Thank you. That is an excellent question.
There is the National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program, or NNADAP. I am sorry, but I cannot think of the program's French name right now.
We use certain indicators for this program. At the end of a treatment, for example, we can see whether or not an individual has abandoned one or more elements of their substance dependence.
We look at the same result after six months in order to see how the person is doing with their dependency. Such indicators are very common in treatment programs. We stick to that.
However, it is very difficult to conduct long-term follow-up of clients. There are limits to what we can do in that regard. We monitor these types of indicators to determine whether or not the results of treatment centres or programs we support are as good as those that exist for the general population and those that serve a non-aboriginal population.
There are also more activity-based programs, such as the suicide prevention program. These are often activities that have been developed in each region of the country. We conduct campaigns specific to these activities or projects. We will develop performance indicators to determine how many people, youth and families were involved in the program. What was the type of intervention? We often have to obtain the participants' opinions to determine how the program impacted them. Does it reinforce or diminish the problems in their environment? Does it give them more opportunities to deal with the difficulties that may be related to mental health or dependency issues? There are those types of indicators.
There are evaluations, but it is extremely difficult to know the long-term effect of these measures. That is the reason for our work with the Assembly of First Nations. By building a mental wellness framework we can determine how to reorganize these programs.
Over the past 25 years, Health Canada developed siloed programs on a piecemeal basis. We also tried to develop programs that would be the same across the country.
In consultation and partnership with many partners and experts, we are trying to use best practices in the framework developed in conjunction with the Assembly of First Nations. We want to define the overall framework and the fundamental components in this regard.
For example, culture was defined as one of the foundational elements for building resilience and recreating the connection with the environment, history and family to give purpose or better sense of purpose to life in the community. It is a matter of putting culture at the centre of all this and inviting communities that manage these programs to reposition the programs that we fund. These programs are not defined. They could be adjusted based on needs if they work within this framework and if all components are involved.
The evaluations revealed another reality. We are convinced that it is extremely important for an intervention to be firmly rooted in the communities and to have community control in order for it to be successful. However, there are types of specialized services that need to be provided at another level. Thus, we have started investing in mental wellness teams that provide more specialized services that can support a number of communities. We have also started providing crisis response because we cannot expect the organizations to have the capacity to deal with major crises.
The evaluations also made it possible for us to identify the gaps in what we were funding. Programs were adjusted over the years to create this new type of intervention. Mental wellness teams help communities supplement the services offered. As a result of the evaluations We make changes to what is provided based on the evaluations. I would say that the mental wellness framework developed by the First Nations, with the support of Health Canada, is a guide for the short term. Across the country, this guide is being received enthusiastically with a view to developing and repositioning programs so that services are offered more effectively in the long term. Therefore, I would say that the evaluations are useful.
The lessons learned over the past 10, 15 and 20 years that gave us direction are entrenched in this framework. Thus, I would invite the committee members to take a look at this. We are very proud of having developed the framework with the Assembly of First Nations.
We are now doing the same thing with the Inuit. In fact, if we believe that culture is foundational, we must also respect the fact that the Inuit have a different culture. We must therefore establish a framework based on their reality and their culture. That is what we are going to do.
That is something else we have learned over the past 20 years. Programs developed in Ottawa where we try to do the same thing just about everywhere are limited if we are unable to adapt them to the realities of the communities, environments and cultures in which we work.