HRDC - Evaluation of the Child Care Initiatives Fund

The primary conclusion deriving from this evaluation is that CCIF was successful in achieving its mandate. It spawned innovative approaches and services in order to improve the quality of child care in Canada. This was evident from the results of the interviews, survey, peer review and case studies. It is important to add, however, that the stability of the infrastructure CCIF created is uncertain: some thought it would crumble if the federal government abandoned the field.

Almost every one of the hundreds of people surveyed or interviewed had high praise for the program, its mission, its people and its accomplishments. This sentiment should be tempered with the knowledge that many of those contacted have a vested interest in the continuation of a program like CCIF; but the virtually unanimous praise the program has evoked is impressive.

CCIF did have some problems, however, mostly related to its operations. There was no concerted effort to determine what areas needed attention most; there was no analysis of past projects to maximize potential learning from the projects funded. CCIF did little or nothing to identify knowledge gaps or service needs and direct funding to those areas. Efforts at disseminating project results were criticized as insufficient by many informants. The potential for duplication was high since there were no systematic means of preventing it, and monitoring was said to be lax (according to some interviewees).

Informants maintained that there is a lot left to accomplish in the area of child care. For this reason they were resolute in their conviction that there continues to be an important role for the federal government to play in the field. A follow-up program, Child Care Visions, has been announced.

The final section summarizes our responses to the specific evaluation questions posed in the Terms of Reference.

A1, A2. Is there still a continuing need for this program considering the present supply versus the public's demand for and use of child care services? Is there a continuing role for the federal government to play in the child care field which is essentially a provincial responsibility? Or, should the culture of partnership and a shared mandate continue to be fostered? What is the extent of need or desirability for federal national leadership and coordination?

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. Finally, most informants were adamant that a federal withdrawal would be 'devastating.' The infrastructure built could crumble.

A3. What is the comparative impact in the field of CCIF project funding and its other activities in terms of ability to influence quality change and practices in the child care communities relative to impacts of the other players, such as Provinces, Universities, Colleges, Research Centres, professional associations, etc.? (Are the CCIF dollars just a drop in the bucket, or does CCIF, represent a significant dollar infusion to and impact on the child care sector)?

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.

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 of 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. 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.

A4. Is CCIF reaching out to the right groups and targeting appropriate activities and areas? Given the multiplicity of its 'priorities,' is CCIF spreading itself too broadly and therefore too thin to have any deep influence or effect in any one particular area? Should CCIF focus its efforts more narrowly in terms of extent of clientele served and/or activities targeted based on continuing needs?

Formal priorities did not change from the program's inception. Some priority groups such as special needs and aboriginals received a lot of attention, but there was no systematic attempt to assess the efforts and change direction. A lot depended on what proposals were received.

The lack of policy direction impaired its ability to identify and focus on the areas most in need of improvement.

A5, A6. Is the CCIF mandate and workplan effectively linked to broader government strategies? To what extent does CCIF complement, supplement, overlap, duplicate, or work at cross purposes with other similar programs/activities? Or does CCIF offer particular support and/or services not available elsewhere?

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.

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, NLS, and the Disabled Persons Secretariat which all had a research mandate although the National Welfare grants got out of funding child care research.

All lines of evidence point to the conclusion that no service provided by CCIF could be obtained from another source. Provinces could have funded anything CCIF did, but in practice they have not.

B1. Given the broadly stated primary goal of CCIF - 'to enhance the quality of child care in Canada' - what has been the net impact of CCIF over the past seven years on (i) improvements in across-the-board quality standards of child care; and (ii) improvements in quality programming and availability of diverse child care models?

Because the provinces are responsible for child care programs, CCIF could have no direct effect on quality standards. CCIF staff maintained that the program had an indirect effect, however. According to CCIF staff, largely due to CCIF, there is now a good base of information and easy access to it. The dissemination 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.'

All but one NGO representative and four of the six provincial officials asserted that CCIF 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.'

