From “Migrant” to “Citizen”: Labor Market Integration of Former Live-In Caregivers in Canada

Abstract

This study examines the impact of attaining permanent resident status on the employment integration of migrant caregivers in Canada. The authors use survey data from 631 caregivers who arrived as migrants under a temporary foreign worker program before transitioning to permanent residency, as well as data from 47 focus group discussions. The authors find that although most caregivers do switch out of caregiving work over time, they often remain within a few, lower-skilled occupations. Postsecondary education acquired before migration has no impact on occupational mobility. Caregivers’ lack of financial stability and the stigmatization of their employment experience often constrain their labor market options; moreover, an emotional bond and sense of obligation toward employers often hinder their ability to move out into other occupations, even after receiving legal permanent resident status. From the empirical results, the authors provide theoretical insights into the complex relationship between immigration patterns and labor markets.

Keywords

migrant occupational mobility labor market integration immigration and labor markets

For several decades, Canada has had a program that offers migrant caregivers the possibility of open work permits and permanent residency at the end of a “live-in” period in the home of their employers. The Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP) is a Canadian federal government scheme that blends a temporary foreign worker program with a channel to becoming a permanent resident. Two-step migration of this sort has become more common in many immigrant-receiving countries in recent years (Gates-Gasse 2010), though many domestic worker programs around the world do not have a pathway to permanent settlement.

The overall objective of this study is to examine the labor market outcomes of former caregivers and explore the individual and contextual factors that influence their labor market adjustment after they attain legal permanent resident status. Through this analysis, we will explore how immigration systems act as boundary institutions (Peck 2010) in the labor markets of host countries. A significant literature on the employment integration of immigrants in general now exists, but we know surprisingly little about the settlement experiences of those who transition from temporary foreign worker to permanent resident. Given the growth of temporary foreign worker programs around the world, and the fact that many temporary foreign workers subsequently attain legal permanent residence status, it is increasingly important to understand how changing pathways to permanent residence affect immigrants’ labor market integration. Because of its unique features, the Canadian LCP provides an informative case study for investigating this issue. To date, research on post-LCP employment outcomes for caregivers has come from relatively small sample studies that mostly used qualitative techniques (see, for example, Atanackovic and Bourgeault 2014). There simply had not been large-scale data that allowed us to put together an individual’s immigration channel with their economic outcomes. With a larger sample size and mixed methodological approach, the present study provides important empirical insights into the transition from temporary foreign worker to permanent resident. In doing so, it also provides theoretical insights into how immigration systems may act as labor market boundary institutions.

The Immigration System as a Labor Market Boundary Institution

Recent literature has shown that the labor market is deeply rooted in wider social processes and inextricably linked to the bodily identities of those performing work (Peck 1996; McDowell 2009; McGrath-Champ, Herod, and Rainnie 2010; Pupo and Thomas 2010). A useful way of thinking through this social embeddedness is to consider the institutions that shape the labor market, determining who obtains work, where, and on what terms. Some institutions, such as government agencies, trade unions, placement/employment agencies, and professional regulatory bodies clearly play a direct role in labor market and workplace processes. Others, however, can be thought of as boundary institutions that shape the ways in which individuals are prepared for, and supplied to, the labor market (Peck 2001). As the label suggests, such boundary institutions operate at the fringe of the labor market without being direct interveners into the employment relationship. Building on Peck’s conception, Collins (2010: 286) described boundary institutions as sites that “adjust the flow of workers into and out of the labor market and also remake the workers themselves, shaping their attitudes toward work and wages, their expectations about employment continuity and promotion, and their identities.” Martin (2010: 130) noted that a worker’s interaction with these boundary institutions “profoundly affects the structure of economic opportunity that she will confront, from her ability to participate at all in employment, to the segment of the labor market open to her, to the wages she will be paid.”

Labor market boundary institutions would obviously include educational and training institutions, but research has also highlighted the importance of household structures, welfare regimes, and even the prison system in certain contexts (Peck and Theodore 2008). An increasingly important boundary institution in many labor markets is the immigration system. Given long-term declines in the rate of natural increase, permanent and temporary migrants now represent nearly all net labor force growth in many immigrant-receiving countries, including Canada (Human Resource and Skills Development Canada 2008).

The immigration system can be seen as shaping important aspects of the labor market. It may directly determine, among other things: the total supply of workers into different segments of the labor market; the demographic and human capital attributes of new labor market entrants; the mobility of individuals between jobs and their ability to acquire education and training; the contractual terms and duration of employment; the household and family circumstances of labor market participants; and the ability of employees to resist or protest against unfair treatment (Waldinger and Lichter 2003; Bauder 2006; Wills et al. 2010; Bevelander and DeVoretz 2008).

For temporary foreign workers, such as live-in caregivers in Canada, the immigration system establishes some very clear conditions attached to their labor market participation. These conditions are intrinsically significant for the rights of those employed under such circumstances. They have wider relevance, too, because temporary work is increasingly a pathway to permanent residence, mainly through a process of “two-step immigration” in which temporary foreign workers attain Canadian citizenship by finding ways to qualify for permanent immigration streams years after first landing in Canada (Bauder 2006; Hennebry 2010). Migrant workers who subsequently attain legal permanent resident status bring with them a unique set of experiences that affect their, and their family’s, economic and social integration in the long term. Even after attaining full legal citizenship, many of these immigrants continue to experience significant employment disparities (Goldring and Landolt 2011).

Studies that examine the employment outcomes of migrants who transition from insecure legal status to a more secure status have consistently found that regularization has limited positive impact on working conditions and wages (Cobb-Clark and Kossoudji 1999; Kossoudji and Cobb-Clark 2000, 2002; Martinez Veiga 2007). In the Canadian context, Goldring and Landolt (2013) found that individuals who migrated to Canada with precarious legal status (e.g., refugee claimants, temporary foreign workers) were more likely to work in highly precarious jobs even after obtaining legal permanent residency than were their counterparts who entered with secure permanent status. In general, workers who manage to change occupational fields upon attaining legal status experience more significant improvements in their wages and working conditions. But transitioning to a new occupational sector is extremely difficult for many migrant workers (McKay, Markova, Paraskevopoulou, and Wright 2009). Labor market segmentation often catches these workers in sectoral troughs that make it difficult to move up into better occupations, regardless of legal status (Hiebert 1999).

Note that apart from an individual’s legal immigration status, their rights and benefits within society are mediated by multiple dimensions of power or marginality, including gender, racialization, religion, class, sexuality, and disability. In this way, citizenship status is relationally constructed so that advantages or disadvantages can be mitigated or exacerbated depending on other socially produced factors (Ong 1999; Stasiulis and Bakan 2005). For disadvantaged social groups, attaining legal permanent resident status or even citizenship does not necessarily result in stable, consistent improvements in social status. Landolt and Goldring (2015) discussed this as the “chutes and ladders” condition of citizenship, through which the same individual can experience variable degrees of precariousness depending on his or her interactions with authority figures such as immigration officials and employers.

In sum, labor markets are embedded within multiple social processes of unequal power. One such process is the immigration and citizenship system that shapes the terms of entry for individuals into the labor market and thereby represents a key boundary institution in many contexts. But various embodied identities that also shape access and opportunities in the labor market intersect with immigration programs. The specific employment experiences of those who arrive under Canada’s LCP are therefore inseparable from their gendered and racialized identities and the specific ways in which these are constructed in the Canadian context. The experiences of LCP immigrants in Canada provide a particularly useful case study for examining the boundary institution characteristics of immigration policies.

Background on the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP)

Historically, Canada’s immigration policy has been focused on bringing in permanent, skilled immigrants to address declining birth rates and to promote economic growth. Permanent immigrants may enter through a number of categories, such as family reunification, refugee, business immigrant, and skilled worker. In addition to the permanent immigration categories, temporary foreign worker programs have targeted specific labor market goals. Over the past two decades, Canada’s immigration program has shifted significantly from permanent to temporary immigration (Hennebry 2014). The LCP was officially formed in 1992 under the auspices of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Unlike most other temporary foreign worker streams, the LCP allows caregivers to apply for permanent residency upon completing the program requirements.

