HRDC - Evaluation of the Child Care Initiatives Fund

This chapter considers the continuing relevance of a federal role in the child care arena. Using evidence from interviews, the peer review panel, the case studies and the survey, it begins by assessing whether there is a demonstrated need for the federal government to be involved in child care. Then it turns to a discussion of CCIF's linkages to broader government strategies.

This section examines this issue by: a) reporting on the opinions of interviewees and experts; b) determining whether the conditions that gave rise to CCIF continue to exist; c) assessing whether CCIF duplicates activities of the provincial governments or other organizations; and d) examining what our respondents reported would occur if the federal government withdrew its research and development support from child care.

There were two schools of thought within CCIF on this issue. One group was resolute that there continues to be a need for a program such as CCIF. The primary reason, as expressed by several CCIF officials, was that there is still much to do and that if the federal government did not do it, the provinces certainly wouldn't. 'The provinces don't have money to initiate national research or training which federal money can address.' This group believed there is a need for a national fund to ensure comparability and transportability across regions (by sharing information) and to lead basic applied research into child care as a social support to the economy. NGO representatives were in complete agreement with this viewpoint.

The second group within CCIF (the smaller of the two), felt that there was no need to continue CCIF, but that there was a need for a different program to build upon the accomplishments of CCIF. 'CCIF has laid a foundation and now there is a need for something to move what CCIF has done forward. There is nothing like CCIF around but it is not necessary to continue CCIF.'

All provincial government and NGO officials interviewed concurred that there is a continuing role for the federal government to play in child care, though not necessarily what CCIF was doing. Provincial representatives were non-committal on the need for a program like CCIF. They agreed that CCIF had made a valuable contribution to the field, but no provincial representative seemed to think there was a need to continue CCIF as it existed. Some thought key activities — especially research studies and national projects (e.g., information sharing) — were still needed. NGOs urged a continuing role chiefly to ensure adequate funding for initiatives in the area such as exploring innovative approaches to child care, or providing universal child care. Other specific areas for federal involvement mentioned by both groups were research, setting national standards (Alberta disagreed on this, though), distributing information, facilitating networking between provinces/child care organizations, helping advocacy, and ensuring portability of training.

Many CCIF staff identified research and evaluation as the areas most in need of attention. 'Under CCIF not much quality research was done. There is a need to generate such research because one can't depend on universities and SSHRC to do it but need to lever communities to do it.'

There was some disagreement among NGOs as to the exact nature of the required program. Some seemed content with the CCIF model: a central body overseeing a broader approach that facilitates the development of an infrastructure, promotes innovation, and ensures funding for research. Others called for changes, one saying it needs to be much more cost effective, another that a better mechanism for choosing projects was needed since CCIF 'did not make the difference it could have.'

All six peer reviewers thought that the federal government should continue to fund demonstration and research projects. A common justification for this view was that the field of child care is a new, evolving social service about which little is known. Hence it is necessary to conduct research and systematically evaluate programs already in existence. As one reviewer put it, 'we are building a system that has not existed before (which must meet) family needs that are substantially different from a generation ago, (and which must) respond to social and economic change which has been rapid.' One reviewer stated that the federal government should fund these activities because there is a danger of duplicating research if only provincial governments are involved. Another reviewer pointed out that a number of projects carried out by CCIF were national in scope not only in the data that were collected, but also because they addressed issues on national goals and strategies.

All but one of the reviewers thought that child care research had helped make child care services more responsive to the needs of families and children. Several of the reviewers qualified their answers by emphasizing that knowledge generated from research is often not acted upon. Researchers identified the following as examples of studies that have made child care services more responsive: the Canadian National Child Care Study; the study on wages and working conditions; and studies that have identified factors associated with high quality child care.

There was a consensus among case study project representatives that the federal government has an important role to play in addressing key child care issues. For the most part, that role was one of providing funding. Other suggested roles included provision of information, and advice. They also suggested that a strong effort should be made to identify effective elements of child care programs in Canada.

Another way to get at the issue of whether there should continue to be a federal role in the area of child care research and development is to determine if the needs that originally justified the program still obtain. Virtually all CCIF staff said that the key outstanding issues in child care continue to be quality, accessibility and affordability. Government funding was said to be the key to all these issues. The link of funding with affordability is clear: more public funding makes child care services more affordable for parents. More funding can also foster superior quality (defined by child/staff ratios, qualifications of workers, working conditions and salaries, turnover of staff), because it enables agencies to provide care with lower child/staff ratios and/or to pay more to workers so they can attract and keep more qualified staff. Finally more funding may create more subsidized child care spaces, thereby increasing availability (defined as the services being available if parents need them).

