National Anti-Drug Strategy Evaluation

Appendix E: Evaluation Instruments (cont)

General Interview Guide for Stakeholders (G2)

The Government of Canada has a long history in the horizontal management of drug issues. Following the Canada’s Drug Strategy (CDS), which had focused on substance use and abuse since 1978, the National Anti-Drug Strategy (the Strategy) was initiated in 2007. The Strategy is a horizontal initiative of twelve federal departments and agencies, led by the Department of Justice Canada. The goal of the Strategy is to contribute to safer and healthier communities through coordinated efforts to prevent use, treat dependency and reduce production and distribution of illicit drugs. The Strategy has three major activity areas:

  1. Prevention Action Plan;
  2. Treatment Action Plan; and
  3. Enforcement Action Plan.

On behalf of the Department of Justice, Ference Weicker & Company, a management consulting firm, is conducting an evaluation of the National Anti-Drug Strategy (the Strategy). As part of this process, we are conducting interviews with senior representatives from departments that have been involved with the Strategy. The information we collect from you will be held confidential and will be reported only in summary form with the responses of other representatives whom we interview.

CONTACT INFORMATION

A. RELEVANCE

1. In what area(s) of activities have you been involved?

Confirm the appropriateness of the interview guide (i.e., involved in more than one action plan).
Change to the appropriate guide if only involved in one area.

2. How familiar are you with the Strategy

2a. How do you describe your involvement with the National Anti-Drug Strategy?

2b. How long have you been involved with the Strategy?

3. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is no need at all, 3 is somewhat of a need, and 5 is a major need, how much of a need do you think there is for programming that:

4. Do you view the National Anti-Drug Strategy and its associated activities as aligning with the roles and responsibilities of the federal government?

Federal government

B. EFFECTIVENESS

1. Overall, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all successful, 3 is somewhat successful and 5 is very successful, how successful do you think that the Strategy has been to date in:

2. What other significant impacts, positive and negative, would you say each component of the Strategy has been generated?

3. In your opinion, what major factors have contributed to the success of the Strategy to date?

4. What do you see as some of the factors that may have constrained its success to date?

5. Are there particular documents that you recommend we review regarding outcomes relevant to the Strategy (e.g. recent performance reports, surveys, research reports)?

C. EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY

1. How familiar are you with the delivery mechanism and cost- efficiency of the Strategy or any of these three action plans? (by cost efficiency, we mean the cost of resources used approximates the minimum amount of resources needed to complete a task and achieve expected outcomes)

2. (If select 3 and above) In what manner and to what extent do the design of the delivery mechanisms and the governance structure of the Strategy contribute to its effectiveness and efficiency? Why do you say that?

3. Apart from what we've discussed, are there any alternative approaches, structures or strategies that might be more efficient in achieving the intended results of the Strategy?

D. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Looking back over your involvement in the Strategy, what do you see as some of the (other) key lessons that have been learned and best practices that have developed?

2. Do you have any additional comments you would like to make regarding the Strategy?

3. Are there any other organizations or individuals you would recommend we contact to get feedback on the Strategy (e.g. funding recipients, provincial/territorial/municipal or other partners, researchers, etc.)?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!

Interview Guide for Prevention Stakeholders (G2)

The Government of Canada has a long history in the horizontal management of drug issues. Following the Canada’s Drug Strategy (CDS), which had focused on substance use and abuse since 1978, the National Anti-Drug Strategy (the Strategy) was initiated in 2007. The Strategy is a horizontal initiative of twelve federal departments and agencies, led by the Department of Justice Canada. The goal of the Strategy is to contribute to safer and healthier communities through coordinated efforts to prevent use, treat dependency and reduce production and distribution of illicit drugs. The Strategy has three major activity areas:

  1. Prevention Action Plan;
  2. Treatment Action Plan; and
  3. Enforcement Action Plan.

Ference Weicker & Company, a management consulting firm, has been hired by the Department of Justice to evaluate the Strategy. As part of this evaluation, we are conducting interviews with representatives from organizations and departments that have been involved with the Strategy in different ways. The information we collect from you will be held confidential and will be reported only in summary form with the responses of other representatives whom we interview.

