|
|
     |
||
 |
     |
 |
|
This chapter reports on what CCIF has accomplished according to those contacted. It begins with an analysis of the program's impact on the central child care issues. Then it examines impacts in several other areas: development of new models of service, training and working conditions for child care providers, child care infrastructure, awareness of available resources, provincial child care effort, and child care research. Finally, it presents the strengths and weaknesses of the program. 6.1 CCIF Impact on Key Child Care Issues Table 6.1 lists 13 current child care issues and rates CCIF effectiveness as judged by questionnaire respondents. In general, survey respondents gave CCIF high marks on the issues. For most of the issues, large majorities — most often in excess of 85% — felt that CCIF was very effective or effective. They were particularly impressed with CCIF's record at increasing knowledge of child care issues, improving the quality of programming and increasing awareness of available resources. In only three areas did considerable portions (over 20%) of the sample say that CCIF was ineffective: increasing the availability of child care; establishing a process for exchange of information; and improving working conditions of child care providers. Still, though, majorities believed that CCIF was effective or very effective at addressing these areas. For instance, 73% said the program was effective or very effective at increasing the availability of child care. 6.2 CCIF Impact on Child Care Quality and Accessibility This section recounts the most important factors in achieving affordable, accessible, quality child care in Canada. It then moves to an assessment of how well the activities funded by CCIF addressed these central issues. Key Factors for Success The key to accessible child care according to CCIF staff, and provincial and NGO representatives is affordability. In turn, affordability depends on public subsidies, say many interviewees. 'Unless the government commits to funding a public, non-profit system, people will not be able to afford child care and therefore it won't be accessible.' Other important factors mentioned by interviewees were the need for research and program development; having a flexible child care service; an informed public; a public will that child care matters; national standards; adequate salaries (to boost available staff), portable training qualifications, and community planning to look at more strategic placement of child care centres. Interviewees listed several factors important to achieving quality child care. Most often mentioned was that caregivers be appropriately trained. 'Trained workers are important factors in quality child care — they know about children and their development and how to optimize development.' Also important is adequate funding. 'Funding determines quality care. A shortage of money directly undermines quality. For example, a program can't replace a sick qualified worker.' Combining these two factors yields a third: 'Adequate pay is necessary to compensate for the training otherwise providers won't stay in the system.' Another CCIF consultant contended that 80% of a service's cost is for personnel, and for quality care it is necessary to keep trained people in the field — which is dependent on wages and working conditions. The quality of child care, according to several CCIF staff and NGO representatives, is improved when stringent provincial standards are in place. Among the most important considerations are high staff/child ratios, an appropriate and healthy physical environment, age-appropriate curricula, an abundance of resource materials. The existence of national standards regarding quality was also thought to be important. Other aspects were related by one CCIF interviewee:
Success at Addressing Key Issues With program delivery a provincial jurisdiction, CCIF could not address the key issues — quality and accessibility of care — directly. It therefore set out to improve these aspects indirectly through various means. This section explores how successful CCIF was seen to be in addressing these issues. Quality Because the provinces are responsible for child care programs, CCIF could have no direct affect on quality standards. CCIF staff maintained that the program had an indirect effect, however. They asserted that CCIF has promoted quality through the development of materials, resources and conferences. 'To some degree, by establishing that quality is meaningful, measurable and important, CCIF has been very instrumental in bringing the issue forward.' For instance, more child care employers are wanting their staff to have an ECE qualification and this has raised expectations of child care. 'There have been a number of statements of 'quality' and there is a shared understanding and coalescence of agreement on quality child care.' According to CCIF staff, largely due to CCIF, there is now a good base of information and easy access to it. The distribution of information across the country made everyone aware of the quality issue. The information contributed to policy decisions and the debate around what constitutes quality child care. 'CCIF was particularly influential in terms of quality care because now people are talking about national standards and quality is now commonly defined.' The Child Care Federation, funded by CCIF, has developed national standards which 'made quite a difference,' as one CCIF consultant asserted. CCIF staff cited some studies that they thought had positively affected quality standards. For example, a major study regarding quality was conducted by universities across Atlantic Canada. 