After completing 24 months of full-time work as a live-in caregiver for children, the disabled, or the elderly, caregivers can apply for an open work permit and, ultimately, permanent residency status in Canada—although a fairly significant time lag usually passes between each of these stages. The overwhelming majority (about 90%) of LCP immigrants in Canada are women from the Philippines (Kelly, Park, de Leon, and Priest 2011). The LCP has been popular among Canadian families because it provides relatively affordable and flexible child care for working parents and elder care for an aging population. The numbers of individuals who arrived on LCP visas reached a peak of almost 14,000 in 2007, and the numbers of those gaining permanent residency have increased dramatically in recent years as a result of a significant backlog in the system (see Figure 1) (Kelly et al. 2011).

Figure 1.

Permanent Resident Arrivals in Canada for Live-In Caregiver Program Principal Applicants and Dependents, 1993–2015

In October 2014, the Canadian federal government announced significant changes to the LCP, creating new categories, strictly limiting the number of permanent residencies granted, and removing the requirement to “live-in.” Our data were collected before these policy changes started to affect the profile of arrivals under the program, and therefore our analyses do not reflect the impact of these changes. Despite these changes, as of 2017, significant numbers of caregivers continue to work and apply for permanent residency under the previous LCP, as the backlog clears.

In 2015 more than 27,000 principal applicants and spouses/dependents (one-tenth of Canada’s entire immigration flow that year) were granted permanent residency through the program. A great many of these former caregivers are therefore now attempting to navigate the open labor market. Attaining legal permanent resident status is not the end of the journey for LCP immigrants. In fact, this stage is often the beginning of a new struggle to reunite with family members, find employment commensurate with their education, and integrate into Canadian society (Tungohan et al. 2015).

Labor Market Marginalization of Live-in Caregivers in Canada

For live-in caregivers, working in Canada with temporary status creates a situation of vulnerability to exploitation and abuse (Faraday 2012; Tungohan et al. 2015). Although many caregivers have a positive and supportive relationship with their employer, the prospect of deportation if they fail to meet the requirements of the program means that caregivers are always susceptible to abuse, and fearful of reporting it. The fear of reporting, and thereby jeopardizing the chance to attain permanent resident status and to bring family members to Canada, is particularly acute (Stiell and England 1997; Chang 2000; Stasiulis and Bakan 2005; Spitzer 2008). Numerous qualitative studies have documented cases in which caregivers suffer financial, psychological, sexual, or physical abuse and/or mundane and everyday breaches of their employment contracts (see, for example, Bakan and Stasiulis 1997; Grandea and Kerr 1998; Pratt 1999; Arat-Koc 2001; Oxman-Martinez, Hanley, and Cheung 2004).

In addition, since temporary work permits are linked to a specific employer, caregivers often remain with abusive employers because of concerns about the costs and time associated with obtaining new work permits, as they are obliged to meet the LCP requirements within a 24-month period. Prolonged family separation also influences some caregivers to remain with their current employers. Caregivers need to complete the LCP before their children are considered too old to join them in Canada (Spitzer and Torres 2008), so they would not want to waste time in pursuit of a new work permit.

Given the precarious labor market position of caregivers while they are in the LCP, it is likely that most would want to improve their working conditions as soon as possible after they attain open work permits or permanent resident status. Furthermore, although a high level of education is not formally required for participants in the LCP, caregivers in the program are increasingly highly educated. The proportion with a university degree or higher at the time of immigration has risen from just 5% in 1993, to 63% in 2009 (Kelly et al. 2011). This level far exceeds the proportion of principal applicants who enter Canada through other economic immigration categories who are university educated (41.4%) (Citizenship and Immigration Canada 2011: 49). Therefore, most caregiver applicants would likely seek to upgrade their occupational status and find employment in line with their educational credentials once they attain legal permanent resident status.

We know from previous studies, however, that new immigrants in Canada face a multitude of obstacles in the labor market, including the devaluation of foreign human capital (Aydemir and Skuterud 2005) and, for those within regulated occupations, barriers in accessing occupational licenses (Girard and Bauder 2007). LCP immigrants face many of these same obstacles, in addition to a number of other issues given their unique path to immigration. Indeed, the employment earnings trajectories of LCP immigrants tend to be lower than those of immigrants who arrive through other economic immigration categories. Figure 2 presents the mean employment earnings of Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) and LCP immigrant women who landed between 1993 and 2012 by years since arrival.¹ From this data, we can see that LCP and FSW immigrant women have comparable earnings initially (one year after arrival), but over time, FSW immigrants’ wages tend to grow at a faster rate so that after 15 years in Canada, a sizeable annual earnings gap of nearly $12,000 exists between the two groups.

Figure 2.

Mean Employment Income for Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) and Live-In Caregiver Program (LCP) Immigrant Women Landing between 1993 and 2012 by Years since Landing, 2013 Constant Dollars

Several features of the LCP are expected to have direct influence on the employment prospects of caregivers even after they have completed the program and achieved permanent resident status. These features clearly mark the LCP as a boundary institution that shapes the post-settlement labor market experiences of caregivers. First, the LCP requires participants to perform care and domestic work for an extended period of time and to live in their employer’s home. Both of these conditions shape the type of work experience that a released caregiver brings to the labor market once she completes the program and is free to look for other kinds of work. This limitation is exacerbated by the fact that many caregivers spend years working as domestic workers or nannies in other countries, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia, before coming to Canada (Spitzer and Torres 2008). LCP immigrants often report that being a nanny or caregiver narrows their subsequent occupational opportunities and ghettoizes them into a few low-skill occupations (Pratt 1999). This outcome is also tied to racialization and discrimination based on employers’ stereotypes about caregiving work (Tungohan et al. 2015).

Second, the social networks available to LCP immigrants are often limited to others who entered Canada in the same way—as caregivers on temporary visas. These truncated networks are a reflection of the specific working conditions experienced by such individuals, which often involve isolation in the homes of employers and socialization with other caregivers in public places located in residential neighborhoods. The result is that the networks available to provide information and advice on diverse forms of retraining and job search are often absent. Like occupational and employer restrictions, such social networks can be seen as constitutive parts of the LCP as a boundary institution, but they also highlight that such institutions need not be formal, regulatory constraints but can reside in everyday social practices.

Third, caregivers face restrictions on their access to public services while they are in the program. As long as they are considered temporary foreign workers, they are denied entry into most government-financed immigrant settlement programs and services, such as free English-language classes and employment counseling. They gain access to these programs only after they attain legal permanent resident status. The few notable organizations that provide caregivers with settlement services and programs, such as the Kababayan Community Centre in Toronto and the Multicultural Helping House in Vancouver, are usually found in urban centers that remain inaccessible to caregivers who live in suburban and rural areas.

Fourth, under LCP regulations, workers are not permitted to engage in educational courses longer than six months without a separate study permit. In addition, even with a study permit, as temporary foreign workers, caregivers must pay international student fees at all postsecondary educational institutions. Hence, most live-in caregivers are unable to pursue further education or re-certification while in the program.

Fifth, the LCP requires that family members remain in the home country. Therefore, remittance obligations limit caregivers’ ability to afford the fees and lost earnings that would be needed to pursue further education or re-certification even after they attain permanent resident status (Oxman-Martinez et al. 2004; Kelly, Astorga-Garcia, Esguerra, and CASJ 2009). Once caregivers receive permanent resident status, they must go through the process of family sponsorship and reunification. This process is often long and difficult and takes a psychological and financial toll on LCP immigrants, many of whom report significant levels of stress, first during the process of bringing spouses and children to Canada, and then as the family adjusts to reunification and to life in Canada (Cohen 2000; de Leon 2009; Pratt 2012; Tungohan 2012). This psychological and financial stress may also serve as a barrier to further education or training and job search. Since the vast majority of LCP immigrants are women, there may also be the additional work of household and child-care responsibilities once the family arrives, which limits their ability to invest in their own careers. Previous studies have found that female immigrants disproportionately take on dead-end jobs to support their families so that their husbands can invest in their own human capital (Baker and Benjamin 1997; Cobb-Clark, Connolly, and Worswick 2005), and this may be true for LCP immigrants as well.

