Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION OF CANADA
Formative Evaluation
Final Technical Report
April 29, 2011
Acknowledgements
We, the evaluation team, would like to thank those who have assisted in obtaining and preparing the information needed for this document. Many thanks to the Mental Health Commission of Canada evaluation project team and stakeholders, with special thanks to Sapna Mahajan and Laureen MacNeil who provided documentation, organization history, responsive communication and willingness to assist with all the logistics that go into managing an evaluation of this size and scope. Thanks also to mental health stakeholder experts who participated in interviews and focus groups and provided substantive feedback for this evaluation. Finally, we would especially like to acknowledge the opportunities we had to speak with those who are at the centre of the Commission’s work, Canadians living with mental illness, their families and caregivers. This report would not have been possible without their participation. Prepared by project team: Kate Woodman, PhD Lynn Damberger, MSc Margaret Wanke, MHSA Krista Brower, BA (Honours) Francine Deroche, MHS Tara Shuller, MA Advisors to the evaluation: Patrick W. Corrigan, PhD
Leslie Gardner, PhD Ian Graham, PhD Fay Herrick, BEd
Scott Theriault, MD, FRCPC
Angus Thompson, PhD
Charis Management Consulting Inc. i
Executive Summary
In 2006, the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology released the report Out of the
Shadows At Last – Transforming Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Services in Canada. This
first national report on mental health and addictions in Canada outlined 118 recommendations to
address gaps and strengthen capacity to provide Canadians living with mental illness new opportunities
to live thriving lives. A key recommendation of the Committee was to create a national body that was
an independent, not-for-profit organization at arm’s length from governments and all existing mental
health “stakeholder organizations,” and would make those living with mental illness, and their families,
the central focus of its activities.
In 2007, the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) was created with support from all levels of
government and mental health stakeholder communities, to address the vision, expectations and
earnest hopes of the Senate Committee and Canadians. The ten year mandate (2007 – 2017) was
articulated and the MHCC was designed “to act as a catalyst to improve the mental health system in
Canada, develop a mental health strategy for Canada, reduce stigma and discrimination faced by people
living with mental illness and mental health problems and create a knowledge exchange centre.”
To fulfill its mission, the MHCC actively engaged in five key initiatives, addressing areas of core
significance to mental health systems in Canada:
A mental health strategy;
An anti-stigma initiative (Opening Minds);
A homeless research demonstration project (At Home/Chez-Soi);
A knowledge exchange centre; and,
Partners for mental health.
Now in its fourth year of operation, the MHCC initiated a formative evaluation of its work, with a
directive to assess implementation from July 2007 to December 31, 2010. The evaluation is in
compliance with the Health Canada funding framework and Treasury Board evaluation guidelines. The
purpose of the evaluation is to assess: progress towards the MHCC’s five key initiatives; effectiveness of
its policy and/or programs; impacts both intended and unintended; and, alternative ways of achieving
expected results. In October 2010, the MHCC contracted Charis Management Consulting Inc. (Charis) to
undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the organization.
Multiple data collections methods were used to measure perceptions regarding the mandate, structure,
achievements and early impacts of the work completed to date by the MHCC. These perceptions were
elicited through document review, key informant and focus group interviews with a variety of critical
stakeholders, and through an online survey of partners and collaborators of the MHCC across Canada.
Recommendations for the future were sought from all respondents in order to provide focused
attention to those areas not yet developed or realized by the MHCC.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. ii
During its first three and a half years of operation (July 2007 – December 2010), the MHCC focused on
establishing the five key initiatives in accordance with the approved business plan and on developing the
organization’s business functions, processes and infrastructure. All lines of evidence examined progress
made in terms of achieving the assigned mandate, governance structure, supports and processes. Key
developmental milestones and activities are described that indicate steady progress towards
achievement of the mandate as well as the MHCC outputs delivered to date.
Participants in the data collection commented on what they perceived as the early impacts of the MHCC
work on the lives and work of partners and collaborators in the mental health system. There were 463
responses to the online survey; these respondents were a diverse group that, while strongly connected
to mental health programs and services across Canada, were not actively involved with the MHCC.
These respondents provided valuable insight and expert opinion on the MHCC’s activities. Three main
themes emerged from the survey data: 1) a desire for more effective communication, knowledge and
resource dissemination; 2) increased inclusion and partnership with groups heavily invested and or
involved in the mental health sector; and, 3) the ability of the MHCC to effectively catalyze change in
mental health systems in Canada.
The key informant interview and focus group participants (n= 52) were generally well informed and
engaged with the MHCC. Their insights into all matters of implementation and the operational aspects
of the MHCC work suggested an overall positive assessment of achievements to date. Respondents
affirmed the direction of the work but commented on the uneven development of the five key
initiatives: specifically to actualize the Knowledge Exchange Centre (KEC) and Partners for Mental
Health, two under-developed, but felt to be much needed initiatives. Respondents also commented on
the MHCC governance and goal to become a model workplace and had several suggestions for areas of
focus that will assist the MHCC in strengthening their organizational structures and processes to go
forward. Respondents encouraged the MHCC to take seriously the need to address emerging issues in
the workplace and build authentic and inclusive partnerships with stakeholder groups, especially those
that are currently marginalized and/or invisible. Finally, the respondents encouraged the Commission to
manage the growing risks of stakeholder expectations and develop the national function of their work.
The recommendations represent those the evaluators believe are the most critical to position the MHCC
for continued success into the future. It is recommended that the MHCC:
1. Fulfill the pan-Canadian mandate by ensuring focused engagement with all regions,
including those currently less actively involved.
2. Proceed with full implementation of the Knowledge Exchange Centre and Partners for Mental Health initiatives to fulfill the mandate and make certain they develop to the same standard as the other key initiatives.
3. Continue to build collaboration and stakeholder engagement with the groups most
perceived as poorly represented:
Charis Management Consulting Inc. iii
Individuals: people with lived experience; families and caregivers; First Nations, Inuit
and Métis; and, Francophone populations, particularly from Québec.
Grassroots/front line service providers creating meaningful networks with them to
validate their work and catalyze their capacity to impact policy.
National First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations that work in the health and mental
health sector, for the purposes of forming partnerships and building alliances.
4. Develop a clear communication plan to inform stakeholders of the MHCC’s approach to
actively include people with lived experience and other diverse groups within their staff. 5. Increase communication and promotion about MHFA, to build awareness and mitigate
concerns about its transfer to the Commission. 6. Review evidence based models of governance and structure to inform decisions to be made
regarding the Advisory Committee structure and reporting mechanisms. 7. Focus on building a model workplace:
Fully assess staff skill sets and fully utilize their skills in their work with the Commission;
Provide opportunities for collaboration and encourage cross-cutting discussions to
mitigate the perception that staff work in “silos;” and,
Continue to build the capacity of the Committee of Champions to positively influence
workplace culture.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. iv
Charis Management Consulting Inc. v
Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Organization of the Report ............................................................................................................. 3
2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Evaluation Design ............................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.3 Evaluation Limitations ................................................................................................................... 12
3. Results from Phase 1 ............................................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Logic Models.................................................................................................................................. 13
3.2 Evaluation Questions..................................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Evaluation Matrix .......................................................................................................................... 16
3.4 Data Collection Coverage .............................................................................................................. 20
4. Results from Phase 2 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 21
4.1 Administration Data Description ................................................................................................... 21
4.2 Administrative Data....................................................................................................................... 27
4.3 MHCC Online Survey ..................................................................................................................... 38
4.4 Key Informant Interviews and Focus Groups ................................................................................ 82
5. Summary and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 98
5.1 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 98
5.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 102
Appendix A: Logic Models, Evaluation Questions, Data Matrix................................................................ 103
Appendix B: Program Utilization Table ..................................................................................................... 114
Appendix C: Survey Instrument and Interview Guides ............................................................................. 128
Appendix D: Organizational Chart ............................................................................................................ 164
Appendix E: Formative Evaluation Summary and Observations for Consideration ................................. 168
Charis Management Consulting Inc. vi
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 1
1. Introduction
1.1 Background In 2006 the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology released the report, Out of the Shadows At Last – Transforming Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Services in Canada.1 A ground-breaking study, this was the first national report on mental health and addictions in Canada. Known colloquially as “the Kirby Report” (named after the former Senator Michael Kirby, who led the Senate Committee), the document outlined 118 recommendations to address gaps and strengthen capacity to provide Canadians living with mental illness new opportunities to live thriving lives. The report states: “what is needed is a genuine system with people living with mental illness at its centre, clearly focusing on their ability to recover.”2 The vision was to transform the sector, its design, implementation and the delivery of services and supports. Initially, the focus was on mental health and addictions as two parts of a single, holistic “system.” 3 During substantive hearings designed to garner the voice of Canadians and develop a consensus vision for a way forward,4 the Senate Committee discovered validation for, “a recovery-oriented, primarily community-based, integrated continuum of care. . . . “5 To that end, and woven throughout the report, is reference to a “Canadian Mental Health Commission” that would work as a catalyst to achieving this vision. Defined in Chapter 16: National Mental Health Initiatives, the report states: “From the very beginning of its study . . . the Committee has heard the call for a national mental health strategy.”6 Stakeholders across Canada identified the need for a mechanism to undertake pan-Canadian work, provide a countrywide focus, and contribute to the development of a national mental health strategy. A key recommendation of the Committee, the proposal to create such a national body was announced in 2005, endorsed by all provincial and territorial governments (with the exception of Québec) at a meeting of Ministers of Health in October 2005. Each of these governments has since confirmed their support for the Commission. The core principles of this new, national body were identified:
Be an independent not-for-profit organization at arm’s-length both from governments and all existing mental health “stakeholder organizations;” and,
Make those living with mental illness, and their families, the central focus of its activities. The Committee recommended the organization be operational by September 2006 and that the Government of Canada provide $17 million per annum to fund its operation and activities. It further defined the central, elemental work of the Commission:7
To act as a facilitator, enabler and supporter of a national approach to mental health issues;
1 Kirby, The Honourable Michael J. and Keon, The Honourable Wilber Joseph. Out of the Shadows at Last – Transforming
Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Services in Canada: Highlights and Recommendations. Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (May 2006).
2 Ibid, p. 5. 3 The report notes, “with regret that the Committee has not been able to devote as much time and attention to substance use
issues as it intended . . . the report focuses primarily on mental health issues” (p. 5). 4 The Committee held more than 50 meetings, comprising more than 130 hears of hearings, involving 300 witnesses, resulting
in a 2,000 page testimonial document. 5 Ibid, p. 13. 6 Ibid, p. 73. 7 Ibid, p. 74.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 2
To be a catalyst for reform of mental health policies and improvements in service delivery;
To educate all Canadians about mental health and increase mental health literacy among them, particularly among those who are in leadership roles such as employers, members of the health professions, teachers etc.; and,
To diminish the stigma and discrimination faced by Canadians living with a mental illness, and their families.
In 2007 the Mental Health Commission of Canada was created,8 with support from all levels of government and mental health stakeholder communities, to address the vision, expectations and earnest hopes of the Senate Committee and Canadians. The ten year mandate (2007 – 2017) was articulated: “To act as a catalyst to improve the mental health system in Canada, develop a mental health strategy for Canada, reduce stigma and discrimination faced by people living with mental illness and mental health problems, and create a knowledge exchange centre.” The MHCC became a much anticipated vehicle to focus national attention on mental health issues, and to improve the health and social outcomes of people living with mental health problems and mental illness. To fulfill its mission, the MHCC is actively engaged in five key initiatives,9 addressing areas of core significance to the sector’s needs:
A mental health strategy: that will help ensure that everyone in Canada, whether or not they are living with mental health problems, has the opportunity to achieve the best possible mental health, by focusing national attention on mental health issues; to set clear targets for transforming the mental health system; and, to promote recovery and well-being. 10
An anti-stigma initiative: Opening Minds is designed to change the attitudes and behaviours of Canadians towards people living with mental illness.11
A homelessness research demonstration project: At Home/Chez Soi is using and studying a Housing First approach to helping people who are homeless and mentally ill. This project assists the homeless with finding and paying for housing, and then helping with other challenges such as mental illness and addictions through the provision of targeted programming. More than two thousand homeless people will participate in five cities across Canada. Through random assignment, 1,325 participants will receive tailored housing and support services, and the remaining group will receive the kind of care normally available in their city.12
A knowledge exchange centre: an initiative that will facilitate the development, uptake, adoption and integration of different types of knowledge. It includes the development of a framework and the exploration of various forms of technologies, tools and resources and to ensure evaluation is built into all levels of the MHCC’s work.13
8 Federal government funding was made available in the 2007 budget; retrieved March 23, 2011:
http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/Pages/Background.aspx 9 Please note that in February 2011 the MHCC has added a sixth initiative to its work, Mental Health First Aid. However, this
initiative is beyond the scope of this evaluation, which is relevant to December 31, 2010. 10
See On our Way: MHCC Annual Report 2009 – 2010, p. 6; retrieved on March 21, 2011, from http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/annualreport/MHCC_AR_2009_2010.pdf.