CONTACT INFORMATION

A. RELEVANCE

1. In what area(s) of activities have you been involved?

Confirm the appropriateness of the interview guide (i.e., involved in more than one action plan).
Change to the appropriate guide if only involved in one area.

2. How familiar are you with the Strategy

3. How do you describe your involvement with respect to the Prevention Activities of the National Anti-Drug Strategy?

4. The Prevention Action Plan of the Strategy has focused on raising awareness and understanding of the harmful social and health effects of illicit drug use, particularly among youth, and developing prevention strategies. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is no need at all, 3 is somewhat of a need, and 5 is a major need, how much of a need do you think there has been for this type of programming?

4a. Why do you say that?

5. Do you view the Prevention Action Plan and its associated activities as aligning with the roles and responsibilities of the federal government?

Federal government

6. What, if any, other programs are implemented by federal and/or provincial/territorial departments, the non-profit and/or private sector that share similar objectives with the Prevention Action Plan?

IF NONE IDENTIFIED, SKIP TO SECTION B

B. EFFECTIVENESS

1. The activities of the Prevention Action Plan could potentially generate a variety of different types of impacts. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is no impact at all in that area, 3 is somewhat of an impact, and 5 is a major impact, how much of an impact do you believe that the Action Plan has had to date in terms of:

2. What other impacts, positive or negative, have been generated by the activities of the Prevention Action Plan?

3. What major factors have contributed to the success of the Prevention Action Plan to date?

4. What do you see as some of the factors that may have constrained its success to date?

5. Are there particular documents that you recommend we review regarding outcomes relevant to the Prevention Action Plan (e.g. recent performance reports or stakeholder surveys)?

C. EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY

1. How familiar are you with the delivery mechanism and cost- efficiency of the Strategy or any of these three action plans? (by cost efficiency, we mean the cost of resources used approximates the minimum amount of resources needed to complete a task and achieve expected outcomes)

2. (If select 3 and above) Based on your experience, in what manner and to what extent does the design of the delivery mechanisms and the governance structure of the Strategy contribute to its effectiveness and efficiency? Why do you say that?

3. Apart from what we have discussed, what, if any, alternative approaches, structures or strategies might be more efficient in achieving the intended results of the Prevention Action Plan?

D. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Looking back over your involvement in the Prevention activities of the Strategy, what do you see as some of the (other) key lessons that have been learned and best practices that have developed?

2. Do you have any additional comments you would like to make regarding the Strategy?

3. Are there any other organizations or individuals you would recommend we contact to get feedback on the Strategy (e.g. funding recipients, provincial/territorial/municipal or other partners, researchers, etc.)?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!

Interview Guide for Treatment Stakeholders (G2)

The Government of Canada has a long history in the horizontal management of drug issues. Following the Canada’s Drug Strategy (CDS), which had focused on substance use and abuse since 1978, the National Anti-Drug Strategy (the Strategy) was initiated in 2007. The Strategy is a horizontal initiative of twelve federal departments and agencies, led by the Department of Justice Canada. The goal of the Strategy is to contribute to safer and healthier communities through coordinated efforts to prevent use, treat dependency and reduce production and distribution of illicit drugs. The Strategy has three major activity areas:

  1. Prevention Action Plan;
  2. Treatment Action Plan; and
  3. Enforcement Action Plan.

Ference Weicker & Company, a management consulting firm, has been hired by the Department of Justice to evaluate the Strategy. As part of this evaluation, we are conducting interviews with representatives from organizations and departments that have been involved with the Strategy in different ways. The information we collect from you will be held confidential and will be reported only in summary form with the responses of other representatives whom we interview.