Last, the nature of caregiving work involves a unique level of emotional labor and attachment, as caregivers live with and become close to the families (and especially the children or elderly) under their care (Hochschild 2000). This emotional bond may affect a caregiver’s employment decisions long after she receives an open work permit that would allow, at least in a legal sense, movement into other types of jobs.

In a variety of ways, then, the LCP represents a boundary institution that shapes the arrival of, constraints upon, and attitudes of immigrants who arrive in Canada as full participants in the labor market after completing the program. The program operates as a boundary institution not just through the formal regulatory limits that it initially places on caregivers but also through the social practices and networks that it fosters, the racialized identities that it shapes, and the emotional entanglements that it cultivates. It is precisely because of these varied processes that the LCP presents a useful case to explore how immigration policies can act as boundary institutions in the labor market.

Hypotheses

Based on the theory and previous empirical evidence of the barriers facing LCP immigrants, we expect that even after caregivers become legal permanent residents, the effect of the LCP as a boundary institution will cause many to continue in this line of work or other low-skill, low-wage occupations that are not commensurate with their level of education. We anticipate, however, that with time in Canada, LCP immigrants will gradually improve their occupational status. We expect younger caregivers with higher levels of pre-arrival education and those who participate in further education or training in Canada will have better labor market outcomes, as is the case with other immigrant groups. Younger immigrants tend to acculturate more easily than do immigrants who arrive later in life. Older immigrants experience, on average, lower returns to foreign human capital (Schaafsma and Sweetman 2001).

Although foreign education is discounted by employers in Canada, previous empirical studies have confirmed that pre-migration education is still an important wage-determining characteristic for immigrants (Chiswick 2005; Ferrer and Riddell 2008), so we expect that caregivers who arrive with higher education will have an easier time improving their occupational status, thereby overcoming the effects of the LCP as a boundary institution. We expect that caregivers who worked as domestic workers in other countries prior to entering the LCP will face greater labor market disadvantage even after achieving permanent resident status than those who entered the program directly from the Philippines. The longer an individual remains within domestic work, the more limited her previous work experiences become and the more distant her educational skills.

Based on previous literature, we hypothesize that the turmoil of both family separation and reunification will have a negative impact on labor market integration. While waiting for their families to arrive, LCP immigrants are likely to be financially and emotionally stressed, which may prevent them from making efforts to improve their employment situation. After the family arrives, LCP immigrants may have to take on survival jobs to support their families rather than invest in further education and training or job search.

Participation in post-migration education and training has been found to improve earnings (Schoeni 1997; Nordin 2011; Banerjee and Lee 2015) and increase the earnings returns of foreign human capital of immigrants generally (Friedberg 2000; Bratsberg and Ragan 2002). Therefore, we expect that LCP immigrants who participate in Canadian education and/or training, particularly within formal postsecondary institutions, will have better employment outcomes than those who do not. Given the structural and financial barriers to accessing further education and training, however, we expect that only a minority of former caregivers will be able to participate.

We anticipate that emotional ties with employers and limited mainstream social networks, as informal dimensions of the LCP as a boundary institution, will constrain caregiver immigrants’ employment trajectories. We also anticipate that the isolating, de-skilling, and demoralizing effects of being a temporary foreign worker living within the employer’s home will have long-term negative consequences on labor market experiences even after the worker transitions to legal permanent resident status.

Methods

Sample

In the present study, we utilize both quantitative and qualitative data to analyze the labor market integration of former caregivers after they transition to permanent residence and eventually to Canadian citizenship. Through our survey data, we examine the labor market outcomes of former caregivers after they receive legal permanent resident status, and investigate the human capital and demographic characteristics that affect their labor market integration. Through focus group data, we are able to reveal some of the processes behind the quantitative findings and disentangle the complex issues involved in settlement. The focus group discussions particularly shed light on the areas that are unique to LCP immigrants, such as family separation and reunification, emotional attachments to employers, truncated social and informational networks, and the stigma associated with caregiving work.

Our sample includes Filipina women who arrived in Canada as temporary foreign workers through the LCP and received permanent resident status or an open work permit at least one year prior to the date of the survey. We restrict our sample to Filipina women since more than 90% of LCP immigrants in Canada are from the Philippines and 95% are women (Kelly et al. 2011). From early 2013 to early 2015, we collected survey data in person from 631 former caregivers in the Canadian cities that receive the largest numbers of LCP immigrants (Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, and Ottawa), as well as focus group data from 47 focus groups each consisting of between three and six individuals. The data-collection sessions for surveys and focus groups were integrated so focus group participants are a subgroup of survey respondents. The sessions took place in community centers and churches, which are common social gathering spots for LCP immigrants.

For this project, we collaborated with a lead community partner, Gabriela-Ontario (the local chapter of an international Filipina feminist organization), as well as Migrante-Canada (part of an international advocacy group for overseas Filipino migrants) and the Community Alliance for Social Justice (an advocacy coalition based in Toronto). The project was titled the “Gabriela Transitions Experiences Survey” (GATES). By advertising through the wide networks of our community partners, we were able to reach former caregivers who had recently received open work permits, as well as those who had gained permanent resident status within the past several years. Through snowball sampling, we also reached LCP immigrants who had become legal permanent residents decades earlier and in most cases were already Canadian citizens. So, although our data are cross-sectional, we are able to indirectly examine the relationship between years since becoming a permanent resident and labor market integration of LCP immigrants.

This study uses participatory action research (PAR) as its primary methodology (see Greenwood, Whyte, and Harkavy [1993] for an overview of the tenets of PAR). At all points of the research process, the academic and community research teams were in close communication to ensure that academic and community goals were simultaneously promoted. In some cases the academic/community distinction was blurred, as several graduate students involved in the project were also active members of collaborating community organizations. The survey and focus group instruments were designed jointly by the academic and community research teams. Data collection and analysis were similarly collaborative. Preliminary results were presented to study participants in data analysis workshops, so that the participants themselves were able to contribute to the analytical process and provide their feedback and perspectives on the findings. In this way, we strived to empower study participants throughout the research process; they could ask questions to produce actionable research results that were of mutual benefit to all parties.

Survey Data

We use descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis to analyze the survey data. We measure labor market integration using occupational status. We were not able to gather data on wages or income as this information was seen to be too sensitive by our target sample. Occupations are coded into standard categories using the National Occupational Classification (NOC-S) codes produced by Statistics Canada. Figure 3 presents an overview of the most common occupational titles. The categorical nature of occupations and the large number of NOC-S codes make it difficult to effectively evaluate the occupational status of the participants. So, we convert the NOC-S codes into a continuous summary measure of occupational status or prestige using a socioeconomic status index that has been developed for Canadian occupational codes by Boyd (2008) from the Nam-Powers-Boyd occupational scale. The Nam-Powers-Boyd scale was created by using regression models that account for the required level of education and earnings potential for each occupational title (see Boyd [2008] for a detailed explanation of the methodology), with occupational status scores ranging from 0 to 100. For example, registered nurses receive a score of 82, personal support workers/health care aids receive a score of 47, and nannies/caregivers receive a score of 9.² In addition to occupational status, we examine and describe the likelihood of unemployment and union membership.

Figure 3.

Filipina LCP Immigrants’ Occupations by Years in Canada

The main explanatory variables in the analysis represent factors that may influence the labor market integration of LCP immigrants. Some of these factors are indicators of labor market success for all newly arrived immigrants (such as age at arrival, years since landing, level of education on arrival, and participation in post-migration education and training). Other factors are issues that are unique to LCP immigrants and the role of the program as a boundary institution that shapes the terms on which caregivers arrive in Canada and integrate into the labor market (such as previous employment as a domestic worker prior to arrival in Canada and family separation and reunification).

