How do we know whether a kinship support program actually helped?
Our evaluation goes beyond attendance and clicks to look at connection, usefulness, referral success and the recurring barriers that families encounter.
Part of our Research & Impact resource series. See the main Research & Impact guide for the wider topic and related resources.
Information reviewed September 2026. Policies and service processes can change, so use the linked official source when a current rule matters.
We count what tells us whether the service actually helped.
Website visits, attendance and referrals are useful activity measures, but we also look at whether a caregiver reached the right service, felt less isolated or made progress on the problem that brought them in.
We use four layers of measurement.
Reach
How many caregivers, families, professionals and communities did the program reach?
Connection
Did the caregiver reach the referral, attend the group or receive the intended resource?
Usefulness
Did the caregiver understand the next step, feel better equipped or identify the right service?
System learning
What repeated barriers, referral loops or service gaps appeared across families?
We match the measurement to the program.
- Navigator: time to connection, handoffs, referral success, unresolved barrier.
- Peer support: attendance, sense of connection, useful topics, unmet needs.
- Family program: participation, caregiver/child feedback, observed engagement and barriers to access.
- Professional education: knowledge gained, intended practice change and later implementation.
- Resource library: page usefulness, downloads and common search questions, not traffic alone.
How we evaluated GRAND-Families Camp 2026
For our 2026 camp evaluation, we collected pre-camp welcome cards, post-camp caregiver reflections, child feedback and staff observations. We then compared the different sources to see whether the same themes were appearing across the weekend.
Caregivers described connection and respite, children described friendship, pride and positive experiences, and staff recorded many of the same patterns in their observations. Because the group was small, we treat these findings as qualitative program evaluation rather than population-level research.
We collect the minimum personal information needed.
Evaluation does not require a caregiver to disclose private trauma, court details or diagnoses merely to show that a program was valuable. We use anonymous or de-identified measures where individual identity is not needed.
We separate service eligibility from research participation.
Families do not have to participate in research or evaluation beyond reasonable service feedback in order to receive support. When a formal research project is involved, we use the appropriate consent and ethics process.
Building caregiver voices into interpretation, not only data collection.
Numbers can show that a referral did not work as intended, while caregivers can help explain why. We include lived-experience perspectives when interpreting patterns and considering what may need to change.
We connect evaluation to the future PEI research agenda.
Program data can help contribute to a future State of Grandfamilies in PEI report, but it is intended to remain labelled as Building GRAND-Families program data rather than presented as population prevalence.
Was this page useful?
Tell us what would make this more practical for PEI families or professionals.