Survey respondents felt that quality of care had improved slightly or greatly since 1988 in all areas with the exceptions of extended care, emergency care and employer supported care. They thought the biggest improvements took place in the areas of Aboriginal/Inuit care, care for disabled children, parent resource centres, and community-based care.

CCIF was not thought to have augmented availability of child care to any great extent, primarily because this is not within their mandate. Many new models were tested, but many if not most fell by the wayside when funding ended.

B2. Did CCIF maximize the distribution of its funds to the most deserving and/or most promising projects and recipients? Was there a systematic identification of knowledge gaps and of service needs, and a consequent pro-active enlisting of projects? Or was the selection process more open and mostly reactive? What data were used to support decisions about priority needs? What criteria were used to deny funding to applicants, and what was the rate of refusal?

Besides designating priority areas related to the child care needs of families in unusual circumstances or in under-served areas, CCIF did little or nothing to identify knowledge gaps or service needs and direct funding to those areas. According to CCIF staff, there was no concerted effort to address one priority more than another. CCIF always did a mix of types of projects. 'There were no allocations to priorities — CCIF was reactive.' Activity areas depended on provincial and community needs.

No data were used to support decisions about priority needs. Only in the last two years did the program take note of areas that hadn't been funded very much such as rural care and school-aged care, and begin to focus on them.

B3, B4, B5. To what extent was the actual distribution of funds and CCIF support for projects consistent with the program's intended priorities and targeted activities namely (i) Applied Research, (ii) Developmental Activities; and (iii) Demonstration Projects? What was the distribution of CCIF projects and what was the proportion of the CCIF budget as allocated among the stated priority child care 'problem areas'? What was the distribution of funds and number of projects by class of recipients?

Research accounted for only 9% of CCIF expenditures. Three in every five dollars were expended on development projects; another 30% was spent on demonstration projects. Given CCIF's objective 'to monitor, promote, (and) encourage quality child care in Canada by funding innovative research and development projects,' surprisingly little attention was given to research.

Table 3.10 lists the distribution by priority area. To highlight: work related projects received 5% of the funding; aboriginal projects got about 15% of the money; special need projects got 8%; and resource centres got 5%.

Table 3.11 shows number of projects and distribution of CCIF funding by class of recipients. The greatest amount of funding (21%) went to educational institutions, followed by associations/societies (20%), and national associations (13%). Native organizations received 18% of the money. Community groups got 5% of the money, provincial agencies got 2%, municipal agencies got 2%, and child care providers got 8%.

B6. Who were the main beneficiaries, direct and indirect? Number of clients by type, whether child care providers, colleges, associations, children, etc.? How many people were served by the projects by priority target group?

Over half the projects targeted no specific group (see Table 3.12). Of those with a target group, most were aimed at natives. There were also a significant number of special needs and school-age projects. Most projects (86%) reported that they served no one directly (this would be the case for most research and development projects). Of those projects that served people directly, native projects served an average of 1,843 people, non-native projects 965.

B7. To what extent, and in what specific areas, has the stock of knowledge regarding quality child care increased as a result of CCIF applied research projects? Have research project results been summarized and documented in a systematic fashion? To what extent and in what way were the findings and conclusions of the applied research projects shared and disseminated throughout the day care community? Is there evidence of application of the new knowledge resulting from CCIF funded Applied Research Projects in specific areas, in service delivery, and in policy development?

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 projects¹⁸ (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, survey 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.

There is a synopsis of projects in a catalogue of resources but no analysis has been done. There was no conscious effort to analyze the results of projects in one area (rural care, for example) to find the overall lessons learned.

About one-quarter of the research projects were published in specialized journals such as Focus, the Canadian Journal of Health and the Canadian Journal of Research in ECE, boosting potential relevance greatly, and suggesting that the quality was high. The percentage of research projects so published may be overestimated, however, since few of the respondents specified the journal and some who did named a newsletter or booklet. Most of the other projects used pamphlets, conferences or workshops to circulate their findings. Nine in ten maintained that the research findings are available to people wishing to obtain them.

