Community Action Program for Children (CAPC): National Program Profile (NPP) Cycle 1

Summary Report, Final, July 2001

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Method
• Profile of Projects
• Geographic Area Served
• Number of Geographic Communities Served
• Types of Partners
• Participant Involvement
• Resources
• Program Level Information
• Language of Service
• Cultural Orientation
• Types of Participants
• Main Program Objectives
• Main Ways of Program Delivery
• Timing of Program Delivery

Introduction

This is the summary report of the results of the analysis of the Community Action Program for Children (CAPC) Cycle 1 data collection. Data was collected through the use of the National Program Profile (NPP). The NPP was developed through a consultative national process in Spring 2000 and tested through a limited pilot in the Summer of 2000. Some slight modifications to the NPP were incorporated after the pilot. The first complete data collection process using the NPP, Cycle 1, collected data for the reporting period April 1, 2000 to September 30, 2000.

Method

An NPP package was sent to all CAPC projects listed as operational and having at least one operational program. Prior to distribution of the NPP packages, a report listing operational projects was sent to all National Evaluation Team for Children (NETC) members for verification. In all, 410 NPP packages were distributed for Cycle 1. The completed NPPs were returned to PricewaterhouseCoopers via regional Health Canada program consultants and NETC members who first reviewed the forms for completeness and accuracy. In total, 385 NPPs were returned, resulting in a response rate of 94%. Regional response rates were correspondingly high with only three regions having less than a 100% response: Territories (89%), Quebec (90%), and British Columbia (96%).

Throughout this report, all numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number using standard rounding procedures. In the case of numbers totaling less than 1%, they have all been rounded up to one.

Profile of Projects

As shown in Table 1, all regions are represented in the NPP Cycle 1 returns and subsequent analysis. The largest proportion of projects was in Quebec (51%). The high response rates from all regions means that the proportion of returns used in this analysis reflects the actual proportion of projects in the entire national CAPC. The regional category Territories, abbreviated as "Terr" for graphical purposes is composed of the three northern territories: the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. The regional category Atlantic, abbreviated as "Atla" for graphical purposes is composed of the four Atlantic provinces: Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia.

Table 1: Proportion of projects per region

Although CAPC projects can receive funding from a variety of sources, funding received from CAPC tends to constitute the largest part of their budget. The amount of funding received from CAPC varies primarily as a result of initial Joint Management Committee (JMC) decisions concerning priorities and allocation of funds. Figure 1 illustrates the percentage of CAPC projects at each funding level. This is based on the annual CAPC funding received by each project for fiscal year 2000-01. For the purpose of analysis, annual CAPC funding has been broken down into three categories: less than $100,000, $100,000 to $300,000, and more than $300,000. The majority of CAPC projects (62%) received less than $100,000 in CAPC funding for the 2000-01 fiscal year. This represents 239 projects. A further 30% (114 projects) received between $100,000 and $300,000. The remaining 8% (32 projects) received more than $300,000 in funding.

Examining the annual amount of CAPC funding received shows the variation in the amounts received by projects. The 385 CAPC projects received $44,470,464.49 in CAPC funding for fiscal year 2000-01. This results in a mean of $115,507.70 in funding per project. Funding ranged from a project with a low of $5,000.00 to one with a high of $625,600.00. One project reported receiving zero funding but this was a project that had been terminated and was operating with a carry-over of funds from the previous fiscal year to wind down operations. So in fact, this project, while still operational, did not receive any funding in the 2000-01 fiscal year.

Funding from the Canadian Prenatal Nutrition Program (CPNP) was reported by 69 of the 385 projects. CPNP funding ranged from a low of $14,000 to a high of $200,000.00. A large number of projects (316 projects) did not receive CPNP funds.