There was also a consensus among CCIF staff that research is needed to support policy makers and service providers in child care. Related to this, there is a shortage of Canadian resource material, with most groups relying on American material.

There was a consensus among all interviewees that only a small percentage of the demand for licensed child care is being met in every region across Canada. Ironically, as several hastened to add, there are a lot of vacancies in child care centres across Canada. Informants speculated that it might be a problem of affordability — 'available but not accessible' as one person put it. When unregulated care is included there are sufficient child care opportunities provided, 'but not all child care is of high quality and much of the quality care is too expensive for parents.'

All interviewees specified certain types of services for which demand exceeds supply. They said that there is a general lack of service but there are real supply-demand discrepancies in the areas of infant care (which is expensive), rural care, on-reserve care, care for children with special needs, flexible care (that is, care during non-standard hours and emergency care), teen parent programs, school-age care, and licensed family day care. Mentioned in virtually every province were flexible care and infant care.

Some interviewees provided numerical estimates for the degree to which demand exceeds supply. About 50% of the demand for pre-school care is now being met. Only 2% of the need for rural care and less than 5% of that for flexible hours is being met. The regular system (9 to 5 care) is not meeting 10-13% of demand. (These estimates are lower than the Statistics Canada figures presented in Chapter 3.)

Nearly every CCIF consultant identified flexible child care as the type of demand that is most likely to increase. The need for flexible hours will probably grow since the service sector is growing and this sector requires irregular hours. The findings from the Statistics Canada study (Lero et al, 1992) are consistent with this conclusion.

None of the three groups of interviewees was very optimistic that the increased demand would be met. They believed that public funding is the key to meeting demand and that deficit problems at the federal and provincial levels make it unlikely that additional funding is forthcoming. One exception may be in the area of on-reserve care. If everything goes according to the recently announced plan, there will be an additional 6,000 spaces created over 3 years. 'This will not meet all the needs but it is a good beginning.'

Most interviewees thought there were no types of service for which demand will decline. Some forecast a decline in the demand for full-time standard hours of care, however. Two provincial representatives thought that school-age care could decline, especially if the school system expands (e.g., junior kindergarten). And one CCIF informant thought the demand for some types of rural care may decline (e.g., mining, fisheries areas).

Not surprisingly, all CCIF staff stated that a federal withdrawal from child care would be 'devastating,' as several put it. For the most part they seemed to be answering in terms of CCIF activities. Some, however, considered the entire federal child care effort in making their response. 'Federal funding through CAP has been the engine driving the development of child care in Canada.'

All provincial representatives and case study project representatives were also convinced that a federal withdrawal would be negative. Reactions ranged from 'Devastating,' (two said this) to 'Child care advocates would be disappointed.' Most NGO representatives also foretold of desolation if the federal government withdrew. 'It would destroy (child care). . . The field would go back to being isolated and fragmented.

In consequence, say interviewees, the quality and accessibility of child care would suffer.

The vast majority of survey respondents averred that federal government withdrawal from child care research and development would be very negative or somewhat negative for all the activities tabulated below. They believed the effect would be especially deleterious in the areas of research into child care issues and development of quality standards for child care. Asked whether the federal government should continue to be involved in child care issues, an overwhelming majority, 98%, said yes.

All this certainly implies that federal involvement has been crucial in placing child care on the national agenda and in building a child care infrastructure in Canada. But it also raises questions about the stability of the infrastructure if it would collapse soon after CCIF terminated.

CCIF staff held that no service provided by CCIF could be obtained from another federal source. 'The federal government has no other program with child care as the primary focus.' Provincial governments or the private sector could have funded anything that CCIF did. Very seldom did they, however. 'The provincial governments have no money and fund raising doesn't raise enough money.'

Moreover, some CCIF staff said none of the projects could have proceeded without CCIF — 'No funding was available.' Others were basically in agreement, but qualified the statement by type of project. Two CCIF consultants opined that neither needs assessments nor demonstration projects could have proceeded without CCIF. Another thought that major research projects could not have proceeded without CCIF although bits of research could have been done. Some development projects could have found other funding but 'the majority of projects were small and so local that no one else would have funded them.'