'This study may not directly improve quality but will give a good picture of current quality and where the problems are.' Also, CCIF funded a project to develop a manual for school-based care. All but one NGO representative and four of the six provincial officials asserted that CCIF had had an impact on quality standards for child care: some characterized the impact as significant. Provinces thought the main routes to improvement have been through the funding of training and research projects. On the other hand, NGOs believed that quality improvements had been achieved chiefly through increasing awareness. CCIF brought to light 'what quality child care means' and heightened awareness about the importance of quality; through this it helped to raise standards of quality in Canada. The projects funded were said to have brought forward relevant issues, highlighted quality child care in many child care settings, allowed communities to experiment with different models of care, helped promote proper training of staff, encouraged the appreciation of quality care on reserves, supported Canadian child care research, and provided opportunities for people in the field to share their expertise and knowledge and to offer support and encouragement to others. On the negative side, 'Now people know what standards are but there is no money to implement them.' The one dissenting NGO informant thought that whatever influence CCIF had on quality was haphazard. 'If it happened to fund a project where the concept was strong and it had good people involved then the CCIF had a great project. However, it just as easily funded projects that had a strong concept but weaker support (in terms of personnel) and so the project was of a lower quality. There was no control for this.' Also, when the CCIF did have a great project on its hands it 'never went out of its way to promote it' and spread the word to other groups/ organizations/communities. Survey respondents felt that quality of care had improved slightly or greatly since 1988 in all areas listed in Table 6.2 with the exceptions of extended care, emergency care and employer supported care. They thought the biggest improvements took place in the areas of Native/Inuit care, care for disabled children, parent resource centres, and community-based care. Note that large proportions of respondents felt they had no basis on which to judge any change in quality and stated they did not know. Most survey respondents asserted that CCIF deserved some credit for the improvements in quality since 1988. Of those who had an opinion (36% did not know), 8% said that improvements in quality were totally attributable to CCIF; 49% said the improvements were ascribable to CCIF to a great extent; and 38% said to a small extent. Only 5% contended that CCIF was not at all responsible. Those who believed CCIF had affected quality thought it had done so through several means: publications/videos that raised awareness, training or education workshops for providers, research projects that studied quality; building of networks of child care providers to share information; and dissemination of information. Comparative Impact on Quality Unlike CCIF, provincial governments can have a direct effect on quality. 'Provincial governments fund actual services so their decisions have immediate impact.' By contrast, CCIF's effect is indirect as discussed previously. CCIF helps provinces improve their services by providing them with information, but most CCIF and provincial interviewees held that the provincial governments had a greater impact on quality than did CCIF. The feeling among NGO representatives was different though. They thought that, although provincial governments were certainly in the position to have more of an effect on improving quality than CCIF, it was nevertheless CCIF that had actually had a greater impact. The primary reason was that CCIF had money to dedicate to the issue, and most provincial governments did not. Through creating and diffusing knowledge about what constitutes quality child care, and spurring provincial governments to pay more attention to quality child care, CCIF has played a more important role. One dissenting opinion was that provincial governments have had a greater impact, if for no other reason than they have been organized and active in child care for a longer period of time. With respect to universities, research centres, and other agencies the consensus among interviewees was that these groups would not have become involved without funding from CCIF. To NGOs and CCIF, this meant that CCIF had a greater effect on quality than did universities, colleges or research centres. They coaxed universities and research centres to do research, and colleges into recognizing the need to concentrate on curriculum development. Before CCIF they were 'slow to change.' Provinces were more vague, saying that CCIF's impact was indirect, that of other organizations, direct. One province maintained that colleges have had a greater impact than CCIF on quality by providing appropriate training: 'This certainly provided more of an impact than isolated projects.' According to CCIF staff, professional associations would not have existed without CCIF. In other words, to the extent they have any impact on quality, CCIF can take much of the credit for it. And, 'they had a lot of impact since they were the means by which information got into the field.' 'Through CCIF conferences, professional associations became educated regarding quality needs and took on the responsibility of meeting those needs.' Most NGOs acknowledged that CCIF deserves a lot of credit concerning the work professional associations do to augment quality. But none was willing to concede that CCIF was the more important party. They seemed to think both were equally important. Accessibility Most CCIF staff and provincial representatives stated that CCIF had little or no impact on the availability of child care services in Canada, but hastened to add this was not its purpose. 