Results

The results are presented in two sections, which outlined the perceived successes and challenges of programme implementation by NYHDP stakeholders.

Successes

This section outlines the identified successes of the NYHDP implementation, which include the following themes: a) Strong programme fidelity due to a well-planned structure, b) Competitive programme structures that were well-planned and implemented, c) Stable organizational structures, d) Increased local appropriation e) Increased participation rates, and f) Perceived positive impact on the region.

Strong programme fidelity due to a well-planned structure. Based on the completed log sheets during the 2012-2013 season, the majority of the time (84%), stakeholders perceived that the planned session objectives were met (e.g. introduce and practice break-out). This indicated that not only were the planned activities implemented, but the overall objectives of those planned activities were also met. The NYHDP staff typically believed that youth were engaged ‘most of the time’ (63%) or ‘all of the time’ (29%) during session activities. When youth were documented as being engaged ‘all of the time,’ it was typically during on-ice sessions whereas youth were engaged ‘most of the time’ during classroom activities. Additionally, during tryouts, there were often wait times between drills as there were several participants on-ice; therefore youth were documented as engaged ‘some of the time’ or ‘most of the time.’

Competitive programme structure well-planned and implemented. From the session log sheet analysis, it was evident that many sessions were thoroughly planned and structured. Staff had outlined goals that they wanted to accomplish at the beginning of each session and had planned activities to support and achieve these goals. For example, during an on-ice session, coaches had the goal of working on breakouts, whereas, the goal of the classroom session was to work on life skills such as goal setting, teamwork, or effort. From the 149 log sheets collected, all of the activities were implemented as originally planned by programme staff 78% of the time. The remaining sessions did not have all activities implemented as planned for various reasons. For instance, many on-ice sessions were structured as a progression of drills. If youth were struggling to accomplish a drill, coaches reported spending more time on that drill prior to moving to the next drill progression to ensure youth comprehension. Similarly, during the educational component, the Pedagogical Coordinator believed some sessions ran into time constraints when one activity took longer than planned. Some educational activities facilitated lengthy group discussions about life topics (e.g. plans for the future, healthy life habits), which resulted in further planned activities not being accomplished. Overall, the majority of activities were delivered as planned in a given session and in some cases, staff documented that there were “even more activities implemented than planned” (September 25).

Stable organizational structure. Over the past years, the NYHDP built a stable and reliable staff team, which included a full-time staff team of 10 individuals with six involved for five years or more. The Regional Coordinator was of Inuit descent and six of the staff have years of experience working in the north prior to working with the NYHDP. The Director stated: “[Having core staff group] helps to highlight the stable organizational structure of the NYHDP, especially the level of dedication and belief in this youth development programme by many people.” Similarly, Principal 2 stated: “Hockey has always been something very popular, but never organized as it is now—the way that it’s organized is very beneficial.” Not only was this stability identified as important for the internal structure of the organization, it has also had a critical impact on youth as they have been able to build reciprocal relationships with the staff who have been able to learn about youth at an individual level and work with them from year to year. Principal 1 highlighted how pertinent coach reliability has been to programme success: “It’s about working together…if there is no coach to send youth to—you’re promising the teachers we’re going to use hockey to modify behaviour—but there’s no coach. The buy-in and effect was instant in [village] because coaching staff were reliable.”

Increased local appropriation. Having increased local appropriation refers to the programme becoming more Inuit run by providing opportunities for local individuals to be involved at the organizational level, specifically related to programme delivery. In early years of the program, many staff were from southern parts of Québec and Ontario and travelled to villages to deliver the programme. Over the past years, programme staff have created opportunities which has fostered interest in many individuals within the region. For example, alternative pathways have been provided for youth as they age out of the programme (e.g. opportunities to become LHTs). Several youth still involved in the programme expressed interest in working as LHTs, which has been documented as helping to make the transition easier as they become adults. All interested individuals go through the coaching certification programme as a group at the commencement of each hockey season, which follows the delivery of a standardized provincial training program. The Director vocalized how proud he was of two long-standing participants of the NYHDP: “After many seasons in the programme, [name of youth] are taking it to a higher level; becoming hockey instructors. From 9, playing Atom back, to 16 playing Midget and being hockey instructors on top of it—really nice.” Similar to youth participation rates, the number of LHTs also increased. From 2010 to 2013, this number increased from 15 to 38 across the region, which was the most LHTs the NYHDP had since inception. Having LHTs who went through the NYHDP and were community members helped with programme sustainability, as stated by the Director: “Our LHT quality is better. It’s mostly Midget kids who have grown in the programme. It gives a chance for kids to grow within this structure and learn; this is the key to sustainability of the programme at the instructional level.”