Over 73% of research project representatives surveyed said their findings had been used. The following types of institutions were said to have used the projects' research findings:

Institution	% of Projects
School/school board	24.5%
Post-secondary institution	35.3
Municipal government	12.7
Provincial government	39.2
Federal government	20.6
Tribal council/Indian band	17.6
Child care organizations	54.9
Caregiver associations	28.4
Community groups	25.5
Public libraries	10.8
Other researchers	28.4
Other	12.7
	N=77

B8. As a result of CCIF funding of Demonstration Projects and models of service to support new and innovative approaches to meet child care needs in formerly underserved/underresourced communities - was there a significant increase in relevant tested models and availability of new child care opportunities for these communities? To what extent has the availability and quality of child care in these aforementioned underserved communities improved? How much of this improvement is due to CCIF efforts? How successful or effective were the Demonstration Projects, models of service in particular? What proportion of these projects are still ongoing? Main source of funding after CCIF? What proportion received other funding in addition to that from CCIF? How many clients have been served through the demonstration projects by target group? What has been the impact of these CCIF funded Demonstration Projects? What 'lessons have been learned' through support of these Demonstration Projects? Is there evidence of 'spin-offs', or further applications of the lessons learned? To what extent, and in what ways, were the results of the Demonstration Projects (models of service) shared and communicated throughout the day care community and to other interested parties? Was the dissemination strategy effective?

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. 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.

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. About four in ten of these projects received funding from other sources in addition to CCIF.

There was the point of view within CCIF and some NGOs that the program helped create new services through feasibility studies and demonstration projects. Survey and self-evaluation data suggest that 85% of demonstration projects continued after CCIF funding expired. But most did not continue for long. Within one year, only 54% were still operating. And by the time the CCIF program ended, only 46% of demonstration projects were still in operation.

Most projects that continued after CCIF secured funding from the provincial government, although not enough to operate as before. Our case studies showed that even the most successful on-going projects could shut down at any time because of insufficient funds.

Three-quarters of demonstration projects surveyed had been visited by people interested in developing a similar program. One project representative asserted that 900 people had visited for this purpose; another claimed 250 people had visited; and six others said that over 100 people did so. The average (mean) number of people visiting was 71, the median number 25. And perhaps the ultimate compliment to the project and measure of usefulness of the project was that 39% of the models of service tested by the demonstration projects were adopted by another organization or individual, according to respondents.

The most popular means of disseminating findings of demonstration projects was through workshops or seminars. Conferences were also used by over half the projects. Nearly one-quarter claimed that their findings had been published in specialized journals such as Infoparents and Canadian Parents. About one in eight demonstration projects never disseminated their results (though some of these had just submitted their results for publication). Nearly 23% of respondents did not know whether CCIF disseminated information about their demonstration project. Of those who did, most thought CCIF was very (22%) or somewhat helpful (42%) in disseminating results. But 20% said CCIF was of very little help and 16% said it was no help at all.

B9. In what ways, and to what extent has the CCIF contributed to strengthening the Child Care 'infrastructure' - that is encouraging maturation of child care organization? enhancing professionalism? improving the linkages and information exchanges within the formal child care field? What proportion of CCIF funds and projects were directed toward staff training and workshops? What proportion to conferences? and to any other types of activities funded under 'Development'? To what extent would these projects/activities have proceeded without CCIF assistance? What was the coverage afforded through these Development projects/activities? Who benefited? To what extent have the training needs of service providers been met through CCIF Development projects?

According to CCIF staff, the key activities undertaken to strengthen the child care infrastructure were:

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. 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. 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. Survey respondents also believed that CCIF was effective or very effective at improving the infrastructure. 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.

Many provincial and NGO interviewees thought CCIF activities had 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 for child care staff.

Conferences were denominated a priority area of 9.5% of projects, receiving 1.5% of the funding. Training was the primary activity of 14.8% of projects, receiving 19.7% of funding. There is no designation for workshops on CIS. In total, 72% of CCIF projects were classified development, accounting for 60.3% of funding.