'CCIF has not made any impact. The program was intended to be part of a larger child care strategy which, (through cost-sharing) with the provinces, would substantially increase the number of spaces available. The collapse of the strategy left a lot of frustration since it was not worthwhile funding demonstration projects that were not going to be picked up.' There was one exception to this as noted by several interviewees: the program created child care where otherwise there would have been none for on-reserve aboriginals, and Inuit. CCIF was also said to have increased spaces for off-reserve aboriginals. A disproportionate amount of effort went to aboriginal groups which CCIF contends are the most under-served population in the country. Before CCIF, there was no capacity to provide child care to this population; now there is a modest amount of capacity and knowledge of child care in this population, according to CCIF. There was also the point of view within CCIF and some NGOs that the program helped create new services through feasibility studies and demonstration projects. For instance, one CCIF consultant contended that after-school and workplace care projects brought about a significant change in the availability of such care. Judging by the case study demonstration projects, the availability and quality of child care certainly improved in their formerly under-served communities. And given that few if any of the case study projects would have gone ahead without CCIF funding, CCIF deserves credit for the improvements. The improvements were very localized, however. On the other hand, NGOs worried that the gains in availability will be lost once CCIF funding is gone. Related to availability is child care programming. Here too, CCIF has had an indirect impact, according to its staff. 'CCIF is able to feed into policy by identifying what works and what doesn't as well as the best approaches by means of in-house expertise.' Staff claimed an indirect impact in several areas:
Two provinces were convinced that CCIF had had no impact at all on child care programming. Three others mentioned specific areas where CCIF had affected programming: multicultural programming, mainstreaming special needs children, and development of training programs. And one provincial official described the effect as very valuable. NGOs thought CCIF's influence was indirect, but positive. 'A lot of preliminary work has been done . . . which (has) resulted in positive changes.' Information sharing and facilitating dialogue between the various players in child care led to more awareness about appropriate programming. Survey respondents were asked to render their verdict on CCIF's effectiveness at increasing the availability of child care for CCIF priority groups. As shown in Table 6.3, with two exceptions, the plurality of respondents felt that availability of all types of care had increased slightly since 1988. In the cases of extended hours of care and emergency care, half or more felt that there had been no change or that availability had actually dropped. Respondents were divided on how much credit CCIF deserved for these modest improvements. Almost 40% said they did not know how much of the change could be ascribed to CCIF. Of those who knew, only 5% felt that increases in availability was totally attributable to the activities of CCIF. About 39% believed that CCIF was responsible to a great extent and 37% said to a small extent. Nearly one-fifth stated that none of the increases could be credited to CCIF. Those who felt CCIF had nothing to do with the increases in availability tended to say that this was a provincial responsibility; since it was outside of CCIF's mandate, the program had little effect on availability. Those who thought CCIF deserved some credit for the improvements said that this had been accomplished through funding projects, especially demonstration projects or feasibility studies that were catalysts to permanent funding. 6.3 Impact on Development of New Models of Service Although CCIF might have had an indirect effect through funding for projects that focused on developing new models, most provincial officials interviewed felt CCIF had little impact on new models of service. One thought that CCIF had been innovative in the area of rural care. There were two distinctly different schools of thought among NGO representatives with regard to development of new models of service. One group had a point of view similar to that of the provinces. Though allowing that new models had been tried, this group asserted that the models either faded away after funding, or their impact had been mitigated by the quality of the project. Thus the ultimate impact was negligible. The other group held that 'This was CCIF's forte.' Many CCIF projects represented 'new models that people know would work with support.' Survey respondents thought that CCIF was very effective (32%) or effective (62%) at increasing child care options and models. CCIF staff seemed to agree, providing many examples of innovative models of service funded by CCIF:
According to CCIF respondents, many demonstration projects were testing new models of service. 'CCIF tried everything except a fully comprehensive service.' For instance, resource centres were developed through demonstration projects. In some cases, rural models were developed which affected availability in those areas. In total 60 different communities across Canada had CCIF demonstration projects. Every province but Newfoundland had demonstration projects. Leading the way was British Columbia with 15 such projects, followed by Quebec with 10. 