In one of the larger villages (~2200 people), a Coordinator was hired as a full-time NYHDP staff. As the NYHDP was growing at both the competitive and recreational levels, this role was to specifically oversee the recreational programme allowing the director to focus attention towards the competitive component. Because of his involvement, there was a consistent schedule that was implemented throughout the season. Coordinator 2 went on the ice with youth and provided support for LHTs. He stated: “I’ve got time to discipline them and have them pick up their stuff. It is way more than just hockey to pick up their stuff in the dressing room: the respect of the arena—picking up their garbage—and each other. I can see a difference because it’s constant. I’m always there.”

Conversely, in a smaller village (~300 people), an individual took on the role of the Regional Coordinator of the NYHDP, a paid position that was initiated in 2011. Due to his efforts in promoting and recruiting to the programme, eight LHTs were trained and acted as village coaches at the recreational level. Parent 1 spoke of the benefit of having the Regional Coordinator: “He has been a great mentor and provides support and resources to LHTs. He’s at the arena every night with the kids.”

Increased participation rates. Participation rates for the recreational and competitive components have grown since programme inception. Table 1 illustrates the participation rates from 2006 to 2013. For the recreational level, although no concrete numbers were available as rates of participation vary from one evening to the next within each village, it was documented that an average of 20 youth per evening, per village participated in the programme. Coach 2 talked about this perceived success: “We have around 60 kids playing every day over three hours… 20 kids per session…and it’s getting more.” Villages in Nunavik range from populations of 195 to 237528; therefore having an average of 20 youth attend hockey on a given night was considered positive. The Director reinforced the importance of participation rates at the recreational level:

Over the past years, we have noted in most places that participation rates have been increasing at the community level. Due in part to those rates’ increase, we have noted that the caliber of Nunavummiut youth hockey have also increased from year to year. It seems that we have more and more interest in kids wanting to participate in the NYHDP and be part of Regional Tournaments and various Nunavik Nordiks’ hockey camps hosted in [village] each fall.

Furthermore, the participation rates have increased for the regional tournaments from Year 1 (n = 400 in 2011-12) to Year 2 (n = 425 in 2012-2013) to Year 3 (n = 460 in 2013-2014). Over the past three years, the highest participation rates have been at the Atom and Peewee levels, yet Bantam and Midget numbers have also increased over this time, which has been seen as a success, as many youth begin to drop out of sport around this age because of other interests and life demands (see table 2).

Perceived positive impact on the region. The NYHDP facilitated the development of the Nunavik region on several levels. Based on recreational reports, it was evident that in the NYHDP’s early years, money was leveraged from the province of Québec to improve conditions of Nunavik’s arenas, including renovating ice surface and boards, repairing Zambonis, and replacing broken light fixtures. Eco-Ice systems were installed in every arena to aid in the commencement of an earlier hockey season and for reliability and consistency of programme delivery. These sustainable changes have positively impacted not only the NYHDP participants, but the region as a whole.

Much media attention was garnered within the first two years of programme initiation. Having a retired professional hockey player as a Director helped facilitate initial media attention, yet as the programme became more established, the programme itself helped to bring visibility to the region. This media attention led to hockey equipment donations from all over Canada, which helped youth within Nunavik have the opportunity to play hockey that might not have been able to afford equipment.

This programme not only had a positive impact on the region in terms of physical resources, but also provided opportunities for youth to participate in organized sport and be physically active. Based on the previous theme of ‘Increased Participation Rates,’ providing such an opportunity was successful for youth within Nunavik, as Youth 1 stated: “It gives us something fun to do because we’re in an isolated place and there’s nothing much to do here.” Two stakeholders talked about how programme participation provided a positive outlet for youth: “The kids may struggle or have problems, but when they’re on the ice, they’re the kids who smile and work hard for hockey, they’re like two different kids; it really has positive effects” (Coach 3) and “NYHDP is about much more than hockey. I never needed to be ‘sold’ on the value of what the organization [NYHDP] was trying to accomplish, it has so many benefits for youth” (Parent 2). Moreover, Coordinator 1 stated:

Being in the programme, that’s what they need. Even if they aren’t doing great in school –it’s really sad that some of the kids have bad family life—even if they have this two weeks of opportunity to be here, that’s really great for them. They’re going to remember that forever…it’s good to have the regional tournaments too because you’d love to keep all 60 kids that come to the tryouts, but at least they get a chance to be involved in the [regional] tournament.

Lastly, Youth 1 discussed life skills they believed were developed as part of programme participation: “Leadership was a really big one because [coaches] reinforced it every chance they had. Also responsibility, for yourself, your choices; both in and out of hockey,” while Youth 2 spoke of the benefit of engaging in the LHT programme: “Being an LHT has helped me with what I have learned in the programme—like leadership, effort, and responsibilities. Now I can put what I learned into practice with others, like the younger kids.”