11 Ibid, p. 8.
12 Ibid, p. 10.
13 Ibid, p. 12.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 3
Partners for mental health program: the MHCC’s initiative for creating a grass-roots social movement that will raise awareness fro mental health issues, through action.14
Now in its fourth year of implementation, the MHCC initiated a formative evaluation of its work, with a directive to assess implementation from July 2007 – December 31, 2010. The evaluation is in compliance with the Health Canada funding framework and Treasury Board evaluation guidelines. The purpose is to assess: 15
Progress towards the MHCC’s five key initiatives;
Effectiveness of policy and/or programs;
Impacts both intended and unintended; and,
Alternative ways of achieving expected results.
In October 2010 the MHCC contracted with Charis Management Consulting Inc. to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the organization. The evaluation was to identify gaps and challenges and ensure that MHCC achievements and successes were well documented, substantiated and shared. The findings were expected to guide recommendations for both further development and the implementation of current activities. The Commission sought an evaluation approach that would be dialogic and include strategic learning that would impact organizational development. Of note is the fact that the MHCC wanted the inclusion of the homelessness demonstration research project, At Home/Chez Soi, in this formative evaluation. This stand-alone project is both supported by the MHCC and supports the other four initiatives. While a more comprehensive evaluation of At Home/Chez Soi will be required at a later date (under its separate funding agreement with Health Canada), the initiative was included in the current evaluation. It is anticipated that MHCC management team will be able to utilize the evaluation results immediately and as they prepared for the At Home/Chez Soi initiative’s formative evaluation.
1.2 Organization of the Report
The remainder of this report presents the formative evaluation report of the MHCC. It is organized into five main sections:
Evaluation Methodology;
Results from Phase 1;
Methodology workshop
Document review
Key informant interviews
Results from Phase 2;
Administrative data review
14
Ibid, p. 14. 15
Mental Health Commission of Canada (May 2010). Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluation of the Mental Health Commission of Canada (p. 7).
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 4
Survey
Key informant interviews and focus groups
Conclusion and Recommendations; and,
Appendices including both detailed results tables and all instruments and the survey used to
gather data, as indicated in the body of the report.
A summary report is available as a separate document.
2. Methodology
2.1 Evaluation Design Comprehensive and inclusive by design,16 the formative evaluation focused on understanding process, and how the MHCC has evolved over the first three years of implementation (2007 – 2010). Too early in implementation to determine longer term impacts, key evaluation objectives were to determine successful/unsuccessful techniques and processes employed during the MHCC’s first three years of activities. Further, the evaluation assessed what progress the organization has made towards implementing services and processes aimed at addressing the five stated initiatives and contributing to achievement of the mandate. The work took place in two phases: Phase 1 concerned the development of the Evaluation Framework; and, Phase 2 concerned activities resulting in implementation of the framework and assessment of the findings. Fundamentally this formative evaluation addressed the following questions:
Mandate: Is the MHCC initiative consistent with the assigned mandate as per the funding agreement with Health Canada?
Inputs/Structure: How are the MHCC’s governance structure, processes and support mechanisms contributing to the achievement of the MHCC mandate and goals?
Achievements: What has been achieved by the MHCC to date in terms of implementation of the assigned mandate?
Early Impacts: How has the MHCC affected the work and lives of partners and collaborators in the mental health system?
Recommendations: What can be learned from implementation to date and are there any recommendations for improvement?
All data collection processes were aligned with the evaluation questions derived from the Level 1 logic
model developed in the first phase of the work. 17
16
This includes language. All data gathering instruments were translated into French, for use if requested by respondents and interviewees. Additionally, the final report s (technical and summary) will also be presented in English and French.
17 Please note: the formative evaluation is not designed to provide data on whether the MHCC has contributed to improved services and a transformed mental health system, and it cannot answer the question of whether the MHCC has contributed
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 5
To facilitate the evaluation process and ensure robust data collection and analysis, Charis invited four sector experts to participate in an Expert Evaluation Advisory Panel. This group was selected to provide supplemental guidance, as needed, to the Charis project team. They were engaged at two key points in the evaluation process, providing expert advice on: the logic models and evaluation framework (Phase 1); and, the preliminary findings (Phase 2). The four advisors were:
Patrick Corrigan, PhD, Distinguished Professor and Associate Dean for Research, Institute of Psychology at Illinois Institute of Technology;
Ian Graham, PhD, Vice-President Knowledge Translation, Knowledge Translation and Public Outreach Portfolio, Canadian Institutes of Health Research;
Fay Herrick, BEd, former President of the Schizophrenia Society of Alberta (Calgary Chapter) and mental health advocate; and,
Scott Theriault, MD, FRCPC, Director, East Coast Forensic Hospital.
2.2 Data Collection
2.2.1 Phase 1 Data Collection
Phase 1 of the evaluation concerned the completion of a comprehensive evaluation framework to
inform all aspects of data collection instrument development and the analysis of the results (both Phase
2 activities). To that end, the following data collection methods were utilized in the first phase:
Methodology workshop;
Review of key project documents; and,
Interviews with key informants from specified target audiences.
Methodology Workshop
Charis organized and implemented a methodology workshop to ensure that the evaluation methodology
to be developed would be rigorous and useful to the MHCC. The workshop facilitated understanding of
the MHCC’s development, the programs to be evaluated, and their intersection with the evaluation
questions (and the Treasury Board evaluation criteria). At this time we discussed matters of purposes
for evaluation (e.g., accountability and/or improvement); types of evaluation (e.g., evaluability
assessment, developmental); and, audience expectations (e.g., MHCC decision-makers, Health Canada).
As a result of the workshop, the scope of the evaluation, data collection activities and methodologies to
be utilized for Phase 1 and Phase 2 data collection were finalized and a comprehensive list of required
to improved mental health services for Canadians. These questions concerning program impacts will be addressed and answered in the future, through a summative evaluation.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 6
MHCC documentation was developed. Workshop participants included the MHCC Executive Leadership
Team members, other MHCC senior leaders, and key partners as invited by the MHCC.
Review of Project Documents
Charis conducted a preliminary and targeted document review of internal MHCC administrative data to
further extend understanding of the formal commitments to which MHCC was accountable. To that
end, business plans, funding agreements, early background documents, annual reports and operational
policies and procedures were examined. As well, documents specific to both the five key initiatives and
the eight Advisory Committees were studied to explore further MHCC expectations and commitments.
A document review template was developed as a mechanism to compile consistently key information
needed for the evaluation. Evaluators then populated the templates based on material forwarded by
the MHCC and other sources. Any items the evaluators had noted as missing were requested from the
MHCC. The validated document review tools were used to report on activities and achievements for
each group and to inform the up-coming key informant interviews. The results of a snapshot review of
MHCC document development across time is presented in Table 1. The creation of relevant
organizational documents to inform the governance, structure, processes and procedures for the
organization indicates the trend towards a more robust development of such documents as the
Commission evolves.
Table 1: Snapshot of MHCC document review
2007 2008 2009 2010
Funding Agreements
Business Plans,
Audited Financial
Statements
Annual Reports
FA – 1
BP – 1
FA – 2
BP – 1
AFS - 1
BP – 1
AFS – 1
AR - 1
BP – 1
AFS – 1
AR - 1
MHCC Organizational
documents (org charts,
policies and directives)
T of R – 2
Guides - 1
T of R - 2
Guides – 1
(rev)
Org Charts – 2
Policies – 8
Discussion documents;
summaries and
products/reports of AC
work and other projects
Project précis – 1
Reports/products
– 2
Summaries - 1
Reports/products -
9
Summaries - 1
Reports/produ
cts – 12
Summaries - 3
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 7
Key Informant Interviews
In collaboration with the MHCC evaluation project leads, the evaluator identified informants from
among the key stakeholders to be consulted; the participants were purposively selected. The function
of these interviews was two-fold: 1) to gain important information and perspective on the inception
stage of MHCC development; and, 2) to inform and validate the level one and two logic models created
during this phase of evaluation activities. In collaboration with the MHCC, Charis developed an
interview guide (see Appendix C), and collected data from nine key informants to gain information on
MHCC’s programs, policies and activities. The respondents are identified in Table 2.
Table 2: Phase 1 key informant interview participants
Informant group Number
MHCC administrative and management decision-makers 5
MHCC Advisory Committee Chairs 2
MHCC Board 1
Representatives from Health Canada 1
Total: 9
Key informants were invited to participate through an introductory letter sent by the MHCC that
outlined the purpose of the evaluation and introduced the evaluator. Charis then contacted potential
informants to schedule a telephone interview. Topic areas for this interview included:
Proposed logic models;
Upcoming evaluation questions; and,
Observations on MHCC implementation, to date.
The interviews were conducted over the phone, recorded, then transcribed and themed.
As a result of these data collection activities, and in consultation with the MHCC project team, Charis
developed one Level 1 logic model and five Level 2 logic models (see Appendix A). Once developed
Charis hosted a validation teleconference with key MHCC project stakeholders. The logic models were
reviewed for accuracy and validated as accurate program representations. The Level 1 logic model
provides an overview of the MHCC including its assumptions, inputs/resources, processes/activities,
outputs, audience, impacts and ultimate outcomes to which the MHCC contributes. The indicators
proposed in the Level 1 logic model are bigger picture indicators of principal importance to the decision-
makers (Executive Leadership Team (ELT) and the Board of Directors). The five Level 2 logic models are
initiative specific; these present the logic for each one of the five initiatives. These logic models contain
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 8
indicators of interest at the program level, including those that may be routinely reported on to the
MHCC CEO. Once validated, the logic models informed the evaluation framework. The resulting
methodology report was submitted to the client for review and approval, before formal adoption as a
guide for Phase 2 activities.
2.2.2 Phase 2 Data Collection
Phase 2 of the evaluation was designed to implement the evaluation methodology approved in Phase 1.
In this second phase of project implementation, the following data collection activities occurred:
Document review;
Data collection tool development and implementation (survey, key informant interview guides,
focus group guides); and,
Interpretation workshop on preliminary findings.
Document Review
This aspect of data gathering provided Charis with a comprehensive understanding of the context,
activities, objectives, and mandate for the MHCC, from both internal and external sources. The review
assessed the degree to which existing policies and procedures fit with the current mandate as well as
the MHCC’s vision, mission and values. Further, it provided a rich context for the history and operation
of the organization and how formal statements of program intention align with the evidence that was
derived from quantitative and qualitative data collection.
In this second phase of the project, documents internal and external to the Commission were consulted.
A full list of documents is provided in Section 4.1 Administrative Data Collection.
Data Collection Tool Development and Implementation
To generate robust data for this formative evaluation, multiple lines of evidence were gathered to
ensure a comprehensive analysis process. It was understood that at this point in MHCC implementation
the measures were to contribute to organizational accountability; for ongoing monitoring and reporting
on progress made in each of the initiative areas; to determine initial successes and perceived challenges;
and, to help determine initial sector impacts. By using both quantitative and qualitative methods of
data gathering, garnering feedback from a wide range of stakeholder types, (and the review of key
MHCC and other stakeholder documents), the data collection provided a comprehensive gathering of
evidence relevant to the assessment of MHCC activities.
Online Survey Instrument
In collaboration with the MHCC evaluation project team, Charis created a 33 question online survey that
was implemented with mental health stakeholders between January 20 - February 14, 2011. The survey
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 9
included both closed and open-ended questions and was approved by the client (see Appendix C).
Notice of the survey was provided through multiple methods: the link was sent to over twenty national
mental health organizations selected by Charis and posted on the MHCC Facebook page on January
20th. It was sent to all MHCC newsletter recipients (n=8,000) on February 3rd, to the MHCC Advisory
Committee Chairs on February 7th, as well as all MHCC Staff on February 9th. All of these recipient
groups were asked to send the survey link out to their networks. This sample (n=unknown) resulted in
463 completions. IP addresses were monitored to eliminate duplicate completions from the same
computer.
The survey was drafted in collaboration with the MHCC project team, pre-tested and approved. It was
designed in consonance with the Level 1 logic model and evaluation framework and addressed the
following topics concerning the respondent’s perception of the MHCC concerning:
General awareness;
Opportunities for collaboration;
Key initiatives;
Promotion of programs and products;
Early impacts;
Overall observations; and,
Background information on the respondent.
The survey was translated into French and posted online, for the purposes of facilitating French speaking
respondent participation, resulting in nine surveys being completed in French (of a total, n=463).