As outlined later in Table 1, we group “Years since becoming permanent resident” into three categories: 5 years or less; 6 to 10 years; and more than 10 years. For the regression analysis, “Years since becoming permanent resident” is measured as a continuous variable. Age at migration is also measured as a continuous variable, and to ease interpretation of the regression analysis, we center this variable at its mean. Level of education at arrival is dummy-coded into five categories: 1) high school or less; 2) some college or university but did not finish; 3) completed college or university degree; 4) some postgraduate education but did not finish; and 5) completed graduate degree or higher. The categorical educational levels are also presented in our descriptive table. However, because 84% of the sample held at least a college or university degree, for the multivariate analysis we recode education at arrival into a continuous measure of years of postsecondary education completed (the small proportion of individuals [1.3%] who did not have any postsecondary education are deemed to have 0 years).

Table 1.

Mean Characteristics of Filipina LCP Immigrants

	Years since becoming permanent resident in Canada
Variable	5 years or less	6 to 10 years	More than 10 years
Age at arrival (years)	35.7	33.3	29.8
Education at arrival
High school or less (%)	0.4	0.4	4.7
Some college or university but did not complete (%)	17.2	11.3	15.5
Completed college or university (%)	78.0	82.3	76.0
Some graduate school but did not complete (%)	3.2	4.8	3.1
Completed masters or higher (%)	1.2	1.2	0.8
Years of postsecondary education completed	3.9	3.8	3.5
Worked as a domestic worker outside of the Philippines prior to arrival (%)	65.9	48.4	51.2
Post-migration education or training
No post-migration education or training (%)	61.1	39.6	28.7
English/French language training (%)	6.7	12.0	14.0
Personal support worker (PSW) training (%)	9.1	18.4	24.8
Nursing or laboratory technologist training (%)	0.0	2.0	4.7
Other post-migration education or training (%)	23.0	28.0	27.9
Relationship status
Never married (%)	34.5	21.5	21.3
Married, spouse in Canada (%)	3.2	37.7	57.5
Married, spouse outside Canada (%)	43.4	19.8	2.4
Divorced/separated (%)	14.5	11.7	12.6
Widowed/other (%)	4.4	9.3	6.3
Children living in Canada (%)	6.7	41.2	65.9
Children living outside Canada (%)	51.6	21.6	7.8
Unemployed in Canada (%)	8.3	10.0	7.8
Union membership (%)	9.5	16.6	34.2
Boyd occupational status score (0–100)	14.6	22.9	32.1
N	252	250	129

Source: Data from the Gabriela Transitions Experiences Survey of LCP immigrants in Canada.

We examine the impact of working as a domestic worker in another country prior to arrival by including a dummy variable, which is coded as 1 for individuals who were employed in domestic work in at least one other country before arriving in Canada and 0 for individuals who either arrived directly from the Philippines or worked in a different field in another country prior to migration.

We measure post-migration education and training activity using five dummy-coded variables that represent the most common areas of study among former caregivers: 1) English/French language training; 2) personal support worker/health care aid training; 3) nursing or laboratory technologist training; 4) other post-migration education or training; and 5) no post-migration education or training.

We capture the complex relationship situations of caregivers using a five-category measure of marital status:³ 1) never married; 2) married, spouse in Canada; 3) married, spouse outside Canada; 4) divorced or separated; and 5) widowed or other. The number and location of children is another important issue for our participants. We examine the effects of having children living in Canada as well as having children living outside of Canada through two separate dummy-coded variables.

Focus Group Data

Our qualitative data allow us to delve more deeply into the unique issues that face LCP immigrants after they transition to legal permanent resident status. We used focus group discussions rather than individual interviews for several reasons. First, the discussions provided a more secure and supportive environment for precariously placed immigrant women of color, a place where concerns and experiences could be aired in an affirmative and supportive setting. Second, they provided a collective check on whether the individual experiences recounted were seen as typical. Third, the focus groups allowed the community organizations that collaborated on the research to have personnel on hand to extend support, advice, or referrals for the women attending.

From the focus group data we examine how employment as a caregiver affects later employment in Canada because of stigmatization and whether the live-in relationship fosters an emotional entanglement with employers that obligates caregivers to continue in that line of work. We also examine the social networks that caregivers use to gather information about the labor market, and note the transnational financial obligations that curtail opportunities for educational advancement in Canada.

We draw our focus group sample from the survey respondents. All survey participants were invited to take part in a subsequent focus group discussion. The focus group discussions were semi-structured, included between three and six participants, and were facilitated by one or two community facilitators and/or academic researchers. Many of the focus group discussions were conducted in a mixture of English and Tagalog (the basis of the Filipino language). All focus group discussions were audio recorded and subsequently transcribed and translated into English by graduate students fluent in Tagalog. The salient themes within the focus group discussions were then analyzed using NVivo software.

By combining qualitative and quantitative data, we are able to provide a more comprehensive and nuanced discussion of the role of the LCP as a boundary institution and the labor market experiences of caregiver immigrants after they transition from temporary workers to permanent residents and, eventually, citizens.

Results

Survey Data

The survey data provide us with a detailed picture of the characteristics of LCP immigrants in Canada, as well as their labor market integration after transitioning to permanent resident status. Figure 3 presents the respondents’ occupational titles by years since becoming a permanent resident. We find that most LCP immigrants transition out of caregiving work over time, but the vast majority remain within a few select (and often related) occupational categories even after many years in Canada. Approximately 90% of respondents work within eight, mostly low-skill occupational categories after 10 years or more of being a permanent resident in Canada. Nearly 19% of long-term LCP immigrants (10 years or more since landing) work as personal support workers/health care aids. In addition, more than 16% continue to work as caregivers or nannies, even after more than 10 years in Canada.

Table 1 presents the unadjusted mean characteristics of the Filipina LCP immigrants in our sample by years since becoming a permanent resident. From this table, we find that newer cohorts of LCP immigrants tend to be older on arrival than were previous cohorts. Furthermore, LCP immigrants tend to be well educated. Among those who became permanent less than 5 years ago, 78% held a university or college degree and on average had completed 3.9 years of postsecondary education. Among those who have been permanent for 10 years or more, the proportion with a university or college degree is 76%, and the mean years of postsecondary education is 3.5. The majority of the respondents in our sample worked as a domestic worker, nanny, or housekeeper in another country prior to arrival in Canada. This measure has increased significantly among more recent cohorts. Among respondents who became permanent less than 5 years ago, 65.9% had worked as a domestic worker abroad, whereas among those who became permanent more than 10 years ago, this proportion was 51.2%. The most common country of residence prior to arrival in Canada is Hong Kong, which accounts for nearly 51% of all those with other international caregiving experience.

We find that the majority of recently arrived LCP immigrants have not participated in education and training in Canada. About 39% of those who became permanent less than 5 years ago report participating in Canadian education or training. Among those who do take courses, the most common educational program pursued is personal support worker/health care aid. A large proportion also took English/French language training,⁴ as well as various short courses such as first aid/CPR and safe food handling. With more time in Canada, LCP immigrants become much more likely to undertake educational courses. For those who have been permanent in Canada for more than 10 years, approximately 71% participate in some form of education or training program. Again, personal support worker/health care aid is the most common educational program, with nearly 25% of respondents taking this course. Approximately 5% of long-term LCP immigrants undertook educational courses in nursing or laboratory technology, and a large proportion completed various other short courses.

More than half (53%) of the Filipina LCP immigrants in our sample overall are single. Among those who arrived less than 5 years ago, approximately 35% have never been married. For those who have been landed in Canada for 6 to 10 years as well as those in the country for more than 10 years, this proportion is only around 21%. Approximately 44% of the most recent arrivals have a spouse who is not in Canada, whereas only about 3% have a spouse in Canada. Perhaps not surprisingly, long-term LCP immigrants (landed more than 10 years ago) are much more likely to have a spouse in Canada. Nearly 52% report that their spouse is in Canada, whereas only about 2% have a spouse outside of Canada. Recently arrived Filipina LCP immigrants often have children living outside of Canada. More than half (51.6%) of those who have been in Canada for less than 5 years report that they have children living in another country (most often the Philippines). Only about 7% of the most-recently arrived have children with them in Canada. By contrast, nearly 66% of long-term Filipina LCP immigrants (in Canada longer than 10 years) have children living in Canada, and approximately 8% have children living in another country. From our data, it is clear that LCP immigrants do sponsor their families to join them in Canada, but the process takes time.

