Table 2.

Characteristics of CDP organizations in Canada, 2004 and 2010.

Characteristic	User		Resource
	2004 n = 216	2010 n = 197	2004 n = 77	2010 n = 121
User and resource organizationsa
Age (y), median (IQR)b	28 (7–51)	30 (12–57)	20 (2–48)	22 (12–50)
Type of organization, %
Formal public health	48	50	31	25
NGO	25	28	34	38
Grouped organization	19	13	12	15
Other	7	8	23	22
Geographic area served, %
Region	71	58	38	39
Province	24	34	52	48
Multiprovince/territory	2	4	1	4
Canada	3	4	9	9
Level of CDP activity, %
Division/unit	58	73	60	53
Entire organization	42	27	40	47
No. Full Time Equivalents, median (IQR)
Organizations housing CDP units	150 (69–850)	200 (52–1000)	100 (43–1100)	100 (30–300)
CDP units housed in larger organizations	15 (7–35)	17 (8.8–46)	7 (4–22)	12.5 (9–33)
Organizations entirely engaged in CDP	3 (1–11)	2.5 (1–7)	2.5 (1–7)	3.(1–7)
No. Volunteers, median (IQR)	35 (12–200)	31 (10–250)	12 (0–33)	13 (0–50)
Applied outside for funds, %	77	81	69	66
Source of outside funds, %
Research funding organization	10	17	17	11
Health Canada	68	39	68	38
Other federal ministry	11	13	21	13
Public Health Agency of Canada	–	39	–	49
Provincial Ministry/Dept. of Health	69	64	53	68
Other provincial ministry	22	33	23	31
National NGO	8	14	8	20
Provincial NGO	35	24	17	25
Municipality	16	19	–	13
Major public charity	13	19	19	16
Private foundation	18	21	–	18
Private funding	28	25	25	26
Fund raising	23	25	13	16
Other	2	18	6	15
No. External sources of funding, median (IQR)	3 (2–4)	2 (0–3)	1 (0–3)	3 (2–5)
User organizations
High/very high level of priority for CDP, %c
All organizations	62	60	–	–
Organizations housing CDP units	51	48	–	–
Separate budget line for CDP, %	55	62	–	–
Entity responsible for CDP, %
Specific unit	51	37	–	–
More than one unit	–	46	–	–
Groups within a unit	–	74	–	–
Specific manager	62	76	–	–
Part of all managers' jobs	46	45	–	–
Part of board's mandate	82	85	–	–
Primary target, %
General	91	85	–	–
Specific health problem	59	43	–	–
Specific demographic group	69	60	–	–
Specific region	51	33	–	–
Size of population served, %
<50,000	13	15	–	–
50,000–99,999	16	11	–	–
100,000–199.000	24	15	–	–
200,000–499,999	13	14	–	–
>500,000	33	45	–	–
Resource organizations
Resources, %
Adequacyd	–	–	33	31
Separate transfer budget, %
Allocated for most recently transferred innovation	–	–	61	59
Target organizations, %
Formal public healthe	–	–	69	66
Community health centre/CLSC	–	–	47	41
Centres de santé et services sociauxf	–	–	–	71
Family health team	–	–	–	27
Government	–	–	65	53
NGO	–	–	51	69
School board	–	–	62	65
Health professional assoc.	–	–	42	43
Branch/chapter of resource organization	–	–	23	22
Community group	–	–	66	69

^aNumber of organizations < number of interviews.

^bIQR = interquartile range.

^cProportion indicating ‘high’ or ‘very high’ extent of support on a 5 point Likert scale where 1 = Not at all and 5 = Completely.

^dProportion indicating ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree.

^eProportion indicating ‘yes’ to health authority/district/service or public health unit/agency.

^fCSSS exist in QC only. Therefore the proportion was calculated among QC resource organizations.