Key Informant Interviews
Phase 2 data collection included substantive semi-structured interviews with stakeholders central to the
work of the Commission. In consultation with the MHCC, two key informant interview guides were
created: 1) for MHCC partners and staff; and, 2) for people with lived experience, their families and
caregivers. The interview guides were designed in alignment with the evaluation framework and, while
the over-arching structure of these guides was the same, there were differences in some questions, in
order best to access the perspectives of the different respondent types (see Appendix C). The guides
were approved by the client.
The number of informants interviewed by those selected is presented in Table 3. The sample contained
both people purposively selected (based on MHCC contact lists) and randomly selected (from Charis
generated lists). Additionally, some of the individuals interviewed represent more than one informant
group. For example, an individual may be both staff of a service provider organization and a family
member of a person with lived experience, thus representing two informant groups.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 10
Table 3: Phase 2 key informant interview participants
Informant group Number
People with lived experience, family members and/or caregivers 18
12
MHCC Board and staff 8
Representatives of stakeholder organizations 4
Federal/Provincial/Territorial or other governmental representatives 2
Other interested/involved parties (researchers, educators or others) 3
Total: 29
Key informants were invited to participate through an introductory letter sent by the MHCC; it outlined
the purpose of the evaluation and introduced the evaluator. Charis then contacted potential informants
to schedule a telephone interview. Topic areas addressed the following aspects of the MHCC’s
development:
Mandate;
Structure;
Achievements;
Early Impacts; and,
Recommendations and final comments.
The key informant interviews were all conducted by telephone and recorded, to ensure comprehensive
and accurate transcription of the notes.
The key informant interview guides were translated into French and respondents were offered the
opportunity to choose in which language they would like to have the interview conducted; all French
speaking respondents chose to complete their interview in English.
Focus Groups
In order to enrich the qualitative data gathering process, four focus groups were implemented during
Phase 2 of this formative evaluation (see Table 4). Interview questions were prepared to guide the focus
groups and were designed to garner data on the five categories of evaluation questions: mandate,
structure, achievements, early impacts and recommendations. More specific questions and probes
were generated based on responses to these general questions. The guides were reviewed and
approved by the MHCC (see Appendix C).
18 Note – there was some cross-over from this category into other categories as some participants were working in some other
capacity within mental health but were interviewed under the category of PEOPLE WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE/family/caregivers.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 11
The participants were selected from lists provided by the MHCC, and with respect to MHCC
management and staff, were randomly selected. Otherwise all possible respondents were purposively
invited to participate from the Advisory Committees (chairs only) and the Provincial/Territorial
Reference Group. While all four of these groups were originally intended to be conducted in person,
due to a meeting cancellation the Provincial/Territorial Reference Group participants’ session was
conducted by teleconference. It should be noted that Charis made provision to undertake a focus group
session in the French language, but this was not required. Finally, participants were invited to the
sessions by means of an introductory letter sent by the MHCC to introduce Charis as the evaluation
consultant. Charis followed up by phone and email; arranged meeting logistics (in cooperation with the
MHCC project team); and, moderated the groups.
Table 4: Phase 2 focus group locations and participants
Focus group Location Participants
Advisory Committee chairs Vancouver 8
MHCC management Calgary 5
MHCC staff Ottawa 5
Provincial/Territorial Reference Group participants Ottawa
(teleconference)
5
Total: 23
Two Charis consultants were present at each focus group: one moderated the session and the second
was responsible for note taking and logistics. Additionally, the sessions were recorded and the
recordings were utilized as back up for the notes. The focus group notes were then written up and
validated by both Charis consultants.
Interpretation Workshop on Preliminary Findings
The preliminary findings of the formative evaluation were presented by four evaluators at an
Interpretation Workshop of MHCC senior executives and leaders. The timing of this event afforded the
evaluators an opportunity to validate the issues and suggestions heard during the informant interviews
and focus groups, as well as through the online survey responses and document review. Workshop
participants included the MHCC ELT members and other MHCC senior leaders as invited by the MHCC.
Feedback from this workshop was considered in finalizing this report, as evaluators deemed
appropriate.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 12
2.3 Evaluation Limitations
The evaluators recognize several limitations to this evaluation, and caution readers to interpret the
findings presented in this report accordingly. Many of the limitations associated with specific methods
were mitigated by the use of multiple data sources to achieve triangulation of data. Despite the
limitations, the evaluators are confident that the report represents a fair picture of the activities of the
MHCC and the perceptions of key parties, and offers valid findings to the Commission. Concerning
limitations;
First, the timeframe and financial constraints of the evaluation did not permit in-depth review of
the activities and products of each key initiative or project undertaken by the MHCC.
The evaluation spans the overall activities of the MHCC, the five key initiatives and, to
some extent, the work of the eight Advisory Committees. The amount of activity
undertaken over a three year period could only be summarized and reported at a high
level.
This evaluation timeframe involved a total of 7.5 months, with only one month available
for data collection. One impact of this timeline was that the online survey was in field for
only twenty five days. Charis was contacted by several potential respondents, who
discovered the opportunity to participate too late.
Second, while an attempt was made to access all relevant documents, it is possible that some
were inadvertently omitted. The evaluators relied on those received as of January 2011.
Third, the evaluators were somewhat reliant on the recommendations of the MHCC in identifying
potential informants with the greatest involvement with the MHCC. Because of this purposive
sample, there is a possible bias towards favourable perceptions of the MHCC. The evaluators
mitigated this by randomly selecting from the lists of key stakeholders, including representatives
not suggested by the MHCC, such as key national stakeholder groups and partners, and other
people with lived experience and family members who may not have been directly involved with
the MHCC. The random sample of participants increased the validity of the data analyzed in this
report. Concerning the survey, in addition to the sample recommended by MHCC, Charis
disseminated the link to over 20 national organizations and requested that the survey link be
distributed through those organizations’ networks.
Fourth, while detailed notes were taken during interviews and sessions, time and resources did
not permit word-for-word transcription of these recordings. However, two researchers reviewed
the notes and, where uncertainty existed the recordings were accessed and incorporated.
Fifth, although feedback on immediate impacts can be recorded in this evaluation, the MHCC
implementation is not sufficient to measure and report on long term outcomes. This was
appropriate for this formative evaluation.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 13
Despite the noted limitations, we believe the evaluation generated valid and useful information to assist
the MHCC in future planning.
3. Results from Phase 1
To support the development of the evaluation framework that would inform Phase 2 data collection,
Charis undertook four separate activities: 1) organization and implementation of a methodology
workshop; 2) a document review of targeted MHCC administrative data; 3) key informant interviews
with internal and external decision-makers; and, 4) the integration of the data (derived from activities 1
– 3) into the development of an evaluation framework, including Level 1 and five Level 2 logic models,
evaluation questions, and a data matrix. These were compiled into a methodology report, and guided
Phase 2 of the evaluation. The following outlines the results of these activities.
3.1 Logic Models The Level 1 Logic Model (see Figure 1), addressing the higher level indicators of principle importance to
the MHCC’s Board and ELT, is followed by five Level 2 logic models (see Appendix A), presenting the
logic for each of the MHCC’s key initiatives: mental health strategy; anti-stigma campaign;
homelessness research demonstration project; knowledge exchange centre; and partners for mental
health program. The information in the Level 2 logic models is of direct use to the program level
decision-makers. Together, these logic models were developed and validated in discussion with the
MHCC evaluation project team and key stakeholders (key informant interview participants).
While these logic models were newly developed in the framework of this formative evaluation and are
considered accurate as of December 2010, they are fluid documents. That is to say, logic model
timelines vary for the different types of measures (short term – longer term) and should be seen as
responsive documents that evolve with the Commission, as programs, needs and environment changes
are perceived and responded to. Further, logic models are also learning tools; these Level 1 and 2
documents will facilitate continuous feedback that can be integrated into program development,
implementation and subsequent evaluation.
14
KEY ACTIVITIES IMPACT/ INITIAL OUTCOMES
(2 – 4 YRS)
INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES (5 – 8 YRS) OUTPUTS INPUTS/RESOURCES AUDIENCES
Reach Distribution
(push & pull)
Contribute to: System outcomes
A transformed mental health system and transformed Canadian society as outlined by the 7 goals of the Mental Health Strategy for Canada and evidenced by effective and efficient delivery of services
PWLE outcomes
Active engagement for improved health outcomes/ quality of life and able to live meaningful, productive lives.
Work plans developed for each strategy
Programs or frameworks developed Environmental scans /surveys
completed Nationwide consultations
implemented Production and dissemination of
reports and other materials
Advice and support for the 5 key initiatives
24 Advisory Committees’ projects commenced/awarded
Production & dissemination of reports, frameworks, documents & workshops
Meetings with governments (FPT) & other stakeholders
National/International Conferences/Symposia& Roundtables held
Communication plan in place Data & info through website Info via key communication channels
of partners Info via national, local media and
news media
MHFA trainings provided Adaptation of MHFA curriculum for the
NWT government
Board reports Strategic and business plans Policies and procedures Organizational structure documents Priority projects such as Risk Analysis
Restraint and Seclusion, and others Performance management logic
model developed Evaluations implemented and
reporting on evaluation Funding and other resources secured Code of Conduct developed
Increased:
Awareness and understanding of mental health and mental illness by all people living in Canada
Awareness of the MHCC by partners and collaborators
Dissemination of evidence- informed knowledge to governments and stakeholders
Knowledge base: sharing/exchange of knowledge
Understanding of stakeholders’ views on mental health and mental illness
Positive reporting and decreased negative reporting on mental health and mental illness by the media
Collaboration and participation of service providers, governments, educators and researchers
Stakeholder utilization of MHCC resources and products
Engagement of PWLE and families
Access to voice of PWLE, their families and caregivers
General awareness of stigma and its impacts on PWLE
Involvement of people living in Canada in Partners for Mental Health
Improved delivery of services for individuals who are mentally ill and homeless in 5 selected communities in Canada
Inclusive workplace environment at MHCC
Funding
HC ($130 M over 10 years)
HC for At Home/Chez Soi
($110 /M over 5 yrs)
Other sources
Accountability
Governance Board
Government of
Canada/Health Canada
Human resources
MHCC Executive and staff
Contracted staff and
agencies
Volunteers (Advisory
Committees and others)
Partners/collaborators
PWLE of mental illness
Families and caregivers
Government (FPT)
stakeholders
NGO stakeholders
Service provider
stakeholders
Researchers
Educators
International partners
National and local media
People living in Canada
Local communities
ULTIMATE
OUTCOMES (9-10 YRS)
Reduced stigma and discrimination related to mental illness
Improved collaboration among partners and collaborators
Improved awareness of issues and evidence-informed best practices to address those issues
Increased utilization of MHCC research impacting the development of policy and service delivery
Enhanced integrated and collaborative mental health system
Increased capacity of decision makers to implement policies
The MHCC is responsible to people
with lived experience of mental illness
and their families, service providers,
researchers and governments in
Canada.
The MHCC and the mental health
system have a responsibility related to
the mental well being, mental health
promotion and mental illness
prevention for all people living in
Canada, including children, youth,
adults and seniors.
The implementation of a mental health
strategy for Canada relies not just on
the development of the strategy by the
MHCC but the combined support and
collaboration of all stakeholders to
make this a reality.
People living in Canada support the
work of the MHCC.
Communities and service providers are
responsive to and working
collaboratively to support the work of
the MHCC.
People in the mental health community
(including PWLE, families, caregivers,
mental health service providers and
other stakeholders) who are aware of
the MHCC, have high expectations
including an expectation of real and
concrete deliverables.
ASSUMPTIONS
Researchers/
Academics/
Educators
Minister of Health/Health
Canada
ACRONYMS
GOC Government of Canada
HC Health Canada
MHCC Mental Health Commission of Canada
PWLE People with Lived Experience
FPT Federal, Provincial & Territorial
NGO Non-governmental Organizations
Figure 1. Logic Model for the Evaluation of the Mental Health Commission of Canada – Level 1 (as of December 2010) Vision: A society that values and promotes mental health and helps people living with mental health problems and mental illness to lead meaningful and productive lives.