6.4 Impact on Training and Working Conditions for Child Care Providers CCIF made a significant impact on training, according to NGOs. Via support of projects focusing on improving training (e.g., highlighting major gaps in training programs), and conferences and workshops on the subject, CCIF has had a positive influence on training. They also felt that CCIF had a beneficial impact on working conditions by raising the awareness of the need for professionalism which should be accorded to child care providers. CCIF staff claimed the program has had a major impact on training, but little or no impact on working conditions. For example, a project was co-funded with Cabot College to develop an accreditation package for caregivers which will increase the quality of care, programming and training. CCIF projects created training in two territories. It improved training of aboriginal child care providers by funding curriculum development that never existed before in the aboriginal community. Before CCIF there were no specialized aboriginal ECE programs now there is one in B.C. and one in Meadow Lake which is accredited. They have been able to establish on-going training where none existed before. The provinces' verdict was split on CCIF's impact. Two provinces said CCIF had no impact. The other four thought CCIF deserved credit for improving training and working conditions. They ascribed the positive effects to projects centered around training and working conditions, and research projects. Survey respondents were also equivocal. As shown in Table 6.1, about 63% thought CCIF was very effective or effective in improving working conditions of child care providers. But the other 37% said it was ineffective or very ineffective at this. 6.5 Impact on Child Care Infrastructure Activities Aimed at Strengthening Infrastructure According to CCIF staff, the key activities undertaken to strengthen the child care infrastructure were:
Perceived Efficacy of the Activities on Infrastructure CCIF interviewees claimed three main effects of these efforts on child care organizations. First, CCIF was said to be particularly successful in seeding organizations which defend the interests of certain groups and create information. 'In this way a knowledge base was developed.' Second, CCIF funding was said to have allowed some organizations to network and to have a stronger voice. As a result, some child care organizations became better organized, polished and focused. Third, the staff held that funded activities have increased the visibility of organizations, which has placed more demands on them and given them more responsibility. These effects have broadened organizations' outlook. The activities, especially the conferences, have also developed professionalism among workers. They made them aware of different approaches and fostered pride in their profession. 'CCIF had quite a significant impact on the professionalism of staff.' The organizations have done a lot of training and professional development activities. Workers are involved in the network. 'Support has given them a sense of profession even though the pay is low. The turnover rate is very low.' Also, CCIF supported a large wages and working conditions study which was widely acclaimed for the information it provided. CCIF staff made the following case for the effect of the program on linkages and exchange of information. The program brought a national perspective and provided support to national organizations. It produced tangible goods such as training manuals. CCIF empowered organizations and pulled them together. A lot of linkages have been developed resulting in a good exchange of information both within the provinces and nationally. In the beginning, there was one child care NGO and many small organizations 'doing their own thing.' Through CCIF it has been possible to establish regional organizations that are a vital component of the system. CCIF was able to give them information regarding Canadian resources, to support conferences and bring in caregivers, to form support groups, to assist in funding of newsletters, etc. Through these means, CCIF has facilitated information exchange. The program has very much affected the linkages and all players are talking about national standards. Because of CCIF's work, organizations are stronger — they have matured so that they have been able to derive revenues by taking on contracts (although none are ever going to be self-sufficient). However, at present they depend on contributions from governments at a time when the federal government is moving away from interest group funding. No organizations are strong enough to stand alone. Survey respondents also believed that CCIF was effective or very effective at improving the infrastructure. From Table 6.1, we see that over 80% of respondents thought the program was effective at establishing a process for exchange of information, at improving information sharing in the child care community, and at improving linkages in the child care community. There was no consensus among provincial or NGO interviewees on whether CCIF had strengthened the child care infrastructure. It depended on what they considered the infrastructure to be. Some provinces and all but one NGO considered it an informal network of child care professionals brought together via conferences, information sharing, and dialogue for the purpose of discussing policy and programming. These activities have helped to spawn and support child care organizations, to erect a network of agencies and individuals involved in child care, to build a body of knowledge, to increase community awareness, to increase sharing of ideas and information, and to enhance the professionalism of child care staff. These individuals thought that CCIF had made an important and lasting contribution to the child care infrastructure in Canada. Another group thought of infrastructure as the development of specialized services, on-going financing, and staffing or consolidation of services in child care. This group believed that the impact of CCIF had been modest. Without continuing funding 'At the end of the day there really is no infrastructure.' Perceived Efficacy of the Activities on Provincial Standards for Child Care Qualifications Most CCIF staff were of the opinion that it was not possible to attribute changes in provincial standards directly to CCIF. They did believe that they were just beginning to have a positive, indirect impact on provincial standards, however, especially in the area of licensing requirements. 