Examining the employment-related variables, we find that about 8% of the recent arrivals in our sample are unemployed. The rate of unemployment increases slightly for those in Canada between 6 and 10 years, but drops to just below 8% for long-term LCP immigrants. This rate of unemployment is lower than that of new immigrants entering through other immigration categories. According to recent data from Statistics Canada (n.d.), approximately 11% of new immigrants (landed 5 years or less) are unemployed.

Among those who are employed, rates of union membership are low initially, but improve with time in Canada. About 9.5% of new LCP immigrants are union members, but for those in Canada for 6 to 10 years, the union membership rate is almost 17%. LCP immigrants in Canada for more than 10 years have a union membership rate of 34.2%. This rate is in line with, and is in fact slightly higher than, the union membership rate in Canada overall, which is 31.8% (Economic and Social Development Canada 2015).

The Boyd occupational status scores represent the relative occupational prestige of LCP immigrants’ jobs in Canada. We find that newly arrived LCP immigrants have a mean occupational status score of 14.6. Occupational status improves with time in Canada, however. Those who received permanent resident status between 6 to 10 years ago have a mean occupational status score of 22.9, and this improves to 32.1 for those who became permanent more than 10 years ago. The mean occupational status score for the non-immigrant population in Canada has been found to be 49.9, and for those with a bachelor’s degree or higher this increases to 74.3 (Boyd 2008).

Table 2 presents the results from an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis of Boyd occupational status scores of Filipina LCP immigrants in Canada. The regression includes only those respondents who are employed and report their occupation. Therefore, the number of cases in this analysis drops from 631 to 555. Several noteworthy findings emerge from this table.

Table 2.

OLS Regression of Boyd Occupational Status Scores of Filipina LCP Immigrants

Variable	Coefficient (standard error)
Years since becoming permanent resident	0.522* (0.146)
Age at arrival (mean centered in years)	−0.237* (0.107)
Years of postsecondary education completed at arrival	−0.072 (0.458)
Worked as a domestic worker outside of the Philippines prior to arrival	−4.641* (1.509)
Post-migration education or training (No post-migration education or training)
English/French language training	−1.080 (2.486)
Personal support worker (PSW) training	2.518 (2.089)
Nursing or laboratory technologist training	28.075* (5.833)
Other post-migration education/training	4.646* (1.700)
Relationship status (Never married)
Married, spouse in Canada	4.815* (2.412)
Married, spouse outside Canada	3.787 (2.441)
Divorced/separated	4.981 (2.847)
Widowed/other	5.937 (3.372)
Children living in Canada	0.0313 (2.107)
Children living outside Canada	−6.437* (2.197)
Constant	24.655* (4.391)
N	555
R ²	0.201

Source: Data from the Gabriela Transitions Experiences Survey of LCP immigrants in Canada.

Indicates statistical significance at the 5% level.

First, time in Canada plays a role in improving occupational outcomes for LCP immigrants. Every year in Canada improves occupational status by 0.52 points (p < 0.05). Second, age at arrival matters. Each year older, relative to the mean, that an LCP immigrant is when she becomes a permanent resident lowers her occupational status score by about 0.24 points (p < 0.05).

Regression results clearly illustrate how the unique features of the LCP affect the labor market integration of those who enter Canada through this pathway. Working as a domestic worker in another country prior to arrival in Canada lowers subsequent occupational status by 4.64 points (p < 0.05). Previous experience as a domestic worker seems to further pigeonhole LCP immigrants into low-skill work.

One factor that is not significantly related to occupational status for LCP immigrants is years of pre-migration education. We also examined the effect of having a postsecondary degree at arrival and found that this too does not influence LCP immigrants’ occupational status in Canada. So, despite LCP immigrants being highly educated when they arrive, pre-migration education does not play a role in improving their outcomes.

Post-migration education and training, however, is related to occupational status scores, but only for certain types of courses. Language training or personal support worker/health care aid training courses do not have a significant effect on occupational status. Conversely, nursing or laboratory technology–related courses have a major effect. Those who partake in nursing or laboratory technology courses receive an improvement of their occupational status score of about 28.1 points (p < 0.05). Other educational courses also appear to be beneficial. LCP immigrants’ occupational status scores improve by approximately 4.6 points if they participate in other types of courses. It is encouraging that certain types of post-migration education and training (such as nursing) do improve LCP immigrants’ occupational prospects. However, such a small proportion of LCP immigrants are able to undertake this type of course that the overall impact of this effect is likely to be negligible. Note also that the educational program most commonly pursued by LCP immigrants (personal support worker/health care aid training) does not result in significantly improved occupational outcomes. It seems that those who invest in these training programs remain in lower-skill jobs,⁵ perhaps because of an inability to find work within the field.

Family situation plays an important role in determining the occupational status of LCP immigrants. Those who have a spouse in Canada receive a boost in occupational status of about 4.8 points (p < 0.05). Having a spouse outside of Canada does not have any effect. LCP immigrants who are joined by their spouse are more likely to move out of survival jobs, perhaps because having another wage earner in the household allows them to focus on upgrading their skills or to take more time in their job search. Having children who live outside of Canada, however, lowers occupational status scores by 6.4 points (p < 0.05). This result underscores the detrimental effect of family separation and remittance obligations on LCP immigrants’ ability to integrate into the labor market.

Focus Group Data

By analyzing our focus group discussions, we uncover some lived experiences that help explain the patterns observed in the survey data. In particular, the testimonies of our respondents speak to: 1) the circumstances that keep many Filipina women in caregiving or related work; 2) the reasons that pre-migration education seems not to help them; and 3) why women with permanent status engage in only limited post-settlement retraining and skills upgrading.

Four interrelated factors inherent with the LCP provide the basis for these explanations. First, LCP immigrants feel their work as a nanny or caregiver is stigmatized and devalued, and their own gendered and racialized identities are constructed as “suited” to that type of work. Research showing that care and domestic work are not considered real work corroborates these perceptions (Stiell and England 1997; Lan 2003). Working as a nanny in various countries for extended periods of time exacerbates this sense of stigma. Second, LCP immigrants frequently feel a sense of obligation to remain with their employer even after receiving permanent resident status, and they have often developed an emotional bond with the individuals for whom they are caring. This can limit caregivers’ ability to invest in further education and transition out of care work. Third, caregiving work, especially when living in the home of an employer, leads to very truncated social networks that are mostly restricted to other caregivers, or caregiving settings, and provide limited opportunities for job searches in more diverse occupations. Finally, financial obligations to support relatives in the Philippines, and to sponsor and support family members who will arrive as part of an immigration application, force LCP immigrants to remain in low-skill jobs rather than invest in educational or training programs to improve their occupational status. Next, we elaborate on each of these factors.

Stigmatized Employment, Racialized and Gendered Bodies

Most focus group participants felt that their work experience as a caregiver or nanny was not valued as Canadian work experience. Many sensed they were discriminated against in the labor market because of this work experience:

I notice that they wouldn’t even look in your direction. As soon as they see that you are a caregiver or a nanny in your resume, they don’t give attention to it already. . . . [T]hat’s the saddest part of being in the Live-in Caregiver Program. I just really feel that opportunity’s just not there. (Focus Group Participant 2014)

If you’re a caregiver and you change work, you can’t get a job right away. It’s like you apply to so many jobs, but your recent experience is taking care of kids and the elderly. It’s hard. (Focus Group Participant 2013)

The predominance of Filipina women in the LCP (and in other caregiving occupations) also means that it is not just their work that is stigmatized and devalued but also they themselves are seen as racialized and gendered performers of that work. Some respondents noted that racial stereotypes played a role in the ways they were treated by employment counselors, agencies, and potential employers. This view is manifested in assumptions made about the types of work for which they are suited:

As Filipino, almost all of us are household live-in caregivers—so they offer you that kind of job even if you wanted to share your knowledge with others, it’s like they are already saying, “you just stay there.” (Focus Group Participant 2013)

Because of this stigma, the importance of Canadian education and training for improving occupational status was a common theme among our focus group respondents:

Because I worked many years as a caregiver. I worked as a caregiver for five years in Singapore. I decided to study to be a resident care attendant because it would be easier for me to find a job after the course. (Focus Group Participant 2013)

I have a friend, also a nurse, who didn’t take upgrading courses, and up until now, she is stuck as a nanny. (Focus Group Participant 2013)

The problem faced by caregivers, then, concerns not just the devaluation of caregiving as a specific type of work but also the discounting of that job as experience in the Canadian labor market in general. In addition, the association often made between Filipina identity and caregiving means that women are channeled into these categories of training and work even when they have the legal option of working in any field.