5 Key Initiatives
Mental Health Strategy for Canada
Opening Minds Anti-Stigma/Anti-
Discrimination Initiative
Knowledge Exchange Centre
Partners for Mental Health
At Home/Chez Soi multi-site mental
health and homelessness research
demonstration projects
Advisory Committees
Implementation of 8 Advisory
Committees (ACs)
Priority initiatives/projects undertaken to
support the 5 key initiatives
Engagement/Raising Awareness/
Communication
Establish, maintain partnerships
Linkages with partners for dissemination
opportunities
Develop communication plan with key
messages, communications vehicles,
priorities and detailed communications
strategies for each strategy
Program Delivery
Mental Health First Aid (MHFA)
Corporate Management and Governance
Board governance
Policies and procedures
Operating model
Organizational structure
Policy and Research team support to -
ACs and other priority projects
Performance management structure
developed
Secure additional funding for initiatives
into the future
Establishing the MHCC as a role model
workplace – a mentally and physically
safe workplace environment for staff and
volunteers
All
People living in
Canada
PWLE (including
homeless)/
Families/
Caregivers
Mental Health
Professionals/Service
Providers/
NFP groups
Federal, Provincial,
Territorial Ministries &
Authorities
Federal, Provincial
Territorial Decision &
Policy Makers
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 15
3.2 Evaluation Questions
Upon completion of the Level 1 logic model, it was possible to form the questions needed to implement
the evaluation. Those questions are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Evaluation questions and sub-questions
Overarching evaluation
question
Evaluation sub-questions
Mandate:
To what extent is the MHCC
implementation consistent
with the assigned mandate?
1.1 Is the MHCC initiative consistent with the assigned mandate as per the funding agreement with Health Canada?
1.2 Is the MHCC meeting the grant agreement requirements?
1.3 Are the 5 priorities set by Health Canada the right ones? Are there gaps?
1.4 What funding resources are in place for the MHCC?
1.5 Is the allocated funding sufficient to implement the mandate?
1.6 How have other jurisdictions’ developed and managed national mental health strategies?
Structure:
How is the MHCC’s
governance structure and
support mechanisms
contributing to the
achievement of the MHCC
mandate and goals?
2.1 How are the MHCC’s governance structure, processes and support mechanisms contributing to the achievement of the MHCC mandate and goals?
2.2 Were the decisions made around governance and leadership effective in meeting the assigned mandate?
2.3 What has been achieved to date in terms of establishing the organization? 2.4 Does the MHCC have appropriate performance measurement and reporting
strategies? 2.5 Are the current organizational structure, processes and support mechanisms
functioning as expected? 2.6 What kind of support should MHCC staff provide? 2.7 Are there the right number and mix of staff, Advisory Committee members
and other volunteers available to achieve the MHCC mandate and goals? 2.8 Is there the right number of Advisory Committees? 2.9 Are the Advisory Committees focused on the right content areas? 2.10 Is the role of people with lived experience authentically a key component of
the MHCC staff and volunteers? 2.11 Who are the MHCC’s critical partners and collaborators? 2.12 Has the MHCC been able to establish effective and collaborative partnerships
with federal, provincial and territorial governments and other stakeholders? 2.13 Has the MHCC established itself as a model workplace in terms of physical
and psychological safety?
Early Achievements:
What has been achieved by the MHCC to date in terms of implementation of the assigned mandate?
3.1 What has been achieved by the MHCC to date in terms of implementation of the assigned mandate?
3.2 What aspects of the implementation of the MHCC 5 key initiatives are working well? What aspects of the implementation of the MHCC 5 key initiatives are problematic? Why?
3.3 To what extent is the MHCC integrating the work of the 5 initiatives toward common goals?
3.4 What is working well in terms of raising awareness of mental health and
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 16
mental illness? What factors contribute to success? What are the challenges and issues related to raising awareness and how are these being addressed?
3.5 How effective are the communication strategies utilized by the MHCC? What is working well, what are the challenges and how are they being addressed?
3.6 How effective was the transition of the MHFA Program to the MHCC?
3.7 Is the MHFA program being implemented effectively?
3.8 What products and services have been developed through the work of
the MHCC?
3.9 Are the products and services consistent with the vision and mandate of the
MHCC?
3.10 Are planned activities producing the expected outputs?
3.11 What early examples of success are evident?
3.12 What has been the MHCC most important achievement to date?
Early Impacts:
How has the MHCC affected
the work and lives of partners
and collaborators in the
mental health system?
4.1 How has the MHCC affected the work and lives of partners and collaborators in the mental health system?
4.2 How does the MHCC act as a catalyst for the work that is done?
4.3 What principles and values do you see reflected in the work of the MHCC?
4.4 What are the things that are seen as innovative in the work of the MHCC?
4.5 To what extent are people relying on the output of the MHCC?
4.6 Is the MHCC meeting the broader mental health goals for people in Canada?
4.7 Is the MHCC well positioned for success in achieving its intermediate and ultimate outcomes?
4.8 Is the MHCC going to make a difference for people with lived experience of mental illness or mental health problems and their families or caregivers
Recommendations:
What recommendations can be offered to strengthen the MHCC into the future?
5.1 What can be learned from implementation to date and are there any recommendations for improvement?
5.2 What recommendations are offered to strengthen the MHCC going forward?
5.3 What recommendations are offered to the MHCC in terms of measurement of overall outcomes over their 10 year lifespan?
5.4 What could be the MHCC most important contribution in the future?
What MHCC initiatives should be sustained beyond 2017?
3.3 Evaluation Matrix The Level 1 logic model and high level evaluation questions grounded the development of a data matrix
that included the detailed evaluation questions, indicators and data sources. This key evaluation
information is presented in Table 6. The data matrix in turn, was used to develop the data collection
instruments and guides.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 17
Table 6. MHCC formative evaluation data table
Questions Indicators/metrics Data sources & methods
MANDATE
1.7 Is the MHCC initiative consistent with the assigned mandate as per the funding agreement with Health Canada?
1.8 Is the MHCC meeting the funding agreement requirements?
1.9 Are the priorities set by Health Canada the right ones? Are there gaps?
1.10 Are MHCC funds being leveraged for securing additional funding?
1.11 Is the allocated funding sufficient to implement the mandate?
1.12 How have other jurisdictions’ developed and managed national mental health strategies?
Description of the MHCC organizational structure, leadership, committees and support mechanisms
Description of how content areas of the initiatives were decided and contribute to the mandate.
Description and perceptions of adequacy of the accountability and decision-making structures and processes
Description and perception of appropriateness of the 5 initiatives and any identified gaps
Type and level of funding available
Perception of adequacy of funding
Description of other jurisdictions with national mental health organizations
Document Review
Key Informant Interviews (up to 30)
Focus Groups – MHCC staff, Advisory Committees chairs or co-chairs and 1 member from each, FPT group, people with lived experience
Survey
INPUTS/STRUCTURE
2.14 How are the MHCC’s governance structure, processes and support mechanisms contributing to the achievement of the MHCC mandate and goals?
2.15 Were the decisions made around governance and leadership effective in meeting the assigned mandate?
2.16 What has been achieved to date in terms of establishing the organization?
2.17 Does the MHCC have appropriate performance measurement and reporting strategies?
2.18 Are the current organizational structure, processes and support mechanisms functioning as expected?
2.19 What kind of support should MHCC staff provide to the Advisory Committees?
2.20 Are there the right number and mix of staff, Advisory Committee members and other volunteers available to achieve the MHCC mandate and goals?
2.21 Is there the right number of Advisory Committees?
2.22 Are the Advisory Committees focused on the right content areas?
Description of the MHCC governance structure, processes and support mechanisms
Evidence of business plans and reporting on progress
Evidence of documents and practices put in place
Description and perceptions of MHCC governance, processes and support by staff, Advisory Committee members and other volunteers involved in the MHCC work
Evidence of staffing model implementation and progress
Description and perceptions of Advisory Committee structures, composition and content areas
Description/evidence of products of the Advisory Committees’ work
# of requests for Advisory Committee advice or support by MHCC and other stakeholders
Description of the 24 Advisory Committee projects commenced
# of reports, frameworks, other documents and workshops provided
Perceptions of adequacy or usefulness of products of ACs’ work Description of roles, types of participation and perceptions of involvement of people with
lived experience in the work of the MHCC
List and description of the partners and collaborators
Perceptions of the effectiveness of partnerships to date
Factors that contribute and barriers to effective partnerships
Document review
Focus groups
KI interviews
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 18
Questions Indicators/metrics Data sources & methods
2.23 Is the role of people with lived experience authentically a key component of the MHCC staff and volunteers?
2.24 Who are the MHCC’s critical partners and collaborators?
2.25 Has the MHCC been able to establish effective and collaborative partnerships with federal, provincial and territorial governments and other stakeholders?
2.26 Has the MHCC developed itself as a model workplace in terms of physical and psychological safety?
Factors that contribute and barriers to collaborative partnerships
ACHIEVEMENTS
3.6 What has been achieved by the MHCC to date in terms of implementation of the assigned mandate?
3.7 What aspects of the implementation of the MHCC 5 key initiatives are working well? What aspects of the implementation of the MHCC 5 key initiatives are problematic? Why?
3.8 To what extent is the MHCC integrating the work of the 4 initiatives toward common goals?
3.9 What is working well in terms of raising awareness of mental health and mental illness? What factors contribute to success? What are the challenges and issues related to raising awareness and how are these being addressed?
3.10 How effective are the communication strategies utilized by the MHCC? What is working well, what are the challenges and how are they being addressed?
3.11 How effective was the transition of the MHFA Program to the MHCC?
3.12 Is the MHFA program being implemented effectively?
3.13 What products and services have been developed through the work of the MHCC?
3.14 Are the products and services consistent with the vision and mandate of the MHCC?
3.15 Are planned activities producing the expected outputs?
3.16 What early examples of success are evident?
3.17 What has been the MHCC most important achievement to date?
Description and perceptions of the 5 key initiatives
Identified facilitators and success factors in implementation per initiative
Challenges and barriers to implementation per initiative
Reporting requirements on results for the 5 initiatives identified
Evidence that the initiatives are collecting outcomes data and reporting on planned results
Identification of performance measurement and reporting strategies
Description and perception of communication strategies used and effectiveness including a description of successes and facilitators of communication, challenges, constraints and barriers to communication and how addressed
Perceptions as to the effectiveness of the MHFA Program’s transition
Successes and barriers in MHCC implementation of the MHFA Program
# work plans, programs, frameworks developed
# and type of environmental scans and surveys completed
# of nationwide consultations completed
# reports and other materials disseminated
# and type of partnerships developed (government, other stakeholders)
# of conferences, symposia, roundtables implemented and participated
website utilization - # unique visitors, # visits, # hits
# reports and documents disseminated/downloaded from website and # copies disseminated/downloaded
# information items distributed through key communication channels of partners
# press releases by MHCC
# media events covered in national, local media
Descriptions and perceptions of examples of early success
Document review
Focus Groups (MHCC, FPT, AC, people with lived experience)
Survey
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 19
Questions Indicators/metrics Data sources & methods
EARLY IMPACTS
4.9 How has the MHCC affected the work and lives of partners and collaborators in the mental health system?
4.10 How does the MHCC act as a catalyst for the work that is done?
4.11 What principles and values do you see reflected in the work of the MHCC?
4.12 What are the things that are seen as innovative in the work of the MHCC?
4.13 To what extent are people relying on the output of the MHCC?
4.14 Is the MHCC meeting the broader mental health goals for people in Canada?
4.15 Is the MHCC well positioned for success in achieving its intermediate and ultimate outcomes?
4.16 Is the MHCC going to make a difference for people with lived experience of mental illness or mental health problems and their families or caregivers?
Descriptions and perceptions of the affect the MHCC has had on the work and lives of partners and collaborators
Examples of being a catalyst identified, with most effective aspects described
Principles and values are identified
Innovations in the work of the MHCC are identified
Description and perceptions on whether the MHCC is meeting broader mental health goals
Description and perceptions on whether the MHCC is well positioned for success in achieving its intermediate and ultimate outcomes
Perceptions on whether the MHCC is going to make a difference for people with lived experience and their families or caregivers
Document Review
KI Interviews
Focus Groups (people with lived experience, FPT)
Survey
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.5 What can be learned from implementation to date and are there any recommendations for improvement?
5.6 What recommendations are offered to strengthen the MHCC going forward?
5.7 What recommendations are offered to the MHCC in terms of measurement of overall outcomes over their 10 year lifespan?
5.8 What could be the MHCC most important contribution in the future?
5.9 What MHCC initiatives should be sustained beyond 2017?
Learning and recommendations for improvement identified
Perceptions and opinions of ways to strengthen the MHCC
Perceptions and opinions on measurement of outcomes
Focus Groups (MHCC, FPT, people with lived experience)
Survey
Key Informant Interview
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 20
3.4 Data Collection Coverage
Finally, the comprehensive data collection coverage that Charis designed into this formative evaluation
is disclosed in Table 7. To ensure valid and robust data, multiple data sources provided coverage of key
MHCC stakeholder perspectives. Each of the stakeholder groups participated in multiple lines of
evidence data gathering, through responding to key informant interviews, participating in focus groups,
and participating in the online survey. Together, the findings provide a thorough understanding of
stakeholder perspectives on the work of the MHCC.