Nine in ten survey respondents held that their project could not have been undertaken without funding from CCIF. They gave various reasons why the project could not have proceeded, most connected to a lack of funding:

Could not Proceed	% of Projects
No other funding source	64.4%
Not enough funding from other sources	10.1
Lack of human resources	15.4
Project not of interest to other source	7.4
Other (#)	2.7
	N=127

All but two case study project representatives said that if CCIF had not funded the project it could not have gone ahead. These two said the project may have gone ahead, but that its quality and effect would have been substantially curtailed. Seldom did the case study project sponsors look for other avenues of funding. This was most often because the project sponsors knew of no other source. Several said they 'knew' their province had no money for their proposed project. Others had worked on a previous project sponsored by CCIF, often a needs assessment for the current project, and thought it was the obvious source of funding.

Two of the 12 case study projects obtained small grants from service organizations or foundations. In two cases, the province also provided a subsidy for parents' fees. One aboriginal project received funding from HRDC for the training component (under the Pathways program); the band provided the capital costs.

According to the provinces and NGOs, the most significant service that the CCIF provided that could not be picked up by another existing service was the provision of dollars to fund innovative projects in child care. There are also no other groups (federal or provincial) that provide funding for projects that focus on the child care needs of a specific clientele, particularly aboriginals. The poorer provinces said that without CCIF, there would have been no funding available in the province for research, training advances, or conferences.

Most of those interviewed maintained that none of the CCIF activities were counterproductive. Two CCIF staff did say that needs assessments, demonstration projects and feasibility studies may have been counterproductive because they created a demand that could not be met since CCIF could not provide on-going funding. Another person mentioned that CCIF funding in some cases led to dependency on the program. Because there was no alternative for funding, many groups came back to CCIF again and again.

There were a couple of areas where provincial representatives felt the activities of the CCIF were, if not counterproductive, perhaps of limited value. One suggested that too many demonstration projects were started with no thought given to how they would be supported when CCIF funding ran out. There were also other projects which were started that had no long term vision or planning as to how they might assist the advancement of child care in the province. Also, two NGOs mentioned that the lack of continuous funding was counterproductive since without CCIF funding many projects could not continue.

According to CCIF staff, there were no official or premeditated linkages with other federal child care strategies. Linkages that did exist between CCIF and other programs tended to be informal, consisting mainly of information sharing and referral. When a project did not meet the mandate of CCIF it might be referred to other programs. The consultants would put groups in touch with other programs; some received funding through Indian Affairs, Secretary of State, etc.

The federal program that came closest to the CCIF mandate was the Community Action Plan for Children (CAPC) of which Brighter Futures is a component. 'That program was careful that funding would not go to child care but would be flexible enough to complement CCIF.' CAPC funds took over where CCIF funds left off; for example CCIF helped the creation of a day care in a high school, the funding of which was taken over by CAPC when CCIF funding ended. (CAPC is concerned with children at risk and as such child care is a peripheral concern of the program.) We were told that there were no communication ties between CCIF and CAPC. 'Health promotion (which administers the CAPC) would contact CCIF but there was no good linkage between the programs.' Once Brighter Futures was announced, CCIF got out of some activities that had a health focus.

Although most CCIF staff believed there was little or no duplication of CCIF activities with those of other federal programs, 'this was accidental.' That is, linkages were poor, so there was little checking with other programs. But then, no other program had a mandate close to that of CCIF. Other departments supported child care in an indirect way but there was no mechanism to coordinate activities. The Secretary of State funded projects at the regional level but any coordination was by accident. There may have been some overlap with National Welfare grants, Child Mental Health, National Literacy Secretariat, and the Disabled Persons Secretariat which all had a research mandate although the National Welfare grants got out of funding child care research.

The evidence argues for a demonstrated need for continued federal intervention in child care. The original impetus for the program — a need for more quality child care — remains in force; informants asserted that there is a lot left to accomplish in the area. No other program — federal, provincial or municipal — duplicates the activities of CCIF, so it is easy to conclude that if the federal government ceases CCIF activities, no other program could fill the gap. The provinces could fund anything that CCIF did but seldom do so⁹. Finally, most informants were adamant that a federal withdrawal would be 'devastating.' The infrastructure built could crumble.

Footnotes