Figure 2 shows annual CAPC funding for fiscal year 2000-01 cross-tabulated with each region. The largest percentage of projects receiving less than $100,000 in annual funding within a region is within Quebec. In Quebec, a total of 185 projects (94%) received less than $100.000 in annual CAPC funding. The remaining 11 projects in Quebec receive between $100,000 and $300,000 in annual funding. Ontario has the highest percentage of projects receiving more than $300,000 in annual funding. Almost half (46%) of all projects in Ontario (19 projects) receive more than $300,000 in annual CAPC funding. In British Columbia, only one project (5%)received less than $100,000 in annual CAPC funding. No projects in Quebec, Saskatchewan or the Territories received more than $300,000 in annual CAPC funding.

Geographic Area Served

Projects were asked to select the type(s) of geographic area they served based on the question: "How would you best define the geographic area that is served by your project (Question 1)?" Respondents were presented with the categories of urban, rural, isolated, remote and whole province or territory. This was a multiple response question and projects could select as many options as needed to describe the geographic area served. As an example, a project could answer that they serve a rural and an urban area. The nature of multiple response questions means that totals will add to more than 100%.

As shown in Figure 3, 63% of the CAPC projects (241 projects) that returned an NPP indicated that they serve an urban area and 53% (205 projects) said they served a rural area. Eleven percent (44 projects) served an isolated area, described as one with limited road access. Three percent of projects (13 projects) described themselves as serving a remote area, meaning one that is accessible by plane or boat only and a further 5% (18 projects) indicated that they covered a whole province or territory. It is clear from the results of the survey that the majority of the projects serve either an urban or rural area.

Figure 4 presents the geographic area served by projects by region. None of the projects in the Territories considered themselves to cover the whole territory. On the other hand, two Ontario projects (5%) and eight Quebec projects (4%) considered themselves to cover the whole province. Projects are predominantly located in urban and rural areas in all regions.

The Atlantic region reported the smallest percentage (46%) of projects served in an urban area, representing 20 projects. British Columbia reported the largest percentage (86%) of projects served in an urban area, representing 19 projects. In the Territories only half of the projects in the Territories serve an urban area, representing four projects. Saskatchewan reported the smallest percentage (36%) of projects served in a rural area, representing 12 projects. The Atlantic region had the largest percentage of projects (79%) that served a rural area, representing 34 projects. Quebec, Saskatchewan and Manitoba had the largest variance in this area, with projects serving all five types of geographic areas.

It is apparent from the regional breakdown of geographic areas served, that there was a wide definition used for the terms rural and urban. This frequently occurs when respondents are allowed to self-define their terms, for example geographic area served, rather than through the use of an objective definition, i.e., urban represents incorporated cities with a total population of 25,000 or more. Relying on projects to self-define means that they are more likely to use a regional definition of, for example, what is rural versus urban, rather than one that could be applied equally throughout Canada. This seems to be the case with Saskatchewan. Given the rural nature of the province, it was somewhat surprising that more projects considered themselves urban (18 projects) over rural (12 projects). It appears that these projects may be using a more inclusive Saskatchewan definition of the terms urban and rural.

Number of Geographic Communities Served

Respondents were also asked about the number of different geographic communities served by their CAPC projects (Question 2). Geographic communities were described as neighborhoods, rural communities or municipalities. The answers ranged from a low of one reported by 100 projects, to a high of 50 reported by two projects. Twenty-six (26) projects that returned a completed NPP did not respond to this question and are listed as missing data. On average, projects reported serving 6.5 different geographic communities.

Figure 5 displays information on the number of communities served, with number of communities served broken down into four categories: 1-2, 3-5, 6-9 and 10+. Responses were recoded into categories to facilitate the use of this variable in further analysis. Collapsing these categories further shows that the responses were fairly evenly split between projects that serve 1-5 communities (52%) and those that serve 6 or more (48%). These percentages represent 186 and 173 projects respectively. About a third of projects (36% ; 129 projects) served 1-2 communities, and about a third served 10 or more communities. The data on number of communities served was also examined on a regional basis.