'Some (impacts) are still pretty minimal but the information is available so that the child care profession and NGOs are better armed to make improvements in curricula for training.' The degree of perceived impact depended on the province. CCIF staff held that some provinces (e.g., Ontario) had good standards before CCIF, and hence the impact of the program on standards has been minimal. In other provinces — mainly the Maritimes — the effect has been more substantial. 'The program influenced the provincial governments into increasing the qualification requirements . . . mainly in the Maritimes.' Training standards were said to have improved in Saskatchewan, in part because of the Meadow Lake project. 6.6 Impact on Awareness of Available Resources All CCIF staff and all but one NGO representative were in agreement that CCIF had had a considerable impact on awareness of available resources. Prior to the program, there were few resources available and what was there was known only locally. 'CCIF has had a great impact on awareness — there is now one network in the community although there is still much to be done.' The dissenter remarked that although it had funded a number of excellent, highly successful projects, it had not made an effort to 'spread the word' about them. For this reason, CCIF was judged to have had a minimal impact on the awareness of available resources in the country. About 95% of survey respondents held that CCIF was effective or very effective at increasing awareness of available resources. Among the means mentioned by CCIF staff to augment awareness of available resources:
Most provincial representatives were unsure of the impact of CCIF on awareness of available resources. Those with an opinion tended to think that the child care community became much more aware as a result of CCIF, but that the public remains largely ignorant in this respect. The information might be there but few parents have gained access to it, in part due to inadequate dissemination. CCIF and NGO informants also concurred that the program had a constructive impact on the flow of information between all players in the child care field. On the other hand, with one exception, provincial representatives opined that CCIF has not really helped improve the flow of information between governments, associations and the public. 'Whatever flow does exist is largely due to individual networking and the existence of a national child care community.' 6.7 Impact on Provinces Interviewees were asked to assess how the level of awareness of child care issues and participation in child care programming had changed since CCIF began. Awareness The provinces and territories fell into three categories regarding change in level of awareness of child care between 1987 and 1995, according to CCIF staff. More Aware Atlantic provinces Quebec Ontario Saskatchewan B.C. No Change (Awareness Always High) Manitoba Yukon Less Aware Alberta NWT In general, the political climate (i.e., the priority given to child care) was given as the main reason for changes in both directions in the level of awareness of child care of the provincial/ territorial government. This was thought to be most clear in the cases of Ontario, Alberta and B.C.. In Ontario, the NDP government's pro-child care stance was credited for the entire increment in the improvement in awareness. In Alberta, 'child care is not a priority. They are not interested in being partners.' In B.C., the government 'is much more concerned (than in 1987) and have given child care a priority.' CCIF staff ascribed some credit to CCIF for the improvement in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and B.C. The program's impact on Quebec was said to be restricted to the child care community in the province. 'There was no impact on the provincial government itself.' Change in Participation In general, those provinces in which awareness had increased were thought to have increased participation in child care since 1988; 'this flows from the increased awareness.' Similarly, where awareness had decreased, participation fell. In one case where awareness was unchanged, the province — Manitoba — had to pull back a little because of a reduced budget. As for the Yukon, it was not clear whether participation had changed. For the most part, provincial objectives have not changed since 1988. What has changed is the budget dedicated to child care, and with that the emphasis on certain target groups and types of care. In two provinces, Ontario and B.C., the budget has risen substantially since 1988 and services have expanded accordingly (e.g., more subsidized spaces). In Manitoba and Alberta, child care expenditures have been reduced, shifting resources more toward low income families. 'Therefore, a lot of people dropped out of licensed care.' Also in Manitoba, the emphasis has changed over the past couple of years to meet the demands of those in shift work, especially single parents. The perceived impact of CCIF on provincial activities varied by province, but overall the provinces regarded it as modest. One said there was 'very little' impact. Another stated that CCIF had no direct impact, but 'enhanced some of the things the department wanted to do.' Another lauded the innovation stimulated by the funding. Finally, one provincial representative said that CCIF had helped a lot in its early years, but with funding cutbacks the impact may even be negative since the province has insufficient finances to fund any projects that CCIF might prove worthy, and the province would have to deal with the 'fallout.' For those organizations funded by CCIF for a project or other activities, a typical perceived impact was 'Without CCIF dollars, our activities would not have been possible. Therefore, CCIF was entirely responsible for this project's existence.' In turn, CCIF was given credit for the impact the project may have had; for example, heightened awareness, providing support services to the community. Those NGOs in an information sharing relationship gave CCIF credit for improving networking and information sharing. 