Table 7: Summary of data collection coverage for Phase 2
Data source Methods Number
MHCC:
Board members/Executive Team
Directors and Managers
Other staff
Volunteers
Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)
Focus Group(s)
Survey
8 Key Informant Interviews
2 Focus Groups
Advisory Committee
Chairs or co-chairs
All members
Key Informant Interviews (chairs)
Focus group
Survey
1 Focus Group
Partners and collaborators
FPT partners
Health Canada
Service providers
NGO stakeholders
Researchers
Educators
Others
Key Informant Interviews
Focus Group
Survey
9 Key Informant Interviews
1 Focus Group
People with lived experience Key Informant Interviews
Survey
9 Key Informant Interviews
Families and caregivers Key Informant Interviews
Survey 3 Key Informant Interviews
Document review Funding agreements, strategic and
business plans, implementation plans
for each initiative, Advisory Committee
projects and other projects,
communication plans, media releases,
Board reports, organizational policies
and procedures, environmental scans,
surveys and frameworks, web-site hits
Totals
29 Key Informant Interviews
4 Focus Groups
463 Survey Completions
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 21
4. Results from Phase 2 Data Collection 4.1 Administration Data Description Following upon discussions with the MHCC evaluation project team, Charis examined both internal and external process reports and related materials in the framework of an extensive document review. The information was assessed and subsequently used in the construction of evaluation tools (e.g., key informant survey, online survey) and also as context for the analysis of data collection results. The information included:
MHCC documents related to the establishment and operation of the organization, including:
Funding agreements;
Strategic plans;
Business plans;
Board reports;
Annual reports;
Organizational policies and procedures;
Communications plans;
Media releases;
Communication data;
Website utilization data; and,
International mental health strategy evaluations.
Documents regarding each of the MHCC’s five key initiatives, specifically:
Implementation plans;
Advisory Committee projects;
Environmental scans; and,
Frameworks.
This information in the report is divided into the following sections, which outline:
Specific milestones that occurred during the MHCC’s inception phase (March 2007 – April 2008);
Overall MHCC milestones and key events for the five key initiatives from inception until December 2010;
MHCC Milestones and key events for the eight Advisory Committees; and,
Description and discussion of other national health strategies and international mental health strategies;
Administration data descriptions and figures including information on:
MHCC newsletters;
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 22
Speaking engagements;
Website utilizations;
Public relations; and,
Media coverage.
4.1.1 Inception Stage Developmental Milestones
The creation of the MHCC resulted in the achievement of several milestones of note; the chronology of
the first year of MHCC activities, March 2007 and April 2008 is demonstrated in Table 8. Significant is
the sustained development from the release of Out of the Shadows to sequestered federal government
funding of the Commission. The MHCC rapidly developed from a temporary transition team, with
interim offices in Ontario (Ottawa and Toronto) to an established and multi-year funded organization,
with a corporate office in Alberta.
Table 8: Chronology of MHCC establishment and development from March 2007 – April 2008
Time Activity
Pre
MHCC
February 2003 – The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology began the first-ever national study of mental health, mental illness and addiction.
November 2005 – the Senate Committee first proposes the creation of the Mental Health Commission of Canada.
May 2006 – the Senate Committee tables its final report, Out of the Shadows at Last – Transforming Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Services in Canada and reaffirms the need for a Mental Health Commission to provide an ongoing national focus for mental health issues.
March 2007 – the Government of Canada announces funding for the Mental Health Commission of Canada in the 2007 budget and indicated that the mandate and structure of the Commission would be closely based on the proposal contained in the Senate Committee report.
March
2007
The Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) is established with the appointment of (former Senator) Michael Kirby as Board Chair. The first Board Directors appointed to the Commission were Michael Kirby, Michael B. Decter, (Senator) Wilbert J. Keon and Graham W.S. Scott. All of their appointments, with the exception of the Chair, expired on September 10, 2007.
July 2007 Contribution agreement with Health Canada signed July 4, 2007 with $5.5 million of funding made available to March 31, 2008.
August
2007
Official launch of the MHCC by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Septemb
er 2007
First full Board meeting.
Eight Advisory Committee Chairs are appointed and report directly to Michael Kirby and the Board of the MHCC.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 23
October
2007 –
March
2008
Interim offices are established in Ottawa (for Chair of Board and key staff) and Toronto (for interim transition team).
Began development of governance and administrative policies, hired senior staff; conducted consultation sessions with stakeholders across Canada, launched studies and start-up activities; and, developed a five-year business plan.
February
2008
The Government of Canada announces in Budget 2008 the additional $110 million in funding to support a five year initiative with five research and demonstration projects in homelessness.
March
2008
Michael Howlett is hired as CEO.
Calgary office (Corporate) opens.
April
2008
Funding agreements with Health Canada take effect for contributions of $124.5 million over nine years ending March 31, 2017 and $110 million over five years ending March 31, 2013.
The steady achievements highlighted in this snapshot of the first year are sustained in subsequent years.
The MHCC has continued to evolve with intention over the three years, as captured in the milestone
charts below (see Figures 2 and 3). In Figure 2, concerning MHCC development, the time line is from
2006 and pre-MHCC (the launch of the Out of the Shadows report) through to December 31, 2010.
Beneath the timeline, the five key initiative milestones are tracked, by initiative. The following outputs
are noted: reports, meetings/presentations, workshop/training, launch, and other. This document
provides a detailed and visual overview of the core activities undertaken. Figure 3 presents similar data
against the timeline of Advisory Committee milestones. Underneath the timeline are activities and
products produced by each of the eight Committees.
Of consideration is the overall establishment of the MHCC from an initial and interim staff in 2007 to the
over 70 people currently employed in full time or part time positions and working in Calgary, Edmonton
and Ottawa. Also of note are the outputs from the five key initiatives and the eight Advisory
Committees. These activities indicate the depth and breadth of MHCC work—from presentations, to
key notes, to research reports, and project launches.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 24
2007 2008 2009 2010
Go
vern
men
t an
no
un
ces
fun
din
g fo
r M
HC
C in
bu
dge
t (M
arch
19
)
Firs
t M
HC
C f
ull
bo
ard
mee
tin
g
Go
vern
men
t o
f C
anad
a an
no
un
ces
$11
0 m
illio
n in
fu
nd
ing
to M
HC
C
MH
CC
op
ens
Cal
gary
Off
ice,
M. H
ow
lett
CEO
Fun
din
g A
gree
men
t in
eff
ect
Ap
ril 1
, 20
08
an
d e
xpir
es M
arch
31
, 2
01
7
L. B
rad
ley
hir
ed a
s C
OO
Inte
rnat
ion
al r
ou
nd
tab
le:
Imp
act
of
the
Rec
essi
on
on
Men
tal H
ealt
h
MH
CC
Bo
ard
Str
ate
gic
Pla
nn
ing
Sess
ion
“In
to t
he
Ligh
t” C
on
fere
nce
Dec
emb
er 1
/2
Firs
t Fi
scal
yea
r o
f fu
ll fu
nd
ing,
Lo
uis
e B
rad
ley
app
oin
ted
CEO
, MH
FA p
rogr
am jo
ins
Homelessness
Mental Health
Strategy
Partners
K. Exchange Centre
Anti-stigma
Report
Meetings/Presentation
Workshop/Training
Launch
Other
Firs
t st
aff
mee
tin
g w
ith
Lo
uis
e as
CEO
Co
mm
itte
e o
f C
ham
pio
ns
for
Op
tim
izin
g M
H in
Wo
rkp
lace
dev
elo
ped
2006
“Ou
t o
f th
e Sh
ado
ws
at L
ast”
: Fi
nal
Rep
ort
of
the
Stan
din
g Se
nat
e
Co
mm
itte
e in
So
cial
Aff
airs
, Sci
ence
& T
ech
no
logy
(M
ay, 2
00
6)
Co
ntr
ibu
tio
n a
gree
men
t b
etw
een
Hea
lth
Can
ada
and
MH
CC
Exec
uti
ve L
ead
ersh
ip T
eam
est
ablis
hed
an
d f
irst
man
agem
ent
pla
nn
ing
retr
eat
Figure 2. Key MHCC Milestones by Key Initiatives
Hir
ing
of
Hu
man
Res
ou
rces
Man
ager
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 25
Figure 3. Key MHCC Milestones by Advisory Committees
2007 2009 2010
Family Caregiver
First Nations Inuit Métis
Seniors
Science
Mental Health and the Law
Report
Meetings/Presentation
Workshop/Training
Launch
Other
2006
AC
Ch
airs
ap
po
inte
d
All
AC
’s m
eet
and
24
pro
ject
s in
itia
ted
La
un
ch o
f st
ud
y o
f P
olic
e A
cad
emy
Trai
nin
g &
Ed
uca
tio
n
MH
CC
Po
licy
& R
esea
rch
Tea
m e
stab
lish
ed
Nat
ion
al t
raje
cto
ry p
roje
ct s
tart
s
St
rate
gy t
o d
evel
op
ho
usi
ng
star
ts
MH
Pee
r Su
pp
ort
pro
ject
sta
rts
Esta
blis
hed
Yo
uth
Co
un
cil
Lau
nch
sch
oo
l bas
ed m
enta
l hea
lth
an
d a
dd
icti
on
pro
ject
Sh
ain
Rep
ort
rel
ease
d
Dev
elo
pm
ent
of
guid
elin
es f
or
Sen
iors
wit
h M
H p
rob
lem
s st
arts
Asp
irin
g w
ork
forc
e an
d Im
pro
vin
g M
H in
th
e W
ork
pla
ce p
roje
cts
star
ted
Law
& P
olic
e p
roje
ct s
tart
s
Lau
nch
of
imp
rovi
ng
MH
ser
vice
s fo
r im
mig
ran
t, r
efu
gee
, eth
no
cu
ltu
ral g
rou
ps
Fam
ily u
nit
sel
f-st
igm
a p
roje
ct s
tart
s
Res
ou
rces
fo
r m
ult
icu
ltu
ral M
H s
tart
s
Div
ersi
ty R
epo
rt r
elea
sed
Ever
gree
n f
ram
ewo
rk r
ele
ased
P
olic
e In
-Ser
vice
Ed
uca
tio
n &
Tra
inin
g re
po
rt r
ele
ased
M
akin
g th
e C
ase
for
Pee
r Su
pp
ort
rep
ort
rel
ease
d
Service Systems
Workforce
Child and Youth
2008
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 26
4.1.2 Inception Work on a Mental Health Strategy for Canada
As part of the development design process for a mental health strategy for Canada, the MHCC examined
other selected national health strategies (e.g., concerning cancer, diabetes) as well as international
mental health strategies (e.g., from the USA, Australia, Scotland). Charis reviewed the strategies, as well
as examined the MHCC’s internal review and preliminary conclusions of the same documentation.
Based on the review of MHCC documents, the aspects of interest from both within Canada and
internationally that the MHCC has integrated into the development of Toward Recovery and Well-Being:
A Framework for a Mental Health Strategy for Canada, which was released in 2009,19are as follows
(Table 9):
Table 9: Summary of international/national strategy integration
Key theme Other national strategies/jurisdictions MHCC conclusions
National and
International
Context
Government receptivity for a strategy
Level of responsibility for health by national governments
Different ways to address indigenous peoples
Arms length model well suited to Canada
Prepare for major shifts in politics, economics, health policy
Implementation Strategies followed by implementation plans across stakeholders
Communication and knowledge translation key to bridge strategy to implementation
Shift from measuring performance to outcomes
Joint pilot/research projects used (but sustainability an issue)
Strategic planning shifts over time (with progress and changing circumstances)
Increased attention to implementation planning and outcomes
Mental health outcomes measurement emerging
Unique monitoring challenges in Canada (related to responsibility for health across jurisdictions)
Focus & Scope Diverse approaches (comprehensive/global to specific strategic choices for quick wins)
Evolution from improving quality & access to focusing on the nature of services
Pressure to have comprehensive approach yet imperatives for focused priorities
Those that have made choices use mechanisms such as relevance mapping & alignment with interested partners
Some strategies begin with wide scope with selections made when it came time to do costing
Overall trend to comprehensive strategies
Recognize the need for a few key achievable priorities
Some consensus on the nature of priorities & focus of strategies (e.g. recovery, promotion & prevention, social inclusion, primary healthcare, whole of government, human rights, user/carer involvement)
Stakeholder
Engagement
National infrastructure for consumers & NGOs better developed in other countries
Public pressure
Consumers & carers well integrated into every component of the mental health
Stakeholder engagement is critical
Engagement of consumers/carers at all levels for meaningful
19
To a certain extent these components have cross-cutting impacts on the other four key initiatives, too.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 27
system in some countries
Stakeholder engagement attributed to successful implementation
Indigenous engagement & specific strategies best done in close collaboration with leaders & national organizations
participation
Various models and all can play a role
Indigenous engagement best done from outset, in close collaboration with political leaders and organizations
Funding Those funded nationally have focused on knowledge development & transfer, coordination, measurement systems, innovation
Political receptivity key to securing funding
Provincial/Territorial (PT) funding has been dependent on alignment with PT interests
Mixed results in using economic case as a strategy to secure funding
Change objectives as part of funding agreements
Some focus on increased investment (globally & targeted) while others don’t see more money as the only answer
Federal funding important for implementing national levers for change (e.g., knowledge transfer, coordination, monitoring, innovation)
Increasing pressure to demonstrate return on investment, not just benefits to health outcomes
Spending differently, & incremental approaches critical for implementation
4.2 Administrative Data
A brief description of the MHCC’s outputs over the three year period covered by this evaluation is
provided below. Data for this section of the report was derived from a review of documents, including
products, detailed activity logs, and website utilization statistics. The descriptions are supplemented
with tables and figures to illustrate important data.