CONTACT INFORMATION

A. RELEVANCE

1. In what area(s) of activities have you been involved?

Confirm the appropriateness of the interview guide.
If not appropriate, change to the appropriate guide or to the general guide if involved in more than one action plan.

2. How familiar are you with the Treatment activities of the Strategy?

3. How do you describe your involvement with respect to the Treatment Activities of the National Anti-Drug Strategy?

3a. How long have been involved with this part of Strategy?

4. The Treatment Action Plan has focused on supporting effective treatment and rehabilitation systems. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is no need at all, 3 is somewhat of a need, and 5 is a major need, how much of a need do you think there has been for this type of programming?

4a. Why do you say that?

5. Based on your experience, do you view the Treatment Action Plan and its associated activities as aligning with the roles and responsibilities of the federal government?

Federal government

6. What, if any, other programs are implemented by federal and/or provincial/territorial departments, the non-profit and/or private sector that share similar objectives with the Treatment Action Plan?

IF NONE IDENTIFIED, SKIP TO SECTION B

B. EFFECTIVENESS

1. The activities of the Treatment Action Plan could potentially generate a variety of different types of impacts. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is no impact at all in that area, 3 is somewhat of an impact, and 5 is a major impact, how much of an impact do you believe that the Strategy has had to date in terms of:

2. What other impacts, positive or negative, have been generated by the activities of the Treatment Action Plan?

3. What major factors have contributed to the success of the Treatment Action Plan to date?

4. What do you see as some of the factors that may have constrained its success to date?

5. Are there particular documents that you recommend we review regarding outcomes relevant to the Treatment Action Plan (e.g. recent performance reports or stakeholder surveys)?

C. EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY

1. How familiar are you with the delivery mechanism and cost- efficiency of the Strategy or any of these three action plans? (by cost efficiency, we mean the cost of resources used approximates the minimum amount of resources needed to complete a task and achieve expected outcomes)

2. (If select 3 and above) In what manner and to what extent does the design of the delivery mechanisms and the governance structure of the Strategy contribute to its effectiveness and efficiency? Why do you say that?

3. Apart from what we've discussed, are there any alternative approaches, structures or strategies that might be more efficient in achieving the intended results of the Treatment Action Plan?

D. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Looking back over your involvement in the Treatment activities of the Strategy, what do you see as some of the (other) key lessons that have been learned and best practices that have developed?

2. Do you have any additional comments you would like to make regarding the Strategy?

3. Are there any other organizations or individuals you would recommend we contact to get feedback on the Strategy (e.g. funding recipients, provincial/territorial/municipal or other partners, researchers, etc.)?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!

General Interview Guide for Enforcement Stakeholders (International)

The Government of Canada has a long history in the horizontal management of drug issues. Following the Canada’s Drug Strategy (CDS), which had focused on substance use and abuse since 1978, the National Anti-Drug Strategy (the Strategy) was initiated in 2007. The Strategy is a horizontal initiative of twelve federal departments and agencies, led by the Department of Justice Canada. The goal of the Strategy is to contribute to safer and healthier communities through coordinated efforts to prevent use, treat dependency and reduce production and distribution of illicit drugs. The Strategy has three major activity areas:

  1. Prevention Action Plan;
  2. Treatment Action Plan; and
  3. Enforcement Action Plan.

A component of the Enforcement Action Plan is the Annual Contributions to UNODC and CICAD. This component is led by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. The funds allow Canada to assist financially the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in fulfilling its mandate in the fight against drugs and international crime at the global level, assist financially the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) in fulfilling its mandate in the fight against drugs in the Americas, and facilitate Canada’s cooperation internationally.

Ference Weicker & Company, a management consulting firm, has been hired by the Department of Justice to evaluate the Strategy. As part of this evaluation, we are conducting interviews with representatives from organizations and departments that have been involved with the Strategy in different ways. The information we collect from you will be held confidential and will be reported only in summary form with the responses of other representatives whom we interview.