As shown in Figure 6, Alberta (46%), Ontario (45%) and the Atlantic region (46%) reported the highest percentage of projects serving 10 or more communities. In turn, this represented 12, 17 and 19 projects. The Territories had the smallest percentage (12%) of projects serving 10 or more communities. This represented one project. On the other extreme, Saskatchewan had the highest percentage (69% ; 22 projects) of projects reporting that they served 1-2 communities. This was followed closely by Manitoba (64%; 9 projects) and the Territories (62%; 5 projects). Fifteen percent (6 projects) in the Atlantic region reported serving 1-2 communities.

Figure 7 shows the number of communities served by projects according to annual amount of CAPC funding they received. The data presented seems to infer that projects who receive the greatest amount of funding, tend to serve a greater number of communities. For projects receiving less than $100,000 in annual funding, 91 projects (41%) reported serving one or two communities, while at the other end of the spectrum, projects receiving more than $300,000 in annual funding reported eight projects (27%) providing service to one or two communities. For projects receiving less than $100,000 in annual funding, 74 projects (34%) reported serving 10 or more communities, while projects receiving more than $300,000 in annual funding reported 11 project (37%) providing service to 10 or more communities

Types of Partners

Projects were asked to identify the different types of organizations that they currently partner with and who contributed to the management, coordination and/or delivery of the project (Question 3). Seventeen options were provided as well as an "Other" category. As a result of the large number of response in the "Other" category, three additional groups of partners were developed: Local/Municipal Government, Libraries/Literacy Groups, and Food Banks/Clothing Exchanges. This was a multiple response question so projects were able to list as many partners as applicable. As a result, totals will add to more than 100%. Figure 8 illustrates the percentage of projects listing a particular option as partner. Three projects that returned an NPP did not respond to this particular question.

As shown in Figure 8, there were many types of partners listed by the CAPC projects. The partner type indicated by the greatest proportion of projects was "Health Organizations", which was cited by 337 projects (88%). "Food Banks/Clothing Exchanges" was mentioned by the least amount of projects (3%; 10 projects). It has to be considered however that this was a recoded category and was not as readily available to all respondents. This consideration needs to emphasized when comparing the totals for all three of the recoded partner categories to the totals for the categories presented. In particular, the actual number of local government partners is probably much larger than the number reported by projects in the "Other" category. If you take into account the fact that many other local government partners were included in the different types of supplied partner categories, including regional health authorities and health departments under "Health Organizations", it is easy to see that the 13% could be a gross under-estimation of the number of local government partners.

The pre-provided partner mentioned by the least amount of projects is "Aboriginal Head Start (AHS) funded project", which was selected by 6% (22 projects). "Educational Institution", a new option added due to popularity as an "Other" option in the pilot, was selected by 56% of respondents (213 projects). After the recoding process, "Other" was still selected by 28% of projects (107 projects). The types of partners indicated under "Other" included such organizations as: Best Start, Cultural Arts Centres, Youth Resource Centres, Social Services Organizations, and Women's Resource Centres.

As indicated above, projects were able to list multiple partners. They were also asked to provide the number of partners (a count) that they worked with during the reporting period (Question 4). The average number of partners reported was 12. Responses have been recoded into four categories: 1-5, 6-10, 11-20, and 21+. Results are provided in Figure 9.

All projects reported having at least one partner during the reporting period. On the other extreme, 64 projects (17%) reported having 21 or more partners. The largest single group of projects (38%) reported having between one and five partners, representing 146 projects.

The number of partners reported by projects was also examined on the basis of CAPC funding. Based on the numbers reported, projects with more partners tend to receive more CAPC funding. As shown in Figure 10, projects with smaller numbers of partners tend to be those receiving less than $100,000 in annual CAPC funding. For 239 projects receiving less than $100,000 annual funding, 85% reported having one to five partners and 28% reported having 21 or more partners. For the 32 projects receiving $300,000 or more in annual funding, 2% reported having one to five partners, while 28% reporting having 21 or more partners.

When examining the number of project partners by region, no strong patterns appear although there are some differences between the regions. As shown in Figure 11, a majority of projects in Quebec (56%; 109 projects) have between one and five partners. British Columbia projects have the greatest number of partners: 10 projects (50%) reported 21 or more partners. This is followed by Ontario (37%;15 projects), the Atlantic region (33%;14 projects) and Alberta (29%; 8 projects). No projects in the Territories reported 21 or more partners.