4.2.1 MHCC Newsletters
MHCC General Newsletter
The MHCC’s success in meeting its mandate is predicated upon sustained contact and collaboration with
the many individuals, organizations and stakeholders that are invested in the mental health sector. To
reach such a large audience, and attempt to engage them, the Commission developed a newsletter that
provides updates on the MHCC and its ongoing activities. The newsletter is delivered in electronic
format, and is provided in both official languages of Canada. As of 2008, the MHCC released eight
newsletters to stakeholders across Canada.20 It should be mentioned that prior to the summer of 2010
the Commission did not collect distribution data for the newsletter.
20 Information provided by the MHCC Communications Department.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 28
The newsletter released in the summer of 2,010 was sent to 6,168 contacts, and was opened by 33%
(n=2,035) of contacts. The English version received 1,970 views, of which, 1,027 were unique views; the
French version received 235 views, with 154 unique views (see Figure 4).21
Figure 4. E-Newsletter (summer 2010) total and unique views, by language
The articles in the newsletter that received the most attention were articles on the At Home/Chez Soi Project, and Louise Bradley’s new appointment to CEO of the MHCC. Following the immediate release of the newsletter, 28 individuals subscribed to the product; since the summer of 2010, an additional 214 subscribers were noted.22
At Home/Chez Soi Newsletter
The MHCC has created a newsletter specific to the At Home/Chez Soi research demonstration projects. This newsletter targets contacts invested in this homelessness initiative. Between April 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010 the newsletter was distributed in Vancouver, Toronto, and nationally. Concerning the targeted distribution in Vancouver and Toronto, the following is of note:
Vancouver: distributed to 356 contacts including:
Landlords
Provincial Mental Health and Addictions Planning Council
Addictions and Mental Health organizations
Clinical advisors
People with lived experience
MLAs and MP’s
21 Analytics provided by the MHCC Communications Department. 22 Analytics provided by the MHCC Communications Department.
1970
235
1027
154 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
English French
# o
f V
iew
s
Version of Newsletter
Total Views
Unique Views
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 29
City of Vancouver
BC Housing
Vancouver Foundation
StreetoHome
Academics/researchers
BC Mental Health and Addictions Services Toronto: sent to over 500 contacts including:
Ontario ministries
Municipal government departments
Service providers
Media
Researchers
Community members
In addition to the newsletter, this initiative engages stakeholders and the public by posting information
and news on Twitter, with over 150 followers which are mostly advocacy or service organizations. As
well, the information is posted on the Centre for Research on Inner City Health website, and obtains
more than 12,000 website hits per month.23
4.2.2 MHCC Speaking Engagements
In addition to disseminating information using newsletters, the MHCC consistently participates in
speaking engagements, undertaking presentations that describe the work of the MHCC and/or
addressing other issues of relevance to the mental health sector. The figures below highlight the growth
in opportunities for presentations from 2007 to 2010, showing a steady increase in numbers of events
(Figure 5). Additionally, Table 10 indicates the persons who deliver the presentations, by numbers of
recorded engagements. The MHCC did not track all speaking engagements initially; the trend to more
accurate record keeping developed in 2010.24 In Table 10 is that only one event is recorded as “MHCC
unspecified” indicating the increasing commitment to record the details of MHCC activity.
23
At Home/Chez Soi newsletter data and information provided by the MHCC Communications Department 24
A full listing of the speaking engagements that were recorded is found in Appendix D. Again, it should be noted that the list is not exhaustive and that data collection began more fully comprehensive in 2010.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 30
Figure 5. Total number of recorded speaking engagements by year
As depicted above, there has been an increase in speaking engagements over the years of MHCC
implementation. This is what you would expect to find as a trend for a new organization, and the
volume of speaking engagements indicates the large investment of time on the part of the MHCC to this
aspect of knowledge transfer and increasing public awareness. Additionally, it indicates the interest in
the sector, as the MHCC receives significantly larger numbers of requests each year and points to the
potential for the MHCC to act as a catalyst for the sector.
The speaking engagements were also examined in terms of who was speaking or representing the MHCC
(if recorded). Who was speaking on behalf of the MHCC, and how frequently is demonstrated in Table
10, by year. In some instances, more than one speaker was involved in the presentation, thus the total
values will be slightly different than the number of speaking engagements by year. Further, there were
fourteen instances for a speaker with a total of one engagement, shown in the table as “Other.”
11
58
93 105
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2007 2008 2009 2010
# o
f e
nga
gem
en
ts
Year
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 31
Table 10. Number of recorded speaking engagements by year and speaker category
Speaker # of Recorded Engagements
2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
Louise Bradley, CEO and President 0 0 13 31 44
Jayne Barker, VP Research Initiatives and Mental
Health Strategy
0 9 11 9 29
David Goldbloom, Board of Directors 1 3 1 21 26
Michael Kirby, Chair of Board of Directors 0 3 5 7 15
Michael Howlett, Previous CEO and President (prior to March 2009)
0 5 6 0 11
Geoff Couldrey, VP Knowledge and Innovation 0 0 1 4 5
Patrick Dion, Board of Directors 0 0 1 3 4
Other staff 0 1 1 23 25
MHCC unspecified 10 37 54 7 108
Total 11 58 93 105 267
To understand what types of requests the MHCC was receiving, the speaking engagements were coded by event type:
Conference/presentations, such as presentations, poster presentations and conference attendance;
Lecture/seminars, including lectures, seminars, symposiums, forums, fairs, summits and series attended or spoken at;
Workshop/meetings, comprised of all workshops, meetings, launches, luncheons, showcases, festivals and debates;
Grand Rounds presented at hospitals;
Keynote speeches, at conferences and events;
General, which includes all other mental health related appearances and discussions; and
Other, which includes all other attendances at non-mental health related (e.g., convocations). The data above indicates that 2010 was the most active year to date for the MHCC concerning the
delivery of presentations. The majority of these engagements were conference/presentations, an event
type that shows a steady upward trend for the Commission, from no such opportunities in 2007 to 25 in
2010. Concerning general mental health related speeches, a steady rate of activity was noted in 2010 (7
in 2007, 14 in 2008, 12 in 2009, 14 in 2010).
Another important indicator of relevance is the location of the speaking engagements, given the
Commission’s national mandate. The national presence of the MHCC, concerning requests for
presentations is outlined in Figure 6.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 32
Figure 6. Overall percent of speaking engagements by province (n=267)
The majority of tracked presentations have taken place in Ontario. Alternatively, there have been no
recorded presentations in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut or Yukon over the years, and very few
(less than five per year) in Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI and Saskatchewan.
However, it is not simply presentation numbers that are centralized to Ontario; other areas of interest
are as well (e.g., board member representation, research project sites, Advisory Committee chairs,
Advisory Committee projects).
While the data sets are not complete until 2010, the MHCC’s pan-Canadian presence with respect to a
number of key indicators is presented in the map of Canada (Figure 7). The Advisory Committee
projects are mapped based on the location of the research contractor. Once again, there is large
representation in Ontario, followed by Québec, while there is sparse representation in areas of Atlantic
Canada, the Prairies, and the Territories.
ON, 58.8% BC, 8.6%
AB, 5.6%
QB, 6.0%
NS, 4.1%
NB, 3.7%
NL, 4.1%
MB, 1.9% PEI, 1.5%
SK, 0.4%
Unspecified, 1.0%
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 33
Figure 7. Map of Canada demonstrating representation of areas of interest
Albertan=5
n=157
n=16
n=4
Territories
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick
n=2
n=4
n=2n=2
n=6
n=2
n=1
n=1
n=1
n=2
n=1
n=2 n=2
n=5
n=1
British Columbia Newfoundland
and Labrador
PEI
Nova Scotia
n=11
n=10 n=11
n=23
n=1
n=1n=1
n=1
Saskatchewan
n=12
International
n=1
n=1
n=5
n=3
Unspecified location
Legend
Presentations AC Chairs AC Projects At Home Research Sites Board Members
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 34
4.2.3 MHCC Website Utilization
The MHCC website was developed October, 2008 to facilitate information access concerning the
Commission, its activities and resources, general information about mental health, and links to other
organizations.25 The MHCC regularly maintains and updates the website and has been tracking website
utilization data since July 2008, including the number of visits, hits on specific pages, and traffic sources.
The following analysis is based on website utilization data provided by the MHCC.
Website Visits
Since the creation of the MHCC website, there have been almost a quarter of a million visits to the site.
The amount of traffic to the site has increased substantially each year, and almost half of all visits are
new visits.26 Although 2008 website data collection began in July, there was a large number of website
hits (114,444 in total) recorded for that partial year. Website utilization has increased steadily over the
years; in 2009, the amount of new visits was greater than the amount of returning visits, indicating an
increasing awareness about the site in the larger community.
Figure 8. Number of website hits per year, by type
*Indicates a partial year of data collection.
25
The MHCC website is located at: http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca. 26
The data could not indicate if an individual could be described as a “new” visitor more than once/month. Therefore, we are operating under the assumption that “new visit” can occur only once, and after that visit, the individual is classified as a “returning” visit.
11444
86941
127027
5749
41063
69276
5695
45878
57751
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
2008* 2009 2010
We
bsi
te V
isit
s
Year
# Visitors
# Returning Visits
# of New Visits
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 35
There is a steady pattern in the 2009 and 2010 data that discloses lower website hits from December to
March, an increase through March and April, a decrease through the summer months and a larger
increase through September to November. This pattern is relatively stable, and other fluctuations can be
attributed to increased participation in events such as speaking engagements and presentations (i.e.,
see Figure 9 and 10 below).
Figure 9. Website visit fluctuations over 2009
Figure 10. Website visit fluctuations over 2010
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
# Visitors/Month
# Returning Visits
# New Visits
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
# Visitors/Month
# Returning Visits
# New Visits
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 36
Website Page Visits
Website utilization data are recorded, related to the most visited pages include the homepage,
information on employment, background information about the Commission, and the At Home/Chez Soi
Research Demonstration Project. This data is presented in Table 11.
Table 11. Top ten most visited pages on MHCC website
Source/medium Visits
1. Homepage 140,023
2. Employment 33,714
3. About the Commission 31,059
4. Homelessness 25,094
5. Mental Health Strategy 24,410
6. Introduction to the MHCC 18,723
7. English/Pages/default.aspx* 18,601
8. Research Contract Opportunities 16,005
9. The MHCC (history and mandate) 15,748
10. News releases 12,539
*Indicates the selection of the English language version of a text.
Finally, it is important to know how visitors access the site (e.g., through search engines, links from
another website). Data concerning the priority access points to the MHCC website is presented in Table
12.
Table 12. Top ten most traffic sources to MHCC website
Source/medium Visits
1. Direct 115,711
2. Google 43,276
3. Bing 2,392
4. MentalhealthCommission.dialoguecircles.com/referral 1,657
5. MentalhealthCommission.ca/referral 1,556
6. Yahoo 1,346
7. Mentalhealthresearch.ca/referral 674
8. Commissionsantementale.ca/referral 641
9. Mhccintranet.igloocommunities.com/referral 577
10. Ontario.cmha.ca/referral 572
The large majority of visitors access the site directly; visitors type the website address into their internet
browser. The next largest group accesses through Google; visitors search for the MHCC through Google,
and follow the link. Others utilize other search engines (e.g., Bing, Yahoo) or are referred through other
websites (e.g., Ontario CMHA).
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 37
Finally, in the “Communication Plan for the MHCC” (October 7, 2010) the Commission targets 2011 as
the year for their website to be an easily accessible portal for trusted information on mental health, the
MHCC and its work.27
4.2.4 Media Coverage
Media coverage is a key access point for building capacity and raising awareness about mental health
issues in Canada. Data collection on media activities began being collected in April 2009 and Charis was
provided with summary information through to December 2010. In the entire time period (April 2009 –
December 2010), the MHCC was featured in 477 pieces of media coverage.
