- Published: November 17, 2021
- Updated: November 17, 2021
- University / College: Leeds Beckett University
- Language: English
- Downloads: 33
The current available evidences show that federal government has improved its accountability by providing more performance information based the recommendations of Office of Auditor General (OAG) . However, according to the information collected from TBS Horizontal Initiatives Database, federal departments in NADS haven’t provide integrated yet quantifiable data to demonstrate the overall actual results of NADS.
Key findings:
Prevention action plan
NADS 2018 evaluation finds that prevention action plan has increased public awareness and knowledge to response illicit drug . Yet, it still takes time and more quantifiable measures to assess the whole impact of the prevention action plan on demand reduction for illicit drug in targeted population and areas.
What we know:
1) HC’s mass media campaign increased the percentage of youth who said they decided not to do drugs (see annex). The campaign also enhanced the awareness about drugs’ harms among youth.
2) DSCIF, part of ADSI, made progress on enhancing capacity among youth to make informed decisions about illicit drug use . It also strengthened community resilience against illicit drug .
3) RCMP’s Federal Policing Public Engagement program (FPPE, see annex) gave thousands of presentations to increase awareness of the impact drugs and organized crime. It indicated, in 2011-12 fiscal year, that 8% fewer youth were using marijuana based on East Kootenay 2011 Survey .
What we do not know:
1) PS mentioned that its 21 NADS projects have reported positive changes to reduce illicit drugs related risk-taking behaviors. Yet, it didn’t provide any indicators to measure these results .
2) RCMP’s FPPE didn’t provide data to measure its overall impact on reduction of risk-taking behaviors. Nor did RCMP provide evidence that attribute FPPE to the 8% reduction of marijuana.
3) The current statistic from Statistics Canada and HC find the rate of Canadian youth (age 15-24) who report cocaine and ecstasy or molly use are increasing. It is unclear how the likelihood reduction of drugs use behaviors mentioned will convert to the actual demand reduction for illicit drugs among youth.
Treatment action plan
Treatment action plan aim to reduce illicit drug related dangerous actions . While, TBS Horizontal Initiatives Database has limited performance information to show how activities of the treatment action plan are contributing to improve “ treatment systems, programs and services to address illicit drug dependency and PDA in targeted populations in area of need” .
What we know:
1) Justice Canada’s DTCFP facilitate collaboration of treatment providers across Canada . The DTC is also more cost efficient compared to conventional justice system (see annex).
2) ADSI has provided over 20, 700 youth with treatment services/programs from 2007 to 2012 .
3) HC’S National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program (NNADAP) has improved the quality of treatment services and programs for indigenous people.
What we do not know:
1) After 2012, consistent and measurable data are missing to evaluate how ADSI make progress towards achieving its outcomes.
2) HC didn’t provide data for NNADAP to evaluate its impact on reduction of risk-taking behaviours.
3) CIHR’s Research on Drug Treatment Models (RDTM) didn’t submit indicators to measure how RDTM increase knowledge translation and sharing of the trends and related consequences of illicit drugs. In fiscal year 2012-13, it began to fund a study on non-medical use of prescription opioid analgesics in Canada . Yet, this study seems has little impacts to prevent the current Opioid crisis.
4) No indicator to assess whether National Youth Intervention and Diversion Program has increased community satisfaction with RCMP
Enforcement Action Plan
The enforcement action plan has improve the effectiveness of drug crackdown thanks to enhanced resource supports and departmental collaboration . However, the impact of enforcement is moderated by the fast adapting illicit drug market . The NADS 2012 reported that it was challenging in measuring impacts of this action plan due to the constraints like time and lack of quantifiable results .
What we know:
1) Enforcement action plan has the highest actual spending among the three actions plans (around $533 million from 2007 to 2017).
2) HC created three indicators to measure its performance in preventing the diversion of precursor chemicals and controlled substances for illegal use (see appendix 13). However it haven’t provide these indicators consistently to TBS.
3) Few departments have provide trackable and quantifiable data to assess their progress and contributions on supply reduction of illicit drugs.
What we do not know:
1) It is unclear whether the price and supply of illicit drug were reduced significantly through enforcement actions undertaken by RCMP, CBSA.
2) If the GAC’s international contributing fund helped to reduce the quantity of illicit drug flowed to Canada from fiscal year 2007-08 to 2016-17.
Performance management:
1. Compared the results audited by OAG in 2001, the NADS has made progress to improve its performance management by providing more information that includes planned and actual spending, expected and actual results for each contributing activity.
2. Some indicators, recommended by OAG in 2001, have not been applied or presented to TBS to help government well manage its initiative on illicit drug :
1) Reduce the number of drug overdose deaths by X percent in Y years.
2) Reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C from needle sharing by X percent in Y years.
3) Increase the number of school boards by X percent that have implemented, tested, and evaluated drug programs.
3. OAG 2001 audit report also highlighted Australian Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS) as a reference for Canada to better collect periodic illicit drug information like drug purity and price, indicators of drug-related issues . However, such system is still unavailable in Canada to support an integrated and effective evidence-based decision making policy.
4. TBS Horizontal Initiatives Database shows that few departments have measured their program performance with constant yet standardised indicators:
1) The NADS has about 20 sub programs undertaken by 13 departments. However, there are six departments in Horizontal Initiatives Database which haven’t provide any quantifiable indicators to measure the outcome and performance of their contributing activates.
2) Among the rest seven departments, four departments have at least two contributing activities with quantifiable performance indicators for TBS.
3) Yet, two of these four departments do not collect completed data constantly for their indicators. For example, Health Canada uses number of exhibits analyzed and delay of service to measure the performance of its Drug Analysis Services (see appendix 7). Yet these information are partially missing from fiscal year 2007-08 to 2013-14