As shown in Figure 12, almost half of all projects (49%; 63 projects) reporting that they served one to two communities have less than five partners. Thirty percent of projects serving 10 or more communities (39 projects) report less than five partners. The percentage of projects reporting 21or more partners rises from a low of 6% for those projects serving one to two communities (8 projects) to a high of 26% for those serving ten or more communities (33 projects).

Participant Involvement

Projects were asked how current and past participants contributed to the management and/or delivery of their project (Question 5). Participants were defined as someone who takes part (or has taken part) in a CAPC program. This could include a child, a parent/caregiver, or both, depending on the nature of the program. Projects were presented with five options as well as an open-ended "Other". These options included: 

1. Informal opportunities to express their views or opinions about the project or its programs;
2. Formal opportunities to express their views or opinions about the project or its programs (through channels such as interviews, surveys, focus groups);
3. Playing a volunteer role in the delivery of the programs (for example, by making snacks for other participants, by leading group sessions);
4. Direct involvement in a committee or group that provides advice to the project's governing body; and,
5. Direct involvement in making decisions about the project or its programs (for example, by sitting on the project's governing body).

Figure 13 displays the information on type of participant involvement reported by projects. Projects were allowed to select multiple responses. As a result, numbers will add to more than 100%. Three projects did not respond to this question.

In general, the proportion of projects reporting types of participant involvement decreases as the involvement deepens. The exception is with participation directly through a committee and participation directly through the governing body, which are inversed. The greatest number of respondents, 88%, listed "informal" as the type of participant involvement offered by their project. It was expected that the greatest number of projects would report this type of participant involvement. Slightly more than half of the projects (54%) said that participants were directly involved through a governing body. Four percent of projects (15 cases) selected "Other" as an option. Responses from these projects focused on such areas as participants being hired to work on a program or donating toys and goods. All projects reported that participants had a role.

In considering the types of participant involvement from a slightly different angle, these five options could also be split into two categories: "delivery" of project and "management" of project. Delivery would consist of option 3 - playing a volunteer role in the delivery of the project, while Management would include all four of the remaining options, all of which deal with some aspect of the management of the project. Sixty percent of projects reported that participants had a role in the delivery of programs (225 projects). All projects reported that participants had some role in project management when viewing the complete continuum. Five projects were not included in this recode.

Taken further, the four management options can also be viewed as a continuum of participation in the management of a project. Participation in the management ranges from the least amount of involvement "informal opportunities to express their views" to the greatest amount of involvement "Participants were directly involved through a governing body". Results indicate this could be seen as a continuum. Less than 10% of projects that selected an option representing a greater type of involvement did not also select the other types of involvement leading up to it.

Examining the concept of a continuum of management involvement, Figure 14 illustrates the recoded data dealing with the management of projects. Projects have been graphed based on how far along the continuum they have reported they are. Level 1 means participants are given informal opportunities to express their views about the project. Level 2 means participants were given formal opportunities to express their views about the project. Level 3 means participants were directly involved through a committee or sub-group that provides management advice. Level 4 means that participants were directly involved in making decisions about management. Over half of the projects (54%) reported that participants were directly involved in making decisions about management (206 projects). Ten percent of projects reported that the highest level of participant involvement in the management of the project was informal opportunities to express their views (37 projects).

Figure 15 shows the breakdown of participant involvement by region. In all regions the majority of projects offer both informal and formal opportunities to participate. In all regions with the exception of Quebec the majority of projects offer a volunteer role in the delivery of the project. Projects in the Atlantic region lead the country in all types of participant involvement.