The change in partnership with the school board sparked interest in one village’s school, where the programme had been well implemented (e.g. teachers/principals supporting and enforcing the programme, high youth engagement, reliable coaches). The education staff passed a resolution at the municipal level to have recreational hockey tied to youth’s schooling. Specifically, this meant that while schooling was no longer connected to the competitive component, the municipality wanted to enforce the importance of attendance and effort in school through recreational hockey participation. Principal 1 stated: “Since there is no longer a formal partnership with the programme, the local council is reviewing our request to have a partnership with the hockey programme—for local practices and games.” The result of this resolution was documented in an email from the principal to the Director during the 2012-2013 season:

The resolution for the school/community hockey programme was passed before Christmas. Since then, there have been major improvements in school from: (names 10 students). All of these boys were at risk of trashing their school year. The turnaround has been astounding. I only had to cut hockey for one or two practices and things got back on track. Their attendance has improved, their work in class has improved. Teachers have come to see me because they are so delighted with the improvement…one mother was delighted about the improvement. The boys didn’t end up losing very much hockey, but they gained a lot in school. (January 17)

This illustrated that while the partnership was not a feasible component of the NYHDP for all villages, the initial partnership worked well enough in certain villages to want to continue this endeavour locally, as it was perceived as having a positive impact on youth involved in hockey.

Challenges within the NYHDP

Three themes emerged pertaining to programme challenges: a) Need for more reliable human resources, b) Difficulties maintaining formal partnership with the school board, and c) The high costs associated with the implementation of NYHDP.

Need for more reliable human resources. The NYHDP utilized a framework that was implemented at the recreational level, yet each community adapted this framework slightly to best fit within their village. Although one of the strengths was having a stable organizational structure, some villages struggled finding reliable human resources (e.g. LHTs, recreation coordinator, arena manager, volunteers) to successfully implement the programme.

One recurring challenge was to find LHTs who were willing to commit to regularly run practices at the recreational level. Coordinator 1 stated: “Half the time kids will come to the rink and there’s no coach to run the practice…it’s pretty frustrating for the kids.” Although this was not the case for all LHTs it was a common theme, as Principal 2 explained: “He [youth LHT] is reliable, he goes every night. So for us, that’s a big step because other kids his age that are also LHTs, they are hit or miss 50% of the time—sometimes they show, sometimes they don’t.” Two stakeholders seconded this: “It’s hard to find members from the community that are really involved in the programme and that will stay for a while” (Coach 1) and “I want more local people helping out, helping the little people in the dressing room and on the ice…more LHTs on the ice for the younger kids. Parents should help.” (Youth 2)

Another identified challenge related to human resources was securing positions to support programme delivery at the recreational level, such as hockey coordinators, arena managers, and ice resurfacers. These positions extend beyond the NYHDP’s control, but still had an impact on the programme. The programme often struggled at the recreational level because several villages did not have regular arena operating hours or the arena and ice surface was not maintained. As Coach 2 discussed: “They wanted an arena manager, janitor, and security guard, but the municipality said we can’t afford that. [Adults] clean the ice for themselves at night, nevermind kids. There are always places, like in [village], no one takes care of the arena.” Coach 3 discussed the issue of consistency with staff at the local level: “For the most part you get someone great and you lose them; there’s many issues that even having regular hockey seems to be difficult with not having an arena manager”.

A desire for more parental involvement within the programme was also identified by stakeholders. Although there are many parents who support the overall goals of the programme, there was a lack of parental involvement within the program. It was identified from 2 years of community reports that no villages had parents who went on ice during practices, despite efforts made by NYHDP stakeholders to encourage this. Parent 1, who had two children participating in the programme spoke to this:

In the beginning, parents were getting involved, but as usual they slowly disappear, but there are always those few parents who always go and watches and supports, but I think we really need to support more. To make it really work, make it better, the LHTs need support from the parents.
Coach 2 discussed a possible cultural link as to why few parents are involved in the programme: “For a lot of parents the role of being a parent is to bring food on the table and have a place where kids can sleep. So if this is your perception of a parent, you’re far from going on the ice to support your kids learning hockey.”