CONTACT INFORMATION

A. RELEVANCE

1. What is your role within your organization?

2. How would you describe your involvement with respect to the Government of Canada and the National Anti-Drug Strategy?

3. How long have been involved with this part of Strategy?

4. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not familiar at all, 3 is somewhat familiar, and 5 is very familiar, how familiar would you say you are with the National Anti-Drug Strategy?

5. With which aspects of the National Anti-Drug Strategy are you most familiar?

6. What do you see as the role of the Canadian federal government relative to the role of international/multilateral organizations and governments in other countries?

7. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is no need at all, 3 is somewhat of a need, and 5 is a major need, how much of a need for the Canadian federal government to be involved in this area?

7a. Why do you say that?

B. EFFECTIVENESS

1. The following statement is an objective the Strategy. Based on your experience, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all successful, 3 is somewhat successful and 5 is very successful, how successful do you think that the Strategy has been to date in:

2. What other significant impacts, positive and negative have been generated related to international activities of the Strategy?

3. In your opinion, what major factors have contributed to the success of the international activities of the Strategy to date?

4. What do you see as some of the factors that may have constrained the success of the international activities of the Strategy to date?

5. Are there particular documents that you recommend we review regarding outcomes relevant to the international activities of the Strategy (e.g. recent performance reports, surveys, research reports)?

C. EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY

1. Do you think it is a cost-efficient approach for Canada to assist financially the UNODC and CICAD, and to be engaged in international cooperation on issues pertaining to fighting drugs and crime internationally? Why do you say that? (by cost efficiency, we mean the cost of resources used approximates the minimum amount of resources needed to complete a task and achieve expected outcomes)

2. Based on your experience, are there any alternative approaches, structures or strategies that might be more efficient in achieving the intended results of the National Anti-Drug Strategy with respect to international activities?

3. Apart from what we've discussed, are there any alternative approaches, structures or strategies that might be more efficient in achieving the intended results of the Treatment Action Plan?

D. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Looking back over your involvement in the National Anti-Drug Strategy and your involvement in fighting drugs and crime internationally more broadly, what do you see as some of the (other) key lessons that have been learned and best practices that have developed?

2. Do you have any additional comments you would like to make regarding the Strategy?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!

Interview Guide for External Stakeholders (G3)

The Government of Canada has a long history in the horizontal management of drug issues. Following the Canada’s Drug Strategy (CDS), which had focused on substance use and abuse since 1978, the National Anti-Drug Strategy (the Strategy) was initiated in 2007. The Strategy is a horizontal initiative of twelve federal departments and agencies, led by the Department of Justice Canada. The goal of the Strategy is to contribute to safer and healthier communities through coordinated efforts to prevent use, treat dependency and reduce production and distribution of illicit drugs. The Strategy has three major activity areas:

  1. Prevention Action Plan;
  2. Treatment Action Plan; and
  3. Enforcement Action Plan.

Ference Weicker & Company, a management consulting firm, has been hired by the Department of Justice to evaluate the Strategy. As part of this evaluation, we are conducting interviews with representatives from organizations and departments that have been involved with the Strategy in different ways. The information we collect from you will be held confidential and will be reported only in summary form with the responses of other representatives whom we interview.

CONTACT INFORMATION

A. RELEVANCE

1. In what area(s) of activities have you been involved?

Describe your involvement:

1a. How long have you been involved with this area of activities:

2. How familiar are you with the Strategy?

3. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is no need at all, 3 is somewhat of a need, and 5 is a major need, how much of a need do you think there is for programming that:

4. Do you view the National Anti-Drug Strategy and its associated activities as aligning with the roles and responsibilities of the federal government?

Federal government

B. EFFECTIVENESS

1. The following statements are the overall objective of the Prevention/Treatment/Enforcement action plans of the Strategy. Based on your experience, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all successful, 3 is somewhat successful and 5 is very successful, how successful do you think that the Strategy has been to date in:

2. What other significant impacts, positive and negative, would you say this component of the Strategy has been generated?