Following up on the question dealing with participant roles, respondents were also asked about the proportion of their project's governing body composed of current or past participants (Question 6). Four categories were presented as possible options: none, less than 25%, between 25% and 50%, and more than 50%. As shown in Figure 16 below, 19% (72 projects) of the projects reported that more than 50% of their governing bodies were made up of current or past participants. The largest single group of projects, 41% (156 projects), reported that there are no current or past participants on their governing body. Given the fact that 54% of projects reported participant involvement directly through participation on a governing board, it was expected that 46% of the projects would report that none of their governing body is made up of participants. The 41% is therefore slightly lower than expected and indicates that some projects interpreted the response category "participants were directly involved in making decisions about the project or its program (for example, by sitting on the project's governing body)"as being more inclusive than just sitting on the governing body.

Resources

Projects were asked to report on the number of CAPC-funded staff members that work on their project in a typical week (Question 7). This question was intended to establish the actual number of people working for pay in CAPC projects. In total, there are 2,092 CAPC-funded staff members working for pay on CAPC projects in a typical week. Answers ranged from a low of zero to a high of 72. In the case of the one project reporting zero paid staff, it is staffed solely by a volunteer administrator. The average number of funded staff members reported was five. Responses were recoded into categories for analysis. As shown in Figure 17, 50% of projects reported zero to three CAPC-funded staff members (194 projects). Six percent (24 projects) of projects reported 16 or more funded staff members.

Projects were also asked how many paid staff hours are funded by CAPC in a typical week (Question 8). This question was asked in order to determine the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) paid for by CAPC funds. For the purpose of analysis, the data has been collapsed from number of hours to FTEs, using 37.5 hours a week as the standard. One project did not respond to this question. Responses range from a low of zero hours, in the case of the project with a volunteer administrator, to a high of 1,845 hours (49 FTEs). In total, 40,470 paid staff hours were reported (1,079 FTEs). The average number of paid staff hours reported for a typical week was 105 (2.8 FTEs).

Number of FTEs was grouped into categories for analysis purposes. As shown in Figure 18, there is a clear pattern where the largest number of projects report smaller amounts of FTEs with this dropping off as the number of FTEs increase. The single largest category is 0 to 1.99 FTEs - accounting for 53% (204 projects). This is followed by projects reporting between 2 and 5.99 FTEs - 37% (143 projects). Two percent of projects (7 projects) reported 11 or more FTEs. In total, approximately 78% of projects report fewer than 11 FTEs. In comparison, more than 85% of projects reported 10 or fewer CAPC-funded staff members. This discrepancy between number of staff members and FTEs indicates that projects tend to have staff members working less than a full 37.5 hour week, either choosing to split a FTE between two or more employees or having a single staff member work part-time.

In addition to information on CAPC funding, projects were also asked about monies from non-CAPC/CPNP sources (Question 9). Over half of the projects (56%; 216 projects) reported receiving money from other sources. This breakdown is presented in Figure 19. In total, 215 projects reported receiving $7,657,973.64 in other monies. One project that reported receiving money from other sources did not provide the actual amount received. Monies reported by individual projects ranged from a low of $42.00 to a high of $412,584.00. Projects reported receiving an average of $35,453 in funding from non-CAPC/CPNP sources.

Figure 20 displays the information on money from other sources by region. Ontario has the largest percentage of projects (76%; 31 projects) reporting that they received money from other sources. On the other extreme, Saskatchewan has the smallest percentage of projects (42%; 14 projects). This is followed closely by Quebec with 94 of projects (48%) reporting that they received money from other sources.

For projects that reported receiving funds other than CAPC/CPNP, types included other federal government funding, provincial/territorial funding, and "Other" funding (Question 10). One hundred and fifty-one projects reported receiving such "Other" funding as United Way, foundations, fund raising activities, businesses and individuals. In total, 63 projects reported receiving $1,343,506.50 in other federal government funding. In the case of provincial or territorial government funding, 125 projects reported receiving a total of $3,222,519.84. A total of $1,328,122.06 in municipal/regional government funding was reported by 56 projects. Finally, the 151 projects that received "Other" funding reported receiving a total of $1,763,825.24.