As with other type of projects, very few development projects would have proceeded without CCIF assistance, according to interviewees and case study respondents. Nine in ten respondents held that their project could not have been undertaken without funding from CCIF.

CCIF made a significant impact on training, according to interviewees. Via support of projects focusing on bettering 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.

B10. Has CCIF contributed to raising the professional standards and/or credentials of child care givers? to improving their working conditions? (any influence on provincial policies?)

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.

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. Training standards were said to have improved in Saskatchewan, in part because of the Meadow Lake project.

NGO interviewees 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. But CCIF staff claimed the program had little or no impact on working conditions. 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 professional standards and working conditions. They ascribed the positive effects to projects centered around training and working conditions, and research projects.

Survey respondents were also equivocal. 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.

B11. What are the 'end products' developed through CCIF projects to enhance information, education and public awareness about quality child care? To whom have these 'products' been disseminated and how?

Table 5.2 lists the end products developed through CCIF projects. Final reports accounted for 63% of the end products, publications for 32%, and audio-video products for only 5% of projects. The plurality (25%) of end products focused on professional development/training of child care staff. About 12% were aimed at parent education, and 12% were research reports or publications.

According to the survey, the main products or services developed by these projects to enhance information sharing were written materials (59%). Other products or services were as follows:

Product/Service	% of Projects
Resource centre	32.6%
Toy lending library	16.5
Written material	59.3
Audio/visual material	25.6
Telephone hot line	7.0
Other #	11.8
	N=86

When asked about the primary purpose of the products, respondents reported that no single purpose predominated: 29% of projects aimed to provide parent education or support; 23% furnished caregiver training; 19% were meant to improve program resources; and 13% provided caregiver support. The other 16% cited other products or services such as policy development, educator support, and design of child care facilities.

Most often used means for dissemination were workshops/seminars (60% of information dissemination projects) and publishing for general use (57%). Another 44% presented their results at a conference, and 29% published their findings in a specialized journal.

B12. Was the CCIF successful in collecting and summarizing results of projects funded? In increasing the flow of information, and awareness of resources available? Was CCIF successful in establishing an efficient process for exchange of information?

As mentioned above, there is a synopsis of projects in a catalogue of resources but no analysis has been done. CCIF funded the Canadian Child Care Federation to produce a book that summarized certain projects. They produced two publications — one short and another with a one-page description of those projects that had findings or results. The publications were circulated to child care organizations, provincial governments, universities/colleges and larger resource centres and libraries.

Most informants held that CCIF certainly increased the amount of information available, but they were less certain about the flow of information. Many thought the flow had increased, but not as much as it could have had distribution of results been better.

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.'

Findings from the survey support this. About 95% of respondents held that CCIF was effective or very effective at increasing awareness of available resources.

Also from the survey, 33% said CCIF was very effective in establishing a process for exchange of information; 49% said it was effective.

B13. How appropriate, timely, and useful are these 'end products' for service providers, for policy makers, for general public and parents? Is there any duplication in the materials produced? What gaps in needed information and data still exist?

Interviewees were asked how useful the end products were for policy makers, service providers, and parents. There were two basic responses provided by CCIF staff. One was that no one really knew how useful the end products were since there had been no systematic analysis of the end products. By this school of thought, there was plenty of useful information available to parents, service providers, and policy makers, but how much it was used was unknown. Some CCIF staff were dubious that the information was reaching parents. The same group were doubtful that much of the information, though potentially valuable, was used by policy-makers, especially at the provincial level.

The more common point of view on the usefulness of end products was 'It depends on the project.' Some end products were adjudged very useful, principally for service providers. Some end products, particularly national research studies, were considered to be valuable input into the child care policy-making process. And this group thought that 'Parents are a lot more aware of what's out there' in terms of child care and could make more informed choices.

Because project results are usually not widely disseminated, the potential for duplication is heightened. We uncovered some evidence of duplication.