'The CCIF provided a broad base of support . . . by enabling the project's staff to connect nationally with others associated with the child care field.' 6.8 Impact on Stock of Research Commenting on CCIF's effects on child care research, interviewees opined that 'only the surface has been scratched.' Administrative data showed that there were only 26 projects16 (5% of all projects) considered research according to 'project type.' And these few projects covered a wide range of subjects including school-aged care, health care in child care centres, parental preferences, child care worker views, infant care, employer supported care, learning disabilities in centres, evaluations of child care models, aboriginal care, and minority child care. Among the kinds of projects undertaken under the rubric of research were surveys, secondary analysis of survey data, evaluations, feasibility studies, model testing, literature reviews, symposia, and information networks. Asked what child care issues research projects were designed to address, respondents answered availability of child care (47%), quality of child care (42%), caregiver training (38%), general demand for care (36%), needs assessments (34%), flexible models (31%) and other issues as listed in Table 6.4. The typical research project investigated 3.9 of the child care issues listed in the table, perhaps an indication that many of these issues are interconnected. Table 6.4 Child Care Issues Addressed by Research Projects
N=99 Source: Survey of Project Sponsors Only in the area of needs assessments/feasibility studies was there enough done, averred CCIF staff. These studies provided a clear picture of what was needed and have been valuable, but CCIF believes there is no more need for them. Other areas of research were neglected. For example, CCIF had just begun funding research into school-based programs. 'There was not a lot of research because groups that could have done the research either didn't know about CCIF or weren't interested.' It took a while to get proposals for research projects and when good proposals started coming in the program did not have the money to fund them. Moreover, the review of research proposals was more strict than that for other project types; there was a committee of reviewers. 'Quite a few were turned down. Normally, the review of proposals was not consistent.' In response to the question about the area of activity in which CCIF had the least impact, all but one CCIF interviewee said research/evaluation, essentially because not enough was done. 'This was due to the most money being available at the beginning of the program when not enough people were ready to come on board.' Thus, research projects did little to increase knowledge regarding quality child care, in general. CCIF staff maintained that there were certain specific areas where research had added to knowledge, however. Now more is known about parental preferences and conditions under which preferences occur. More is also known about where the disparities are between what parents desire and what they get. And knowledge has increased about what it means to provide culturally appropriate care especially incorporating language and traditions. This is particularly the case for aboriginals. Applied projects have built on each other (e.g., Meadow Lake and Cambrian College). The knowledge was the basis for the MicMac council developing their training program. The Meadow Lake model has been taken up by other community/college partnerships. Peer reviewers gave four of the five research projects reviewed very high marks for contributions to the field. According to CCIF informants, findings have been useful to planners and policy makers. They have also been helpful to health and child welfare agencies in understanding how a positive child care experience can be an effective intervention. The findings have been useful to governments and providers. For example, the program funded a couple of projects dealing with infectious illness and health in day care centres done by the pediatric society. The information was well received by the community and contributes to the overall improvement in quality. 6.9 Strengths and Weaknesses of CCIF Strengths CCIF staff identified many strengths of their program. Mentioned most often was the program's flexibility. 'One of the main strengths was the program's flexibility to meet the needs of communities; it allowed those communities to come up with their responses to problems they had identified.' In the beginning the CCIF did not set up a rule book, rather it sought to develop 'best practices' by developing case studies. There was no academic/bureaucratic plan so the program could work with ideas in communities to turn them into activities that enhanced knowledge of quality. 'Ideas came from the grass roots.' Because of its openness there was no bias against any groups and it allowed the information sector to strengthen. CCIF's spur to innovation was also lauded by staff. CCIF allowed 'thousands of flowers to bloom.' Another important contribution was its building of a child care infrastructure. 'The program was very strong in providing networking opportunities for various groups. All now see they're not working in isolation.' According to staff, CCIF was the only source of connection among child care communities across Canada. It had the capacity to deal directly with the sector (rather than government to government) and was able to put the money directly into the organizations. As well, CCIF allowed child care to grow and the child care profession to be elevated. 