The NPP also collected information on non-monetary donations (Question 11). These "in-kind" donations included such examples as facilities, office supplies, office equipment, etc. As illustrated in Figure 21, an even greater majority of projects (72%) reported receiving some type of in-kind donations. Projects were asked to estimate the value in dollars of these in-kind donations (Question 12). In total, 274 projects reported receiving $2,715,535.50 in "in-kind" donations. This ranged from $98.00 to a high of $132,500.00 reported by one project. The average amount reported was $9,911.00.

An additional source of non-monetary support for the projects was time donated. Projects were asked whether any individuals or organizations donated hours to any part of the project (Question 13). Figure 22 illustrates that a strong majority of projects (85%) reported receiving donated hours. Projects were also asked to estimate the total number of hours of work donated to the project in a typical month (Question 14). In total, 328 projects reported receiving 61,761.65 hours of donated work from 8,331 people in a typical month. This works out to an average of 7.4 hours donated per person per month. The number of people donating time to projects ranged from the one person reported by 19 projects to the 290 reported by one project. On average, 25 people per project was reported. Donated hours ranged from three hours reported by three separate projects to a high of 3,030 reported by one project. The average number of hours reported by projects was 188.

Program Level Information

The NPP consists of two sections: a project level section and a program level section. All projects received one project level section and as many program level sections as they had programs. In total, the 385 projects provided information on 1,700 operational programs during the Cycle 1 data collection period. Information on programs per region is presented in Table 2 below. Unlike the case with projects, the largest percentage of programs are from the Atlantic region (26%; 447 programs).

Table 2: Programs by Region

Language of Service

Information on language of service delivery was gathered at the program level because a project could provide multiple programs delivered in different languages. Projects were asked "In what language or languages is this program offered?" (Question 15). Four options were given: English, French, Aboriginal languages, and "Other" languages. As projects were allowed to select more than one language per program, numbers will add to more than 100%. Three projects did not respond to this question. As shown in Figure 23, while the majority of programs (77%; 1,310 programs) are delivered in English, over a third of programs (34%; 569 programs) are delivered in French. On the other hand, programs offered in "Other" and aboriginal languages accounted for 7% and 5% of the total respectively. Concerning the number of programs delivered in aboriginal languages, it needs to be stated that this total excludes the 55 Aboriginal CAPC projects in Ontario which are conducting an evaluation separate from the national evaluation. The most commonly reported "Other" languages were Spanish, Chinese and Punjabi. The most commonly reported aboriginal languages were Cree and Dene.

Figure 24 examines the language of program by region. As shown, the overwhelming program language in all regions with the exception of Quebec is English. This ranges from 94% (77 programs) in Manitoba to 100% in the Territories. Within Quebec the dominant program language is French (98%; 418 programs). Programs offered in aboriginal languages are located primarily in Western Canada. This reaches a high of 38% in Saskatchewan (36 programs). Programs offered in other languages are focused in those provinces with many immigrants, Ontario and British Columbia, although Alberta and Quebec are also represented.

Cultural Orientation

In order to demonstrate the cultural diversity of CAPC programs, projects were asked whether their individual programs served a particular cultural group (Question 16). It is important to stress that projects were asked to report only those programs which were designed to serve a particular group, not simply all those programs serving new Canadians or aboriginal people. Figure 25 presents the results.

Eighteen percent of programs reported serving a particular cultural group (311 programs). Again, it is important to remember that there are 55 aboriginal projects in Ontario that are not participating in this evaluation. Information was not provided for three programs. For those programs serving a particular cultural group, information was further broken down into the types of cultures. This included aboriginal and other cultures. "Other" cultures were defined as "Other than Canadian-born". The most commonly reported "Other" cultural groups were Latin/South American, Chinese and African. The most commonly reported aboriginal groups were Cree and Metis.