From April to September (2009), the MHCC was most often covered in print media (58%); followed by
radio (18%), television (17%) and website references (7%) (see Figure 11). For the remainder of the time
provided (up to December 2010), they were also most often covered in print media (75%), followed by
television (12%), trade publications (8%), and web site references (3%).
Figure 11. Media coverage April 2009 - September 2010 by source
The provinces in which the MHCC has received the most media coverage are Ontario (20%), British
Columbia (12%), Alberta (9%), and Québec (5%).28 Ontario’s media coverage correlates to the larger
proportion of speaking engagements occurring in that province. Additionally, provinces without
speaking engagements (Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Yukon) are not well
represented in their media coverage of the MHCC.
Since inception of the MHCC, 29 news releases were issued to the media. These releases (e.g.,
newspaper articles, television reports, radio reports, and online references) were sent to multiple types
27 See “Communication Plan for the MHCC,” Final Draft, (October 7, 2010), pg. 13. 28 Data for April 2009 – September 2010.
58.00% 18.00%
17.00%
7.00%
Print Media Radio Television Website References
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 38
of media at the local, provincial and national levels. Three of the MHCC’s project launches are described
below to indicate media coverage.29
The launch of the Homelessness Initiative (At Home/Chez Soi) involved a large media presence
(November 23, 2009). This initiative involves five project sites (Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto,
Montreal, and Moncton) and the launch resulted in extensive media coverage and spikes in MHCC
website analytics. Media coverage included:
Thirty nine television stations in attendance, resulting in 19 broadcasts on local news and 20 as national reports;
Eight French television stations in attendance;
Sixteen English and Eight French newspapers; and,
Twenty three English and 2 French radio stations.
The opening of the Bosman Hotel in Vancouver included media guests invited by the MHCC (August 2010). The media coverage included:
Four television reports including one French;
Two radio reports;
Four newspaper articles (one editorial); and,
Two online references.
The release of Tracking the Perfect Legal Storm report, by the MHCC’s Workforce Advisory Committee, garnered substantive media attention. Highlighting employer responsibility to provide psychologically safe workplaces, and released in Vancouver (2010), media coverage included:
Two television reports;
Six radio reports;
Seven newspaper articles; and,
Articles in six trade publications.
4.3 MHCC Online Survey As part of the evaluation, Charis designed an online survey with input from the Expert Evaluation
Advisory Panel and the MHCC. The survey was created using Survey Crafter, and was launched in both
official languages of Canada on January 20, 2011 (please refer to Appendix C for the full survey). The
survey was in the field for 25 days and was closed on February 14, 2011.
To engage as many individuals as possible, Charis sent the survey to 20 stakeholder organizations in
Canada (e.g., Schizophrenia Society, Canadian Mental Health Association). The organizations were sent
an email outlining the evaluation process, containing a link to the survey and an invitation letter from
29 Data provided by the MHCC Communications Department.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 39
Louise Bradley, CEO of MHCC. The organizations were asked to forward the survey link to their
networks, thus creating a consumer driven route for the survey. MHCC inserted the link to the survey in
their newsletter that was sent to organizations, partners and stakeholders (n=8,000). Approximately
2,000 of the newsletters were opened. The MHCC also sent out an email to their staff inviting them to
participate in the survey. In addition, every key informant interview and focus group Charis conducted
was used as an opportunity to inform participants about the survey and invite them to contribute.
The survey itself was comprised of seven sections that were used to evaluate the areas of inquiry
developed in the evaluation framework. Participants followed the link to the online survey and were
taken to a cover page where they chose their preferred language (English or French). They were then
directed to the appropriate version of the survey and were presented with a page that outlined the
evaluation process, the five key initiatives of the MHCC and the instructions for completing the online
survey.
Each of the seven sections of the survey was comprised of questions pertaining to that topic. The first
section, awareness of the MHCC, included questions regarding respondents’ awareness of the MHCC in
the community, and of the collaboration between the MHCC and their work. The next section, five key
initiatives of the MHCC, was concentrated on the initiatives of the MHCC and whether the Commission
should be focusing on those particular areas. The section regarding the promotion of the MHCC included
questions about the Commission’s ability to communicate and disseminate information, and asked
participants how they received information about the MHCC. Impacts of the MHCC included questions
about the ability of the MHCC to achieve its goals and impact the community. This section also included
questions regarding the impact of the MHCC on various groups of people, and the mental health sector.
The overall observations section included questions focused on what is working well, what could be
improved upon, and which initiatives should be sustained. The background information section asked
respondents information on their background and association with mental health and MHCC. Finally, the
last component of the survey was the optional information section which asked participants their
demographic information if they wished to provide it.
In many of the questions, participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement
with statements provided to them. They responded on a five point scale which included: “strongly
agree”, “agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree” and “don’t know”. Questions were also asked in other
formats, which will be described along with the results for that question. While the demographic
information is presented first, all other results are organized in the survey sequence, using illustrative
graphs and a short narrative commenting on the results. The results are presented in the order in which
they occurred on the survey using illustrative graphs and a short narrative commenting on the results.
For many of the questions, the narrative provides collapsed results by placing “strongly agree” and
“agree” together for an overall agreement percent and “disagree” and strongly disagree” together for
an overall disagreement percent.30
30 Where relevant, the data was separated into three different results sections: overall roles (includes all individuals who
indicate they were a part of that role); prioritized categories for ‘people with lived experience’ and ‘family-caregivers’ (if
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 40
4.3.1 Results
Respondents Characteristics and Roles
As a result of the decision to allow a user driven survey (by way of individuals forwarding the survey to
their networks) an overall response rate, margin of error and confidence level are unable to be
calculated (except in estimate form).
The background information section was developed to better understand the characteristics of the
individuals responding to the survey. It was comprised of five questions. The first three were rated on
the five point scale and asked participants: how knowledgeable they felt about mental health; how
involved with the MHCC they were; and, if they interacted with people with lived experience, how often
they heard about the MHCC from them. The other two questions asked about their role in relation to
mental health, and for a description of the work that they do.
Figure 12: Respondents indication of their knowledge of mental health (n=463)
In terms of the knowledge of respondents, 62% rated themselves as very knowledgeable, 29% as fairly
knowledgeable, and only 9% as “a little” knowledgeable, or “not at all” knowledgeable. This finding
highlights that 91% of respondents would count themselves as knowledgeable about mental health and
mental health improvement, thus further supporting the responses and opinions of respondents.
When separated by role it is very apparent that most roles would rate themselves as “very” or “fairly”
knowledgeable. The groups that rated themselves as most knowledgeable (highest percent of “strongly
agree” and “agree”) were: health service providers (100%), media (100%), educators (99%), researchers
(99%), and AC chairs/members (96%). The groups that indicated a lower level of knowledge (highest
percent of “a little” and “not at all” responses) were: MHCC staff (21%), government officials/staff
(11%), MHCC volunteers (11%), and family members (10%). Interestingly, MHCC staff had the highest
percent of both “a little” (17%) and “not at all” (4%) ratings.
people indicated ‘people with lived experience’ they were included in that group and no others), and discrete categories for ’people with lived experience’ and ‘family-caregivers’ (with no overlap between categories and no individuals who selected multiple roles). The differences are noted only for applicable questions and where the difference is significant.
62% 29% 7% 1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
How knowledgeable do you feel about mental healthand mental health improvement?
Very Fairly A little Not at all
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 41
Figure 13: Respondents indication of their knowledge of mental health (n=463)
Figure 14: Respondents indication of their level of involvement with the MHCC (n=463)
In reference to involvement with the MHCC, the majority of participants (69%) indicated they were only
“a little” involved with the MHCC (33%), or “not at all” involved (36%). Only 28% of participants
indicated they were more heavily involved (10% “very” involved, 18% “fairly” involved), and three
percent of respondents indicated they did not know their level of involvement with the MHCC.
When disaggregated by role, we can see that for many roles, they are “a little” or “not at all” involved
with the MHCC. This finding speaks to the diversity of respondents and provides a good contrast to the
63%
40%
73%
78%
69%
72%
72%
58%
67%
58%
58%
78%
38%
65%
38%
60%
26%
20%
27%
24%
21%
35%
24%
32%
32%
11%
42%
23%
1%
2%
4%
5%
6%
5%
8%
9%
11%
11%
17%
11%
1%
1%
1%
1%
4%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Health Service Provider (n=48)
Media (n=5)
Educator (n=80)
Researcher (n=46)
AC Chair/Member (n=52)
Mental Health Service Provider (n=211)
NGO (n=109)
Caregiver (n=96)
Person with Lived Experience (n=175)
Family Member (n=217)
Government Official/Staff (n=38)
MHCC Volunteer (n=9)
MHCC Staff (n=24)
Other (n=57)
Very Fairly A Little Not At All Don't Know
10% 18% 33% 36% 3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
How involved are you with the MHCC?
Very Fairly A little Not at all Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 42
key informant interviews and focus groups, where the participants were highly involved with the MHCC.
The groups that indicated the most involvement (highest percent of “very” of “fairly” involved) were:
MHCC volunteers (88%), MHCC staff (79%), Advisory Committee chairs/members (64%), and researchers
(50%). Interestingly, volunteers indicated they were more involved with the Commission than MHCC
staff. Those groups that indicated the least amount of involvement (highest percent of “a little” and “not
at all” responses) were: health service providers (84%), government officials/staff (76%), family
members (71%), and people with lived experience (71%), mental health service providers (70%) and
‘other’ (70%). If you will recall, the majority of people who indicated ‘other’ had a comprehensive role
within mental health. It is fair to say that some of the groups that should be providing input to the
MHCC (government, mental health service providers, people with lived experience and their families)
indicated that they are just “a little” or “not at all” involved.
Figure 15: Respondents indication of their level of involvement with the MHCC (n=463)
44%
46%
35%
20%
20%
13%
11%
10%
9%
7%
9%
13%
6%
9%
44%
33%
29%
30%
20%
21%
23%
22%
19%
18%
16%
11%
10%
16%
11%
4%
19%
24%
60%
43%
28%
38%
34%
37%
32%
39%
42%
40%
4%
15%
26%
21%
39%
26%
36%
34%
39%
37%
42%
30%
13%
2%
2%
4%
1%
3%
3%
5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
MHCC Volunteer (n=9)
MHCC Staff (n=24)
AC Chair/Member (n=52)
Researcher (n=46)
Media (n=5)
NGO (n=109)
Educator (n=80)
Caregiver (n=96)
Mental Health Service Provider (n=211)
Person with Lived Experience (n=175)
Family Member (n=217)
Government Official/Staff (n=38)
Health Service Provider (n=48)
Other (n=57)
Very Fairly A Little Not At All Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 43
Figure 16: Respondents indication of how often they hear about the MHCC from people with lived
experience, family members or caregivers (n=463)
For those that interact with persons with lived experience, they were asked to indicate how often they
heard about the MHCC from them. Results indicated that the majority of respondents did not hear from
them at all about the MHCC (56%), 27% heard about it “a little”, and only 10% indicated they heard
about the MHCC from them “very” or “fairly” often. In addition, 8% of respondents indicated they did
not know, likely a result of being in roles that would not involve interacting with people with lived
experience.
Figure 17: Respondents indication of how often they hear about the MHCC from people with lived
experience, family members or caregivers (n=463)
4% 6% 27% 56% 8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
If you interact with persons with livedexperience, family or caregivers, how often doyou hear about the MHCC from them?
Very Fairly A little Not at all Don't Know
17%
11%
8%
6%
6%
5%
4%
5%
4%
4%
3%
7%
17%
13%
20%
10%
9%
7%
6%
6%
5%
6%
5%
5%
2%
21%
28%
60%
38%
24%
27%
35%
28%
30%
21%
33%
21%
67%
32%
25%
39%
38%
59%
56%
48%
58%
56%
63%
55%
58%
22%
47%
21%
9%
20%
6%
2%
5%
6%
3%
4%
6%
2%
13%
11%
12%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
MHCC Staff (n=24)
Researcher (n=46)
Media (n=5)
AC Chair/Member (n=52)
Person with Lived Experience (n=175)
Family Member (n=217)
NGO (n=109)
Mental Health Service Provider (n=211)
Educator (n=80)
Health Service Provider (n=48)
Caregiver (n=96)
Government Official/Staff (n=38)
MHCC Volunteer (n=9)
Other (n=57)
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 44
When separated by role, the groups that heard about the MHCC most often (selected “strongly agree”
and “agree” the most) were: MHCC staff (34%), researchers (24%), media (20%), and AC chairs,
members (18%). Those groups that heard about it the least (selected “disagree” and “strongly disagree”)
were: MHCC volunteers (89%), caregivers (88%), mental health service providers (86%) and educators
(86%). In general, it appears that few people are hearing about the MHCC from people with lived
experience, family members or caregivers.