Difficulties in maintaining formal partnership with the school board. As mentioned, a formal partnership between the NYHDP and the school board was eliminated in 2012 despite the intended goal of involving the school board as a key programme stakeholder. The partnership was eliminated as parties experienced difficulties reaching common ground for two reasons: differing rules and regulations of each organization and a lack of consistent implementation of NYHDP objectives across the village schools. Since this was not consistently carried out across the region, the partnership was formally eliminated. Programme adjustments have been made since the termination of the partnership. Although the programme was adapted based on this change, stakeholders shared mixed opinions on whether this decision was positive or negative for the programme. Principal 1 discussed how the lack of partnership meant youth may not be as motivated to attend school:

When we look at the grade fives and sixes and their hockey boys, we know they have a lot of baggage from home and for them to have hockey—they’re driven by hockey—it’s a sport they love. If I can use hockey as a reward for improvement in school then it means a lot to me as a school principal – if I can’t then there may be a problem.

A teacher-coach discussed his perspective:

It’s like if you play hockey in the south, no one asks you for your report card; it’s the same thing here right now. Last year, we had a bargaining tool. It kept a lot of kids in school. Now it’s a free-for-all. Which isn’t bad, it’s an extra-curricular, kids should be privy to that, but we lost that bargaining tool. (Coach 1)

Coach 2 went on to say:

I would say last year it kept a lot of kids coming more often—it’s not that those kids have dropped out, but it’s more ‘if I don’t show up to these two classes today, I’m not going to lose my hockey tonight so I’ll skip these two classes’, whereas last year, if you skipped you wouldn’t go to hockey that night.

In contrast, Youth 1 talked about how the elimination of the partnership provided opportunities to youth who might not have otherwise had a chance to play hockey: “For the kids that don’t go to school [consistently], it gives them something to do, like a chance. It’s probably not their fault that they’re not going to school because there are social problems so it gives them a chance.” A local coach seconded this when discussing the increase in participation rates since the end of the formal partnership: “There are more kids since the programme is not link directly with school so according to me it’s a good thing for the programme.” (January 12)

The decision to end the formal partnership was a result of inconsistencies in the implementation of the NYHDP policies. Principal 2 talked about how some teachers were using the programme partnership inappropriately: “I think one of the biggest problems is not having a supportive team under you as a principal; just a lot of teachers are not on board with the partnership or they use [hockey] in the opposite way—that it’s a punishment.” Similarly, Parent 2 explained that she had mixed emotions related to the partnership, as she believed there was potential for a successful partnership, yet was not implemented appropriately:

I think it really helped when it (hockey) was tied to school as long as it’s used right. There are students who struggle and I find they’re not being understood; they have more going on in their lives than people realize. [Teachers] use hockey as a punishment; the kids are struggling in life so they do bad behaviour and get punished and aren’t allowed to do what they love most (hockey). We need to figure out a way to use it properly.

Parent 1 believed that the decision to end the partnership was premature: “I find it’s too soon to let this programme go out of the schools because it was just starting and it needs to be there for years for the school to really understand how it works. It wasn’t there long enough to make a really strong impact.” It should be noted that some of the communities continued to implement policies that link participation to education despite the elimination of the formal partnership between the school board and NYHDP. For example, Principal 1 explained:

I meet parents of students who are underachieving. Most parents are at a loss as how to rectify the problem behaviour. For years, I have been hearing parents say, “My child doesn’t listen to me; my child listens better to you.” This year I have been hearing a new one: “Just cut their hockey.” It’s funny, but true—parents are begging me to cut their child’s hockey if they don’t attend school. Many parents appreciated that in the past we could use hockey to motivate their child to stay in school—they realize that success in school was a goal even more important than hockey.

This was further outlined in the ‘NYHDP had a positive impact on the region’ theme.

The NYHDP was expensive to implement. The NYHDP was identified as a costly programme primarily because of the geographical set-up of Nunavik and the transportation costs required to make the programme function. The competitive component and regional tournaments were the most expensive programme elements as youth were flown from their respective villages for tryouts, training camps, and tournaments. For example, in the 2012-2013 season competitive tryouts had 50 to 65 youth and regional tournaments has approximately 100 youth in attendance, which meant all youth who were not from the host village were flown to and from this location. Coach 4 discussed: “The price of plane tickets are really expensive from coast to coast so that’s a main issue…every year it’s a lot of money – it’s really expensive to travel in this area.” A charter was needed for each competitive team to travel to large cities in Ontario and Québec for the end-of-season tournament. Along with the costs for youth travel, there were also travel costs associated with stakeholders for programme implementation (e.g. coaches, coordinators). Additionally, it was noted that hockey was expensive to play and many youth from families living on low incomes could not afford the equipment. The Director noted: “Although hockey equipment availabilities are not always there for kids in all villages, we still see the numbers of participants grow, but equipment needs will continue to be a definite obstacle to allow more children to participate.” However, it was suggested that youth experiences and outcomes exceed the expense, as Coach 1 stated: “I know it’s really expensive, but it’s really fun…the kids go wild every time they go on the ice. It just gives a reason for the kids to play and practice.”