Figure 26 illustrates the percentage of programs by region that serve a particular cultural group. Based on the 1,697 programs reporting data, the region with the greatest percentage of programs serving a particular cultural group was Saskatchewan, with 73% (71 programs). The region reporting the lowest percentage is the Atlantic region with 3% (14 programs). Somewhat surprisingly, given immigration patterns, only 11% of programs (35 programs) in Ontario serve a particular cultural group. Again, this seemingly low percentage of programs serving cultural groups in Ontario might be explained by the exclusion of the 55 aboriginal projects and their programs. It might also result from a stricter interpretation of what is meant by "designed to serve a particular cultural group".

Types of Participants

Data collected through the NPP was also intended to assist in the development of an overall profile of CAPC programs and the participants they serve. Towards this goal, projects were asked about the types of participants served by their programs (Question 17). Respondents were provided with four main groups of participants and asked to select the sub-group that best describes the participants in their programs.

The four options included:

1. Parents, caregivers and the children under their care;
2. Parents and caregivers (without the children under their care);
3. Pregnant women and/or pregnant teens; and,
4. Children and/or youth.

Information on types of participants was provided for 1,645 programs. As shown in Figure 27, the majority of CAPC programs (61%) have "parents and caregivers and the children under their care" as participants (1,003 programs). On the other hand, 2% of programs have "pregnant women and/or pregnant teens" as participants (40 programs). Programs with "children and youth alone" as participants account for 13% of the total (210 programs).

The programs with children and youth as participants, either alone or with their parents or caregivers, were also asked to provide the ages of the children in their programs (Question 17B). A range of ages were provided and projects were allowed to select as many as applied, meaning that numbers will total more than 100%. It must also be considered that for some regions, Quebec in particular, programs address children beyond the age of six.

As shown in Figure 28, the largest single age served by CAPC programs is four years of age (84%; 1,023 programs). This is followed closely by 83% of programs that report three year old participants (1,007 programs). As well, 78% of programs served children two years old (947 programs) and 73% of programs served children ages one and under 12 months (884 programs). Somewhat surprisingly given the focus of CAPC programs, 20% (241 programs) reported that they have children between the ages of seven and twelve are participants.

Main Program Objectives

Projects were asked to outline the three main objectives of their individual programs (Question 18). Respondents could select from among 15 different supplied options, including "Other", which allows projects to supply their own unique objective if it is not among the choices provided. Since this was a multiple response question, numbers will add to more than 100%. Information was not provided for 11 of the programs. As demonstrated in Figure 29, "improved parent skills and/or improved parent-child relationships" was the most frequently mentioned objective -- 61% of programs said that this was one of their objectives (1,025 programs). Three new objectives were recoded from the "Other" responses: improved physical health, provide respite for parents, and reduce or prevent violence. All three of these objectives were mentioned by approximately 1% of the programs (10 programs). These objectives, although mentioned by a small number of programs, have been isolated in order to reduce the number of programs reporting "Other". The remaining objectives mentioned under "Other" include such items as youth development and skills improvement or development.

Main Ways of Program Delivery

Once the main objectives of the individual programs were established, projects were asked to outline the main methods by which the programs were delivered (Question 19). Specifically, projects were provided with a list of 18 methods of delivery (including an "Other" option) and asked to select the three main methods that were used to deliver the individual program in question. As with all multiple response questions, the numbers will total more than 100%. Information was not provided for seven of the programs. There is not wide variability in the numbers reported but it is clear that the most popular methods of program delivery are, in order, "child-focused activities", "formal classes", and "informal classes". Figure 30 illustrates the main methods of delivery for CAPC programs. Four additional methods of program delivery were created from recoding of the "Other" responses: training, research studies, transportation, and meals/collective kitchens. All four were mentioned by approximately 1% of programs. The remaining 4% of programs that selected "Other" mentioned such methods as focus groups, presentations and unique forms of combining art with one of the other methods.

Timing of Program Delivery

A number of questions contained within the NPP were designed to lead to a better understanding of the various cycles of operation and levels of intensity of CAPC programs. For example, questions on both the seasonality of programs and whether they are offered full or part-time were asked.