Only one example of duplication of information was given by interviewees. The report produced by the Child Care Federation is somewhat like a status of child care which duplicates a document put out in-house. 'However, this doesn't often happen and steps have been taken to rationalize such activities.' Another informant said that feasibility studies got to a point where they were 'reinventing the wheel,' an important reason to stop funding such projects.

As well, the peer reviewers said the Hub Model and the Workplace Day Care projects were concerned with developing child care models that had already been studied and written about. Consequently neither of these projects was judged to have added much to the existing stock of knowledge. This finding suggests that if a more rigorous review of the proposals had been carried out, the duplication of the planned projects with existing knowledge could have been identified, and the problems with these projects avoided.

All informants attested that there are a lot of gaps in information. CCIF staff said there is a need to do more evaluation of the current services, programs and practices — whether they are appropriate and cost-effective and whether they meet the need. Research needs to be done in the determinants of quality care, standards of care, quality of child care services in disadvantaged areas, school-based care, and in special groups such as infant/toddler care. There needs to be more studies around employer practices, leave, family/work balance, self-employment, non-traditional hours and the impact they will have on child rearing and what services can meet those non-traditional needs. More knowledge is needed regarding comprehensive services and there is a need to know how commercial child care compares with non-profit. Second order questions will also probably be needed e.g., factors affecting preferences by area as well as by age of child.

According to the provinces, the principal area in which more knowledge is needed was said to be 'quality.' Different provinces emphasized different areas of quality. One province saw a general need for more information on quality and how to get it and sustain it. Another was much more specific, arguing that the key issue to explore is what difference does quality child care make on the rearing of children versus care provided by family. A third listed three important issues involving quality: a need to better understand the cost versus quality relationship; a need to take a hard look at reducing costs without eroding quality; and a need to look at whether current regulations are affecting quality.

NGO informants listed many different areas where more knowledge is necessary. Six mentioned multicultural issues — a need to understand the needs of a community and what is culturally appropriate (especially for Aboriginals). Three thought more work was needed in the area of training and curriculum development. Two called for more research into behavioural problems of children (e.g., fetal alcohol syndrome). No other area was raised by more than one person.

Peer reviewers reported that there were still gaps in the knowledge necessary for improving the quality of child care, although four of the reviewers pointed out that to some extent part of the problem is the failure to apply knowledge already available, not a lack of knowledge. The following gaps were identified: designing effective training programs; defining and measuring quality of care; organization of child care centres; integration of special needs children; relationship between director characteristics and training and quality; and defining 'quality of care' in an aboriginal context.

C1, C2. Is it feasible and/or desirable to integrate the Child Care Initiatives Fund program with other related programs? Should the 'partnership' aspects of providing quality child care be expanded to a more comprehensive and broader vision, namely providing a community-based, integrative support for families? Should elements of the CCIF be rolled into a range of other related child development services?

Many CCIF interviewees thought in terms of what specific components of CCIF might be housed in other programs. Three thought that universities could take over the research component, although they worried that universities 'would not have the national picture so it would still need (overarching) coordination of research.' Three others thought that R&D could be handled through the National Welfare Grants. Another popular idea was to farm out information dissemination to the Child Care Federation. Their work parallels that of the Child Care Information Centre. One consultant thought that regional agencies could do information sharing.

Provincial interviewees were vague in their response. No other organization was specified that could take responsibility for any CCIF activity. And no government program was named that could integrate any CCIF activity. Provincial officials tended to think that some aspects — information dissemination was mentioned — could be handled by the private sector. Interestingly, none said their province would take up any of the slack.

Most NGO respondents saw no reason why CCIF activities could not be integrated into other programs. Some thought the activities could be undertaken by other branches of the federal government: Headstart and the Brighter Futures program were given as examples. One person said provincial governments could assume some of the responsibilities by modelling their services after the CCIF design. One mused that 'an excellent way of operating a fund granting body for child care would be as a foundation' based around an organization with a history in children and youth services. It would need public funding, however.