3. In your opinion, what major factors have contributed to the success of the Strategy to date?

4. What do you see as some of the factors that may have constrained its success to date?

5. Are there particular documents that you recommend we review regarding outcomes relevant to the Strategy (e.g. recent performance reports, surveys, research reports)?

C. EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY

1. How familiar are you with the delivery mechanism and cost- efficiency of the Strategy or any of these three action plans? (by cost efficiency, we mean the cost of resources used approximates the minimum amount of resources needed to complete a task and achieve expected outcomes)

2. (If select 3 and above) In what manner and to what extent do the design of the delivery mechanisms and the governance structure of the Strategy contribute to its effectiveness and efficiency? Why do you say that?

2a. What changes, if any, would you recommend?

3. Apart from what we've discussed, are there any alternative approaches, structures or strategies that might be more efficient in achieving the intended results of the Strategy?

D. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Looking back over your involvement in the Strategy, what do you see as some of the (other) key lessons that have been learned and best practices that have developed?

2. Do you have any additional comments you would like to make regarding the Strategy?

3. Are there any other organizations or individuals you would recommend we contact to get feedback on the Strategy (e.g. funding recipients, provincial/territorial/municipal or other partners, researchers, etc.)?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!

CIHR Research on Drug Treatment Models Online Survey

Ference Weicker & Company, a management consulting firm, has been hired by the Department of Justice to evaluate the National Anti-Drug Strategy. The Strategy was initiated in 2007 and is a horizontal initiative of 12 federal departments and agencies, led by the Department of Justice Canada. The goal of the Strategy is to contribute to safer and healthier communities through coordinated efforts to prevent use, treat dependency and reduce production and distribution of illicit drugs. The Strategy has three major activity areas: a Prevention Action Plan, a Treatment Action Plan, and an Enforcement Action Plan. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Research on Drug Treatment Models is a component of the Treatment Action Plan.

As part of this evaluation, we are conducting a survey of individuals and organizations that are funded through the CIHR to support research on the development, improvement and evaluation of addiction treatments. The information we collect from you will be held confidential and will be reported only in summary form with the responses of other survey respondents. The survey takes 10 minutes to complete.

CONTACT INFORMATION

A. RELEVANCE

1. Please describe your involvement with respect to the CIHR component of the treatment activities of the National Anti-Drug Strategy?

1a. How long have been involved with this part of Strategy?

2. The Treatment Action Plan has focused on supporting effective treatment and rehabilitation systems. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is no need at all, 3 is somewhat of a need, and 5 is a major need, how much of a need do you think there has been for CIHR research activities related to drug addiction treatments?

2a. Why do you say that?

3. Based on your experience, do you view funding research on drug treatment models as aligning with the roles and responsibilities of the federal government?

Federal government

B. EFFECTIVENESS

1. Please identify the research products and outputs of the CIHR project on drug treatments that you are involved in to date: (Please check all that apply)

2. The activities of the Treatment Action Plan could potentially generate a variety of different types of impacts. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is no impact at all in that area, 3 is somewhat of an impact, and 5 is a major impact, how much of an impact do you believe that the CIHR component has had to date in terms of the following statements. Select "N/A" if not relevant to your project.

3. What other impacts have been generated by the activities of the CIHR component of the Treatment Action Plan?

4. What major factors have contributed to the success of the CIHR component of the Treatment Action Plan to date?

5. What do you see as some of the factors that may have constrained its success to date?

6. Are you aware of any particular knowledge transfer activity or plan in order to transform the CIHR research findings into treatment policies and practices? Yes / No

If yes, please describe:

7. Looking back over your involvement in the CIHR component of the Treatment Action Plan, what do you see as some of the key lessons that have been learned and best practices that have been developed?

8. Are there any additional comments you would like to make regarding the CIHR component of the Strategy?