Emotional Ties and Bonding

Many caregivers described the emotional entanglements they had developed with their employers and the difficulties they faced in leaving once they obtained an open work permit or permanent residence. For some employers, the prospect of losing their caregiver led them to offer incentives and to extend more independence and respect to their employee:

I just got lucky. My employers are good people. Automatically, they gave me a salary increase because they wanted to retain my services. They know that my status has changed so they have to increase my salary. This was my experience but this wasn’t the case for everyone. (Focus Group Participant 2013)

They didn’t supervise me as much. If I wanted to go out, I could go out. Anytime, I could go. When they were back at home at six pm, I could leave. Before, this was not the case. I can go back anytime. Now, there is no curfew. (Focus Group Participant 2013)

In other cases, caregivers can find themselves faced with employers who hinder their ability to move on, by withholding reference letters, discouraging further training, or applying emotional pressure:

For me, my employers are afraid. I asked them for a referral so I can get another job—I asked them to serve as my reference. It’s almost like they were reluctant to do so. “Just write down in a letter what you want me to say and I’ll sign it,” is what they said. “Oh, I’ll do this later.” They keep saying that until nothing ever happens. (Focus Group Participant 2013)

They told me I can go back to school, but not until the children I am taking care of are already in school at five years old. I said, fine, I’ll just focus on passing my driving test. So for things like driving and taking my first aid certification, my employers are OK with that. I’m the one who paid for this training—I mean, they said at first, that they would pay for it. But now that I’ve passed the learners . . . they haven’t paid me for anything. And I don’t want to ask. I don’t want to ask for too many favors because what if they’re the ones who pay for it? Then they’ll hold it over me so I won’t be able to leave because I’ve accumulated so many favors. So your utang na loob gets bigger. So I don’t want to ask. I’ll just do it myself. (Focus Group Participant 2013)

Here the caregiver refers to the Filipino concept of utang na loob, which translates as “debt of gratitude.” She notes that although her employer did not follow through on a promise to pay for her driving lessons, she did not press the point so that she would not accumulate a further emotional debt to them that would make leaving difficult. This interaction highlights how it is quite possible for a caregiver to be legally entitled to leave her employer and that line of work, but she may be hindered through an emotional obligation to the family.

In many cases, the bond with the employer’s family becomes quite genuine and a concern for the well-being of those under her care will drive a caregiver’s decisions.

For me, it was like a thorn was excised from my body. As in, it was really . . . Oh My God . . . I can really find another job. The thing is, I couldn’t really leave because I was still working for them. I didn’t want to leave until my family came here and also until my replacement got here. Also, I felt bad for the kids. I could leave but if I did, no one would be taking care of them. So I stayed put. (Focus Group Participant 2013)

Whether through an employer’s non-cooperation, a sense of indebtedness for several years of employment, or an emotional bond with an employer’s family, caregivers can find themselves locked into caregiving work long after they are legally allowed to pursue further education and training and to look for work in other sectors.

Truncated Social Networks for Job Searches

Given the distinctive working conditions imposed on live-in caregivers, their social networks in Canada will sometimes be limited to the families of their employer and to other caregivers they meet in public spaces or in caregiving settings (school playgrounds, health care facilities, and so on). As a result, the social capital that is often needed to navigate the labor market and to identify opportunities is limited. Many of our respondents described the personal contacts that were their pathway into the wider labor market:

It was easy for me to look for a job in housekeeping. My sister-in-law helped me. She gave me a referral. (Focus Group Participant 2014)

[M]y employers recommended that I work for their sister, who needed a nanny, because she had a new baby. I worked for this second family for two years. (Focus Group Participant 2014)

At that time, Nana [the elderly woman she looked after] was in the nursing home and everybody knew me in the home, about my job, about how I dealt with people. When Nana passed away, a social worker recommended me to another employer, who needed to hire a new companion. (Focus Group Participant 2014)

These experiences speak to the networks that led to further employment opportunities, but in all cases they were limited to caregiving work. This sectoral focus arose largely because the networks available inevitably guided caregivers to that kind of work. Whether it was through a friend or relative of the caregiver, a friend or relative of her employer, or through staff at the nursing home, the social capital available to the caregiver did not facilitate access to other segments of the labor market and instead reproduced her placement in domestic and caregiving work.

Financial Obligations and Insecurity

Many caregivers reported that financial difficulties did not improve and in fact worsened after they received permanent resident status. Although they were now legally able to take educational courses, change occupations, move into their own accommodations, and sponsor their families, the costs associated with each of these steps were prohibitive, and many caregivers stayed living and working with their employer in order to send remittances back home and to save up funds to accomplish their long-term goals of reuniting with their families:

I’m open now and I have the choice to leave, but the thing is, I need to save money because if you get your family, when they arrive you need to pay for this and that. And then I have plans to study, so I can’t leave. (Focus Group Participant 2013)

It was really hard for me. We are sending almost fifty percent of our income to the Philippines . . . or even seventy-five percent. Whatever [is] left is only twenty-five percent. You are here because of them. (Focus Group Participant 2013)

Many caregivers find themselves locked in their existing employment, and they cannot afford either to move out and live independently or to enroll in expensive courses. For many respondents, covering the costs associated with sponsoring family members’ migration to Canada was their first priority. Once relatives arrive, however, the financial stresses may deepen as costs of living increase further. Many workers remained in low-skill survival jobs to support their families. In the short term at least, remaining in domestic caregiving work may be the only economically viable option, as other entry-level unskilled jobs may pay even less than caregiving (as well as being both temporary and part-time):

Some people don’t like to leave caregiving because the salary is larger than being a clerk outside—[where] it’s just minimum [wage]. Caregiver, if you have three to five experiences, you can ask for seventeen dollars net per hour with bus passes, you know, which you can’t get from private companies—clerk or something else. [There] you’ll start with minimum wage. It will take you another five years to make fifteen dollars per hour. So sometimes, other people—even if they’re already citizens—they’re in caregiving still. (Focus Group Participant 2014)

[I]f you want to sponsor your family, you need to stay with your employers because you don’t want to lose money! (Focus Group Participant 2013)

Thus, even if other career paths or sectors have longer-term prospects, and some may even reflect the earlier professional training of caregiver immigrants, the exigencies of immediate financial needs mean they are not viable options. This outcome is not, however, a universal story. As seen in the survey data, many caregivers do manage to retrain, especially if they can access student loans and they are joined by a spouse who is able to find work in Canada:

[My husband] was working full-time while I went to school full-time. I had a babysitter. I had loans so it covered everything—my rent, my bus, my babysitter, my allowance. (Focus Group Participant 2014)

Discussion and Conclusion

Given the large numbers of LCP immigrants who have arrived in Canada over the past two decades and given that more and more of these individuals have sponsored dependent spouses and children, the labor market integration of these immigrants has important policy and practical implications. If LCP immigrants are forced to remain in precarious, low-wage jobs, they and their families are at increased risk of living in poverty. This situation affects the overall well-being of these families, and it also has significant implications for the educational and social integration of the children of LCP immigrants (see Pratt 2012; Kelly 2014). The ultimate solution would be a transformation in caregiving work so that it is no longer demeaned and treated as unskilled, precarious, and low paid. Short of that, it is important that migrants who enter Canada as caregivers, and who become permanent residents, are able to access a much broader labor market so that their work reflects their skills and prior experience. This article addresses the barriers to such integration that result from the role of the LCP as a boundary institution in the labor market.

