wider array of services for a longer period of time. Thus, the refugee retention rates in mid-sized host communities might be improved somewhat if agencies working with refugees could find ways to extend their services beyond the mandatory first year.
Finally, given our findings about why "leavers" decided to move on to another city, more attention might be paid to how individual refugees (or families) are matched with specific host communities. There might be merit in sending refugees who lived in large cities in their home country to large cities in Alberta. While making the many required adjustments to life in Canada, they at least would not have to learn how to live in a "small city" at the same time. In addition, sending refugees with specific professional skills to smaller communities may not be that useful, since the chances of finding employment in their area of expertise would be lower. And dispersing refugees from the same ethnic background may also be counter-productive, given the fact that a sizeable minority of "leavers" mentioned the desire to be closer to family/friends/compatriots as a reason for leaving their first Alberta host city.