'CCIF has supported the development of a vigorous, professional child care field through funding good research and providing good networking.' Case study projects developing child care centres were unanimous in their conviction that CCIF's most important contribution was the funding. Without it, according to all representatives of these projects, their service would never have eventuated and their under-served community would have had to continue without a child care centre. The projects offering information services (CCC-NS, SpeciaLink, Westcoast) tended to take a broader view (i.e., beyond their own project) of CCIF's contributions. One respondent put it in a nutshell: CCIF succeeded in funding innovative projects, expanding the horizons of child care practitioners, facilitating the expansion of a child care network and encouraging pure research in the child care field. She added, however, that this must be tempered by the understanding that these elements represent small pockets of impact in various parts of the country, as opposed to a major impact on child care in the country as a whole. Other strengths mentioned by CCIF staff:
The main strengths identified by the provinces and NGOs were the funding of innovative and experimental projects; the 'knowledgeable,' 'helpful,' 'committed' and 'determined' staff of CCIF; development of new information on child care that helped raise awareness; the cooperative relationship forged between federal and provincial officials; the account taken of provincial priorities in funding decisions; the national profile it brought to child care; the focus on Aboriginals/First Nations; the program's broad mandate and flexibility; its significant positive impact on the child care community; and its positive impact on the quality of care for children. There was little agreement among CCIF staff on which area of activity was affected most by the program. Four opined that enhanced information services were most affected 'because every project produces information which is disseminated formally or informally.' 'There are a number of publications and texts that are being used. This is a key area in which CCIF was most effective.' Four more said development (especially training) projects since the program was most active in these areas. Another person thought CCIF had the greatest impact in demonstration projects 'because they provided a good demonstration to parents and the community that child care was required. Before, the concept was not always supported by the whole community.' And one person judged that CCIF had the greatest impact in research. 'This is very expensive and universities never have enough money. When CCIF first started, there was very little Canadian research.' Weaknesses The most frequently identified weakness by CCIF staff was that the program was reactive. The primary implication mentioned was that it did not plan well. 'There was no real plan — some things worked and some didn't and there was no structured way to assess which was which.' Several asserted that there should have been more thought about where the program was going. The program 'should have stepped back (periodically) to analyze and put things in perspective.' In part due to this, 'Many projects did not justify the expense.' Two CCIF staff opined that the biggest weakness was that there was insufficient lead time to get the program off the ground. One stated that the focus was on spending the money and as a result mistakes were made and value for money was not always what it could have been. The other asserted 'One can't throw money into a program without preparatory work. The field wasn't ready and they weren't given enough lead time.' NGO and provincial officials enumerated a different set of weaknesses of CCIF:
6.10 Conclusion The various lines of evidence indicate that CCIF has been successful in boosting the quality of child care in Canada, albeit indirectly. It has also been effective in increasing awareness of available resources. On the other hand, CCIF was said to have had little impact in improving availability/ accessibility of child care, but then this was not part of its direct mandate. Furthermore, it only 'scratched the surface' in augmenting the stock of research into child care, having funded only two or three dozen research projects. Several of these studies have made a positive contribution to knowledge about some facets of child care in Canada, but there remains much to explore. Findings were more equivocal in the areas of impact on child care infrastructure and new models of service. On the former, it seems fair to conclude that CCIF activities have helped to create and sustain child care organizations, to build a network of agencies and individuals involved in child care, to increase community awareness, to increase sharing of ideas and information, and to enhance the professionalism for child care staff. If infrastructure is considered to be development of specialized services, on-going financing, and staffing or consolidation of services in child care, the impact of CCIF has been modest. As for models of service, the evidence available does not permit us to reconcile the two opposing viewpoints: 'this was CCIF's forte,' versus a lot was attempted but little of lasting relevance eventuated. The most cited strengths and weaknesses of the program may be construed as opposite sides of the same coin. CCIF's flexibility allowed it to cast its net as wide as possible in search of ways to improve child care in Canada. But the lack of policy direction impaired its ability to identify and focus on the areas most in need of improvement.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[To Top]](/web/20060127011320im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/top.gif){kind=small}
![[Previous Page]](/web/20060127011320im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/back.gif){kind=small}
![[Table of Contents]](/web/20060127011320im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/content.gif)
![[Next Page]](/web/20060127011320im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/next.gif){kind=small}