Regardless of what agencies might take over components of CCIF, CCIF and NGO informants advanced two central considerations. Most warned that the child care focus should not be diluted in any new program. And many cautioned that national funding should be continued to ensure a national focus and to help shape the child care agenda. 'Any contribution program could probably be integrated with CCIF but you would probably lose the child care focus. . . It would become a fight for funding. If the program is going to be integrated into anything, it will be necessary to look at all the programs and have a bigger picture.'

C3. Are there more cost-effective ways to deliver this program, and/or to address the issues and needs of quality child care? What other funding mechanisms might be more effective? How does the present CCIF approach compare with other countries' schemes or models to provide quality child care (U.S., Europe, Scandinavia, etc.)?

A few ideas were advanced by CCIF staff as alternatives for addressing quality child care. Four brought up the concept of community-based, integrated family services. Two provinces agreed that this concept had promise. 'A community-based approach may be cheaper and more effective. (The advantages of this approach include) more efficiency, less expense because of cost-sharing and it may encourage people to access available services. However, this approach needs cooperation between all organizations who may be afraid to lose turf. . . It also needs the cooperation of the province.' The federal government would have an indirect role in such a model since service delivery is a provincial responsibility. Services have to be community-based so the role of the federal government is funding and providing some national guidelines. 'It is also necessary to support the strengthening of professional resources in communities so they themselves can provide advice and guidance. It is essential to do things in a systematic way at the regional level.'

Another idea was for the federal government to set national standards for quality. 'If the federal government would take the lead role in developing national standards for quality, education and training, then Canada would have a comprehensive child care system.' Similarly, one provincial official suggested implementation of a national child care strategy to provide a coordinated and consolidated approach to child care.

A final idea advanced by CCIF staff was to work out a consortium with private organizations to approach provincial governments to contribute to a national fund that may be administered by an organization.

Another interesting suggestion from a provincial official was that CCIF could operate more effectively if it worked in a more committee-like format in directing the flow of funds into child care across the country. Incorporating the expertise and work of researchers and experts in its funding process, this more structured approach would permit more significant long term regional planning to take place and prevent projects from being done pell-mell.

Survey respondents were asked whether CCIF was the best mechanism by which the issues and needs of promoting quality child care may be addressed. Three-quarters said yes. Most of those who said no thought that professional organizations would have been superior.

Child care models in France, Denmark and Sweden are often cited as among the best in the world. These three countries have established an extensive child care system integrated with broader family policies to accommodate the needs of parents and children with active support from the central government. In each of the countries, the majority of child care services is provided with public funding and is operated by local governments or approved private organizations.

Governments in the three European countries play a larger role in the development of services than does the Canadian government. In Sweden, for instance, the National Board of Health and Welfare issues guidelines to ensure that municipal centre based child care meets certain quality requirements. In Denmark, child care is the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Affairs; in France, écoles maternelles are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of National Education while care for younger children is the responsibility of the Ministry of Solidarity, Health and Social Protection. In Canada, the central government has no direct responsibility for the development and delivery of child care nor for regulating the quality of care. Rather these tasks fall to the provincial/territorial governments, each of which have different philosophies and different fiscal capabilities.

There are notable differences between Canada and the United States in the delivery of child care. In the United States, for example, the private sector owns and operates a much higher percentage of child care centres than in Canada. In terms of policy, however, the United States and Canada resemble each other. Neither country has enacted national child care policies, has a national system of programs, or has a funding mechanism for universal coverage.

C4. Does the present approach of CCIF support the attainment of meaningful results? Or should the number of projects be more limited with a stronger concentration on selected, key priority areas?

Most informants agreed that CCIF played a necessary and valuable role during its seven year mandate, but it is now time to move on. CCIF must build on the experience they have amassed. Because there is much less money, the program has to be more strategic and needs to be better at consultation with the field. CCIF responded to what came in; a new program should be more proactive and more focused on research. Target areas should be determined after a review of what has been achieved and where the gaps are. The program should completely back away from needs assessment and feasibility studies. The people administering the program would need to have new skills (i.e., research skills).

Footnotes