Our survey data reveal a number of patterns in the settlement trajectories of women who arrived through the LCP. In terms of employment, there is a gradual decline over time in the proportion of women who still work as caregivers, but more than two-thirds of those with less than five years of permanent residence are still in such jobs. Significantly, even as the period of settlement lengthens, caregiver immigrants are still working in a narrow and related set of feminized and racialized occupations. We also find that less than 40% of those who had acquired permanent residence in the previous five years had received any kind of further training or education in Canada. For those who did gain such credentials, there is a significant correlation with occupational status scores. This lack of further training is important because it is also apparent that educational attainment prior to arriving in Canada has little impact on employment after settlement.

Family structure is also significant in our regression analysis of occupational status outcomes. Although those who have a spouse in Canada are more likely to have better jobs, those with children living abroad have much poorer employment situations. So, it is clear that the combination of family reunification, a second adult working in the household, and perhaps not sending remittances (or sending less) improves LCP immigrants’ employment outcomes.

Qualitative data collected in focus groups suggest some of the reasons behind these patterns and relate directly to the circumstances created by entering Canada under the LCP. The stigma of caregiving work, and by extension the gendered and racialized bodies performing such jobs, creates subtle processes of exclusion for Filipina women in the labor market. The nature of caregiving work, involving intimate relationships with employers and their families, can also limit caregivers’ ability to transition to other types of work. Through a sense of either moral indebtedness or love, caregivers often find themselves locked into such employment. The home-based nature of such work also creates a truncated set of social networks for women who eventually find themselves looking for work in the wider labor market. Their contacts tend to be with other caregivers, their employers, or staff in home care settings, all of which tend to lead to similar employment after settlement. Finally, financial obligations to support the immigration applications and settlement expenses of family members still living abroad mean that educational upgrading or other kinds of long-term strategies are often impossible for caregivers.

Many of the processes outlined above are a direct result of specific conditions imposed by the terms of the LCP. Family separation is a requirement, as only the caregiver (and not her family members) receives a visa to live and work in Canada under the LCP until the caregiver applies for permanent residency. A lack of skills upgrading is, in part, a result of restrictions in registration in educational programs for those still in the LCP, and educational programs being prohibitively expensive for those who have already entered the open labor market. The live-in requirement of the program also creates a blurred line between the caregiver and her family, thereby fostering a sense of obligation to the employer. For the same reason, the isolation of caregivers in home environments has meant that the social capital needed for job searches and labor market information gathering is often limited.

We can therefore see that the terms of the LCP as an immigration channel are deeply implicated in the employment outcomes of women who successfully navigate through the program into permanent residence. The role of the immigration system thus goes beyond churning out new workers for the Canadian labor market. The system is also doing more than simply selecting the profile of new workers based on their human capital. Rather, the LCP has served as one example of a boundary institution in the Canadian labor market, shaping the employment experiences of women in multiple ways.

Although the LCP is a relatively rare example of a temporary foreign worker program with a pathway to permanent residence, it is part of a wider trend characterized by immigrants arriving in a multistep process whereby several changes in citizenship status may occur along a trajectory. The conditions attached to these stages can have a distinct impact on employment experiences, suggesting a need to examine more broadly how immigration programs serve as labor market institutions.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and the Centre for Labor-Management Relations, Ryerson University. We are thankful for the technical help and support of Wayne Chu.

The project would not have been possible without the full collaboration of Gabriela Ontario, Migrante Canada, and the Community Alliance for Social Justice. For information regarding the data and/or the computer programs utilized for this study, please address correspondence to the first author at banerjee@ryerson.ca.

1

Data compiled by Statistics Canada and Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada. We focus on the period after 1993 because this is when the LCP was introduced, and we restrict the analysis to female immigrants since the vast majority of LCP immigrants are women.

2

The detailed list of occupational scores is available from the authors upon request.

3

We consider individuals in common-law relationships to be married.

4

Although most Filipina caregivers do speak English, many engage in language training to upgrade their fluency for professional settings. Also, in Quebec, many caregivers take French language courses.

5

Note that the occupational status score for personal support worker/health care aid is 47. Therefore if most caregivers investing in this training were in fact working in the field, we would expect to see significant improvement in their occupational status.

References

Arat-Koc

Sedef

. 2001. Caregivers Break the Silence: A Participatory Action Research on the Abuse and Violence, Including the Impact of Family Separation, Experienced by Women in the Live-In Caregiver Program. Toronto: INTERCEDE.

Atanackovic

Jelena

Bourgeault

Ivy Lynn

. 2014. Economic and social integration of immigrant live-in caregivers in Canada. IRPP Study No. 46. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Aydemir

Abdurrahman

Skuterud

Mikal

. 2005. Explaining the deteriorating entry earnings of Canada’s immigrant cohorts, 1966–2000. Canadian Journal of Economics 38(2): 641–72.

Bakan

Abigail

Stasiulis

Daiva

(Eds.). 1997. Not One of the Family: Foreign Domestic Workers in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Baker

Michael

Benjamin

Dwayne

. 1997. The role of the family in immigrants’ labor market activity: An evaluation of alternative explanations. American Economic Review 87(4):705–27.

Banerjee

Rupa

Lee

Byron Y.

2015. Decreasing the recent immigrant earnings gap: The impact of Canadian credential attainment. International Migration 53(2): 206–18.

Bauder

Harald

. 2006. Labor Movement: How Migration Regulates Labor Markets. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Bevelander

Pieter

DeVoretz

Don

(Eds.). 2008. The Economics of Citizenship. Malmo, Sweden: Malmo University.

Boyd

Monica

. 2008. A socioeconomic scale for Canada: Measuring occupational status from the census. Canadian Review of Sociology 45(1): 51–91.

10.

Bratsberg

Bernt

Ragan

Jim

. 2002. The impact of host-country schooling on earnings: A study of male immigrants in the United States. Journal of Human Resources 37(1): 63–105.

11.

Chang

Grace

. 2000. Disposable Domestics: Immigrant Women Workers in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

12.

Chiswick

Barry

. 2005. High skilled immigration in the international arena. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1782. Bonn, Germany: Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

13.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. 2011. Canada: Permanent residents by labour market intention, occupation and skill level. In CIC Facts and Figures 2011, p. 49. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

14.

Cobb-Clark

Deborah

Kossoudji

Sherrie A.

1999. Did legalization matter for women? Amnesty and the wage determinants of formerly unauthorized Latina workers. Gender Issues 17(41): 3–14.

15.

Cobb-Clark

Deborah

Connolly

Marie D.

Worswick

Christopher

. 2005. Post-migration investments in education and job search: A family perspective. Journal of Population Economics 18(4): 663–90.

16.

Cohen

Rina

. 2000. “Mom is a stranger”: The negative impact of immigration policies on the family life of Filipina domestic workers. Canadian Ethnic Studies 32(3): 76–88.

17.

Collins

Jane

. 2010. One big labor market: The new imperialism and worker vulnerability. In Maskovsky

Jeff

Susser

Ida

(Eds.), Rethinking America: The Imperial Homeland in the 21st Century, pp. 280–99. New York: Routledge.

18.

de Leon

Conely

. 2009. Activism and post-reunification reconciliation among Pinay domestic workers and adult daughters in Canada. Canadian Woman Studies 27(3): 68–72.

19.

Economic and Social Development Canada. 2015. Labour organizations in Canada 2015. Cat. No.: LT-289-08-16E. Accessible at https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/collective-bargaining-data/reports/union-coverage.html.

20.

Faraday

Fay

. 2012. Made in Canada: How the law constructs migrant workers’ insecurity. Report for the Metcalf Foundation. Toronto: Metcalf Foundation.

21.

Ferrer

Ana

Riddell

W. Craig

. 2008. Education, credentials, and immigrant earnings. Canadian Journal of Economics 41(1): 186–216.

22.

Friedberg

Rachel M.

2000. You can’t take it with you? Immigrant assimilation and the portability of human capital. Journal of Labor Economics 18(2): 221–51.