Due to the various cycles of operation of CAPC programs, projects were asked to list the season/seasons in which the individual programs were offered (Question 20). Any program that was not offered in all four seasons was considered to be seasonal. Figure 31 shows that the majority of CAPC programs (58%) were offered year-round (974 programs) and 42% (718 programs) were seasonal. Information on this question was not provided for eight programs.

Figure 32 indicates a further breakdown of information reported for seasonal programs only. Since this was a multiple response question, numbers will total to more than 100%. As expected, for those programs that operate seasonally, the majority offered programs in the Fall, Winter and Spring. Only 13% of seasonal programs were operational during the Summer. This indicates that the majority of CAPC programs that operate seasonally are active only during the school year.

In addition to the seasonal aspect of delivery, programs were asked about the average number of hours per month that a single participant would be involved (Question 21). The intent of this question was to determine the intensity of involvement for an average participant. Some programs might offer a parenting class for two hours per week while a Head-Start program, on the other hand, could offer 12 hours per week. Figure 33 displays the results of this question.

For analysis purposes, responses have been recoded into four categories: 0 to 6 hours per month, 7 to 8 hours per month, 9 to 15 hours per month, and 16 hours or more per month. Information was not provided or not applicable for 238 programs. Responses ranged from a low of half an hour per month to 160 hours per month reported by two programs. The average number of hours per month that a single participant could be involved in a program was calculated as 13.9 hours. Collapsing categories shows that over half of the programs (54%) reported that participants could be involved between 0 and 8 hours per month.

Projects were also asked about the number of weeks on average a single participant could be involved in a program within the 26-week reporting period (Question 22). This was intended to determine the duration of involvement of an average participant. Responses ranged from one week to the maximum 26 weeks. The average number of weeks of participant involvement reported was 14.5 weeks. As shown in Figure 34, if we collapse categories further, approximately one-half of the programs were available to a single participant for 13 or fewer weeks. Twenty-four percent of the programs allowed a single participant 25 or more weeks of involvement (322 programs).

Projects were asked two questions focusing on the number of participants per program. These questions were intended to show the number of people reached by CAPC programs. Essentially the questions were an attempt to discover the "reach" of the program in question. The questions dealt with the number of different children and different parents and caregivers that participate in a program in a typical month.

Projects were asked to estimate the number of different children that participate in each program in a typical month (Question 23). Information was not provided or not applicable for 509 programs. Responses ranged from a low of zero to a high of 2,160 children. Three programs indicated that they serve zero children in a typical month and this response seemed to indicate a misunderstanding of the question or an incorrect interpretation by what is meant by a typical month. The average number of child participants per month per program was 48. Programs reported a total of 57,038 different child participants in a typical month. The information was recoded into categories for analysis purposes. Figure 35 shows that 23% of the programs have between one and 10 child participants per month. One percent of programs had no child participants during a typical month. On the other extreme, 9% of the programs had 100 or more child participants per month.

Projects were also asked to estimate the number of different parents and caregivers that participate in each program in a typical month (Question 24). Information was not provided or was not applicable for 255 programs. Responses ranged from a low of zero to a high of 2,400 parents and caregivers per month. Two programs reported zero. The total number of different parent and caregiver participants in a typical month was 47,234. The average number of parent and caregiver participants per program in a typical month was 33. As shown in Figure 36, the counts for parent and caregiver participants were smaller overall. This seems to make sense both because of the focus of CAPC programs and because a parent or caregiver could bring more than one child to participate in a program. Only 4% of the programs had 100 or more parent or caregiver participants in a typical month.

The information on child and adult program participants was also collapsed into an overall category of total participants. Information was not available for 63 programs. Programs reported a total of 104,232 participants in a typical month. The average number of total participants per program in a typical month was 64. Figure 37 shows the total number of participants per program in a typical month.

Table 3 shows the information on program participants by region. The three regions with the greatest number of program participants are Atlantic, Ontario and Quebec. Ontario accounts for the largest single percentage of child participants (27%), while the Atlantic region accounts for the largest single percentage (28%) of parent and caregiver participants (defined as adult in the table).

Table 3: Program Participants by Region