23.

Gates-Gasse

Erika

. 2010. Two step immigration: Canada’s new immigration system raises troubling issues. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

24.

Girard

Erik R.

Bauder

Harald

. 2007. Assimilation and exclusion of foreign-trained engineers in Canada: Inside a professional regulatory organization. Antipode 39(1): 35–53.

25.

Goldring

Luin

Landolt

Patricia

. 2011. Caught in the work–citizenship matrix: The lasting effects of precarious legal status on work for Toronto immigrants. Globalizations 8(3): 325–41.

26.

Goldring

Luin

Landolt

Patricia

(Eds.). 2013. Producing and Negotiating Non-Citizenship: Precarious Legal Status in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

27.

Grandea

Nona

Kerr

Joanna

. 1998. “Frustrated and displaced”: Filipina domestic workers in Canada. Gender and Development 6(1): 7–12.

28.

Greenwood

Davydd J.

Whyte

William Foote

Harkavy

Ira

. 1993. Participatory research as a process and as a goal. Human Relations 46(2): 175–92.

29.

Hennebry

Jenna

. 2010. Who has their eye on the ball? “Jurisdictional futbol” and Canada’s temporary foreign workers program. Policy Options July-August: 62–67.

30.

Hennebry

Jenna

. 2014. Transnational precarity: Women’s migration work and Mexican seasonal agricultural migration to Canada. International Journal of Sociology 44(3): 42–59.

31.

Hiebert

Daniel

. 1999. Local geographies of labor market segmentation: Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, 1991. Economic Geography 75(4): 339–69.

32.

Hochschild

Arlie R.

2000. The nanny chain. American Prospect 11: 1–4.

33.

Human Resource and Skills Development Canada. 2008. Looking Ahead: A 10-Year Outlook for the Canadian Labor Market (2008–2017). Policy Research Directorate, Strategic Policy and Research Branch. Quebec: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.

34.

Kelly

Philip F.

2014. Understanding intergenerational social mobility: Filipino youth in Canada. IRPP Study No. 45. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.

35.

Kelly

Philip F.

Garcia

Mila Astorga

Esguerra

Enrico F.

, and Community Alliance for Social Justice (CASJ). 2009. Explaining the deprofessionalized Filipino: Why Filipino immigrants get low-paying jobs in Toronto. CERIS Working Paper Series. Toronto: Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS).

36.

Kelly

Philip F.

Park

Stella

de Leon

Conely

Priest

Jeff

. 2011. Profile of live-in caregiver immigrants to Canada, 1993–2009. TIEDI Analytical Report No. 18. Toronto: Toronto Immigrant Employment Data Initiative (TIEDI).

37.

Kossoudji

Sherrie

Cobb-Clark

Deborah

. 2000. IRCA’s impact on the occupational concentration and mobility of newly legalized Mexican men. Journal of Population Economics 13(10): 81–98.

38.

Kossoudji

Sherrie

Cobb-Clark

Deborah

. 2002. Coming out of the shadows: Learning about legal status and wages from the legalized population. Journal of Labor Economics 20(3): 598–628.

39.

Lan

Pei-Chia

. 2003. Maid or madam? Filipina migrant workers and the continuity of domestic labour. Gender & Society 17(2): 187–208.

40.

Landolt

Patricia

Goldring

Luin

. 2015. Assembling noncitizenship through the work of conditionality. Citizenship Studies 19(8): 853–69.

41.

Martin

Nina

. 2010. The crisis of social reproduction among migrant workers: Interrogating the role of migrant civil society. Antipode 42(1): 127–51.

42.

Martinez Veiga

Ubaldo

. 2007. Irregular migration, informal labor and poverty in the agricultural sector in Spain. In Berggren

Erik

Likic-Brboric

Branka

Toksöz

Gülay

Trimikliniotis

Nicos

(Eds.), Irregular Migration, Informal Labor and Community: A Challenge for Europe, pp. 199–214. Maastricht, the Netherlands: Shaker.

43.

McDowell

Linda

2009. Working Bodies: Interactive Service Employment and Workplace Identities. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

44.

McGrath-Champ

Susan

Herod

Andrew

Rainnie

. 2010. Handbook of Employment and Society: Working Space. London: Edward Elgar.

45.

McKay

Sonia

Markova

Eugenia

Paraskevopoulou

Anna

Wright

Tessa

. 2009. The relationship between migration status and employment outcomes. Final report. London: Working Lives Research Institute, London Metropolitan University.

46.

Nordin

Martin

. 2011. Immigrants’ returns to schooling in Sweden. International Migration 49(4): 144–66.

47.

Ong

Aihwa

.1999. Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

48.

Oxman-Martinez

Jacqueline

Hanley

Jill

Cheung

Leslie

. 2004. Another look at the Live-in-Caregivers Program: An analysis of an action research survey conducted by PINAY, the Quebec Filipino Women’s Association with the Centre for Applied Family Studies. Montreal: Metropolis.

49.

Peck

Jamie

. 1996. Workplace: The Social Regulation of Labor Markets. New York: Guilford.

50.

Peck

Jamie

. 2001. Workfare States. New York: Guilford.

51.

Peck

Jamie

. 2010. Constructions of Neoliberal Reason. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

52.

Peck

Jamie

Theodore

Nik

. 2008. Carceral Chicago: Making the ex-offender employability crisis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32(2): 251–81.

53.

Pratt

Geraldine

. 1999. From registered nurse to registered nanny: Discursive geographies of Filipina domestic workers in Vancouver B.C. Economic Geography 75: 215–36.

54.

Pratt

Geraldine

. 2012. Families Apart: Migrant Mothers and the Conflicts of Labor and Love. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

55.

Pupo

Norene

Thomas

Mark

(Eds.). 2010. Interrogating the New Economy: Restructuring Work in the 21st Century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

56.

Schaafsma

Joseph

Sweetman

Arthur

. 2001. Immigrant earnings: Age at immigration matters. Canadian Journal of Economics 34(4): 1066–99.

57.

Schoeni

Robert F.

1997. New evidence on the economic progress of foreign-born men in the 1970s and 1980s. Journal of Human Resources 32(4): 683–740.

58.

Spitzer

Denise L.

2008. Live-in caregivers in rural and small city Alberta. Edmonton: Prairie Metropolis Centre.

59.

Spitzer

Denise L.

Torres

Sara

. 2008. Gender-based barriers to settlement and integration for live-in caregivers: A review of the literature. Toronto: Ontario Metropolis Centre.

60.

Stasiulis

Daiva

Bakan

Abigail

. 2005. Negotiating Citizenship: Migrant Women in Canada and the Global System. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

61.

Statistics Canada. n.d. Table 282-0102 – Labour Force Survey estimates (LFS), by immigrant status, age group, Canada, regions, provinces and Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver census metropolitan areas. CANSIM database. (Accessed: January 16, 2018).

62.

Stiell

Bernadette

England

Kim

. 1997. Domestic distinctions: Constructing difference among paid domestic workers in Toronto. Gender, Place and Culture 4(3): 339–59.

63.

Tungohan

Ethel

. 2012. Reconceptualizing motherhood, reconceptualizing resistance: Migrant domestic workers, transnational hyper-maternalism, and activism. International Feminist Journal of Politics 15(1): 39–57.

64.

Tungohan

Ethel

Banerjee

Rupa

Chu

Wayne

Cleto

Petronila

de Leon

Conely

Garcia

Mila

Kelly

Philip

Luciano

Marco

Palmaria

Cynthia

Sorio

Christopher

. 2015. After the Live-In Caregiver Program: Filipina caregivers’ experiences of graduated and uneven citizenship. Canadian Ethnic Studies 47(1): 87–105.

65.

Waldinger

Roger D.

Lichter

Michael I.

2003. How the Other Half Works: Immigration and the Social Organization of Labor. Berkeley: University of California Press.

66.

Wills

Jane

Datta

Kavita

Evans

Yara

Herbert

Joanna

May

Jon

McIlwaine

Cathy

. 2010. Global Cities at Work: New Migrant Divisions of Labor. London: Pluto Press.