Interestingly, when the roles were prioritized, both people with lived experience and family-caregivers
indicated more frequently that they had heard about the MHCC. Of people with lived experience, 33%
indicated they had heard about the MHCC “very” or “fairly” often, and 6% “a little”. For family-
caregivers, 37% indicated they had heard about the MHCC “very” or “fairly” often, and 4% “a little”.
These are much larger percents than the overall sample (n=463), likely indicating that those individuals
who are more heavily invested in the sector (by way of lived experience or being a family member) are
hearing about the MHCC more often from people they come in contact with that have similar lived
experience. The same trend emerged when the data was separated into discrete categories (22% of
people with lived experience indicated “very” or “fairly” often, 32% of family-caregivers indicated “very”
or “fairly” often).
Immediately following the selection of their roles, participants were asked to describe their work or
their organization’s work if it were applicable. There were 211 people who replied to this question. The
vast majority (87%) work in some manner in mental health. Presented below is a graph depicting the
main sectors in which respondents work.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 45
Figure 18: Areas of work for survey respondents (n=211)
For those that responded, the results mirror the roles that the respondents indicated for themselves.
Organizational or service provider work is well represented in the survey sample, as well as a variety of
other areas which overlap with the mental health sector.
A total of 463 individuals completed the online survey. The survey asked them to indicate their roles vis-
à-vis mental health. Respondents were able to select multiple roles that they may hold in relation to
mental health, as the sector contains diversity and crossover between roles. These individuals
comprised a large group with diverse roles and interests: 31
Family members (n=217);
Mental health service providers (n=211);
People with lived experience of mental illness (n=175);
Non-governmental organizations (n=109);
Caregivers (n=96); and,
31
Note: respondents were able to select multiple roles they were a part of, as the mental health sector contains a lot of diversity and crossover.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 46
Educators (n=80);
Advisory Committee chairs or members (n=56);
Health service providers (n=48);
Researchers (n=46):
Government officials and staff (n=38);
MHCC staff (n=24);
Volunteers (n=9); and,
Media (n=5).
Fifty-seven (57) individuals selected “other” to describe their role, as follows:
Comprehensive role within mental health (x20): 20 people said they work comprehensively in the mental health sector, e.g., sitting on boards, peer education, volunteering, are recipients of the MHCC funds or are current/retired professionals;
Specific role with the MHCC (x12): 12 people work in specific roles with the MHCC, or are contractors of the organizations;
Police/justice system (x6): six people are members of the police force or work in the court system;
Professional (x6): six respondents said they work as health professionals (e.g., social worker, RN, peer support worker) or are connected to the MHCC through a professional association;
Government (x4): four people mentioned they hold positions in the government, three in the provincial governments and one in an unspecified parliament;
Lived experience (x3): three respondents said they have lived experience of mental illness;
Caregiver/family (x2): there were two people who indicated they were part of the family of a person with mental illness, and another who is an advocate for people with lived experience; and,
Other (x7): seven people indicated roles that do not fall into other categories, specifically: they are friends of people in mental health organizations, members of the concerned public, two are writers of unspecified materials and one is a student.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 47
Figure 19. Distribution of roles selected by respondents (n=463, able to select multiple roles)
Interestingly, when the data from the survey was examined more closely concerning the roles, it was
evident that most respondents hold more than one role. For example, 71% of the sample (n=463)
indicated that they hold more than one role; 44% of the sample indicated they hold three or more roles.
This information speaks again to the diversity and crossover that occurs in the mental health sector.
Please see Table 13 for more detailed information.
Table 13. Number of roles for MHCC survey respondents
Number of roles Frequency Percent
1 134 28.9
2 124 26.8
3 97 21.0
4 60 13.0
5 30 6.5
6 10 2.2
7 4 0.9
8 2 0.4
TOTAL 463 100.0
Family Member, 217
Mental Health Service Provider, 211
Person with Lived Experience, 175 NGO, 109
Caregiver, 96
Educator, 80
Other, 57
AC Chair/Member, 52
Health Service Provider, 48
Researcher, 46
Government Official/Staff, 38
MHCC Staff, 24 MHCC Volunteer, 9
Media, 5
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 48
The MHCC online survey captured a sample with demographic characteristics similar to those of the
population of Canada who were expected to complete the survey (working professionals, health care
and service providers, family and caregivers). Generally speaking a sample size of 400 or more is
sufficient to represent the opinions of the general population, and that number was achieved (n=463).
The sample was predominantly female (76%), which according to the most recent Canadian Census, is
similar to the pattern found in the health service industry (see Table 14), also largely female.
Table 14. Gender of individuals in the health industry in Canada (%)
Occupation % of Males % of Females
Health occupations 20% 80%
Professional occupations in health 46% 54%
Nurse supervisors and registered nurses 6% 94%
Technical and related occupations in health 23% 77%
Assisting occupations in support of health services 12% 88%
Concerning age, results demonstrated the largest percent of respondents were aged 45-64 (61%),
followed by 25-44 (31%).32
Figure 20. Distribution of age as reported by survey respondents (n=454)
32
For more information, reference the 2006 Canadian Census data on “Industry and Selected Demographics” which can be found at: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006.
2%
31%
61%
4% 2%
15-24
25-44
45-64%
65-74
75+
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 49
Awareness of the MHCC
This section included five questions regarding awareness. All questions in this section were formatted in
statements that participants rated on the five point scale of “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” with
the option to select “don’t know”. Detailed results per question are presented below.
The awareness questions posed to participants included those about the MHCC and its work, the
mandate of the MHCC, knowing what they want to know about the MHCC, the MHCC sharing
information, and the reputation of the MHCC.
Figure 21: Percent rating awareness of the MHCC (n=463)
The vast majority of respondents (85%) indicated that they were aware of the work of the MHCC and
understands the mandate of the organization (81%). However, a large percent (61%) indicated that they
do not know as much as they would like to about the MHCC. Thirty-seven percent believe the MHCC
could improve on sharing information, which likely would increase the amount of individuals who know
as much as they would like to about the organization. As well, 67% of respondents believe that the
MHCC has a positive reputation. However, a substantial percent (18%) do not know, which may be a
result of not having enough information about the MHCC and its work.
41%
39%
10%
8%
23%
44%
42%
27%
42%
44%
10%
13%
48%
29%
11%
4%
3%
13%
8%
4%
2%
3%
3%
12%
18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I am aware of the MHCC and its work.
I understand the mandate of the MHCC.
I know as much as I want to know about the MHCC.
The MHCC does a good job of sharing information.
I believe the MHCC has a positive reputation.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 50
Figure 22: I know as much as I want to know about the MHCC (n=463)
Results indicate that half or more of all roles want to know more about the MHCC. The roles that most
want to know more about the MHCC are: media (80%), MHCC volunteers (67%), “other” (66%), family
members (64%), and people with lived experience (64%). It should be noted that the “other” category
was mostly comprised of individuals who had a comprehensive role within mental health, or a specific
role with MHCC.
21%
14%
23%
9%
12%
17%
9%
16%
9%
11%
10%
6%
12%
27%
33%
23%
37%
30%
25%
32%
21%
25%
22%
22%
26%
20%
16%
40%
41%
42%
41%
44%
50%
48%
50%
46%
67%
49%
48%
60%
54%
13%
10%
12%
11%
13%
9%
11%
17%
15%
16%
20%
12%
3%
2%
1%
8%
2%
3%
3%
4%
4%
5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Health Service Provider (n=48)
Educator (n=80)
AC Chair/Member (n=52)
Researcher (n=46)
NGO (n=109)
MHCC Staff (n=24)
Mental Health Service Provider (n=211)
Government Official/Staff (n=38)
Caregiver (n=96)
MHCC Volunteer (n=9)
Family Member (n=217)
Person with Lived Experience (n=175)
Media (n=5)
Other (n=57)
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 51
Figure 23: I believe the MHCC has a positive reputation (n=463)
It is evident that the large majority of survey respondents feel the MHCC has a positive reputation. In
some cases (e.g. family member) there is a relatively substantial percent that “don’t know”, which could
be attributed to not knowing enough about the MHCC to make a judgment. It is also interesting to note
that among MHCC volunteers (n=9), 33% disagree that the MHCC has a positive reputation (in
comparison to 16% of MHCC staff), which is the largest percent among the varying roles.
The collaboration questions in the survey asked respondents about their understanding of the
collaboration between the MHCC and their work, and if they have adequate opportunities to provide
input to the MHCC.
40%
27%
18%
26%
33%
24%
30%
22%
27%
24%
22%
25%
21%
60%
56%
55%
46%
40%
46%
40%
48%
40%
67%
41%
42%
38%
56%
13%
8%
9%
15%
14%
10%
9%
10%
22%
9%
10%
8%
9%
3%
2%
3%
5%
11%
6%
11%
6%
6%
8%
4%
4%
16%
16%
13%
14%
15%
11%
17%
20%
21%
21%
11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Media (n=5)
AC Chair/Member (n=52)
Government Official/Staff (n=38)
Mental Health Service Provider (n=211)
Health Service Provider (n=48)
NGO (n=109)
Educator (n=80)
Researcher (n=46)
Caregiver (n=96)
MHCC Volunteer (n=9)
Family Member (n=217)
Person with Lived Experience (n=175)
MHCC Staff (n=24)
Other (n=57)
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 52
Figure 24: Questions regarding collaboration and percent response of opinion (n=463)
In terms of collaboration, a smaller percent of respondents responded positively to the questions. Just
over half of respondents indicated that they understood how their work contributed to the MHCC, and
32% did not understand how. It should be noted that there is a larger percent of “don’t know”, likely
because some roles are not directly related to the MHCC (e.g. media or educators). Half of respondents
(50%) indicated that they understood how the MHCC contributes to their work, while 32% did not
understand the connection, and 17% did not know. Another important point to take note of is that
almost half of respondents (46%) indicated that they did not have adequate opportunities to provide
input to the MHCC. This finding indicates an area for improvement for allowing more individuals to be
involved in collaborating.
For the collaboration questions, the Charis evaluation team thought it was important to disaggregate
the data by role to determine if there were differences between certain groups of people (e.g. family
members and NGO’s). The results for each of the individual collaboration questions are listed below, in
detail.
14%
12%
8%
38%
38%
34%
26%
26%
35%
6%
6%
11%
16%
17%
13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I understand how my work contributes to the MHCC.
I understand how the MHCC contributes to my work.
I have adequate opportunities to provide input to theMHCC.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 53
Figure 25: I understand how my work contributes to the MHCC (n=463)
When disaggregated by role, it is clear that most respondents understand how their work contributes to
the MHCC. You will notice larger categories of “don’t know” (e.g. media) which is likely a result of
individuals working in positions that are not directly linked with the MHCC. It is important to note,
however, that more than a third of government officials/staff (45%), Advisory Committee
chairs/members (35%), mental health service providers (35%), people with lived experience (34%), and
non-governmental organizations (33%) do not know how their work contributes to the MHCC. One
would expect that individuals in these roles, especially the government officials and Advisory Committee
members linked with the MHCC, should be aware of how their work contributes to the MHCC.
38%
11%
11%
31%
16%
18%
15%
20%
16%
17%
12%
9%
16%
21%
46%
67%
57%
33%
45%
43%
46%
40%
39%
37%
39%
41%
26%
37%
8%
22%
20%
33%
21%
27%
32%
26%
23%
27%
42%
19%
4%
2%
2%
3%
7%
2%
3%
6%
5%
7%
3%
5%
4%
11%
2%
15%
15%
10%
40%
10%
14%
20%
17%
13%
18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
MHCC Staff (n=24)
MHCC Volunteer (n=9)
Researcher (n=46)
AC Chair/Member (n=52)
Educator (n=80)
Caregiver (n=96)
Health Service Provider (n=48)
Media (n=5)
Mental Health Service Provider (n=211)
NGO (n=109)
Family Member (n=217)
Person with Lived Experience (n=175)
Government Official/Staff (n=38)
Other (n=57)
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 54
Figure 26: I understand how the MHCC contributes to my work (n=463)
When separated by role, most respondents indicated that they understood how the MHCC contributes
to their work. Again, there are a slightly larger percent of individuals selecting “don’t know”, probably a
result of being in positions that are not directly linked with the MHCC. The roles that most understood
how the MHCC contributes to their work (highest percent of “strongly agree” and “agree”) were: the
media (80%), MHCC volunteers (78%), AC chairs/members (71%), and MHCC staff (67%). The largest
percent of those who responded they did not understand how their work contributes to the MHCC
(‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’) were from the following roles: government officials/staff (37%),
health service providers (37%), caregivers (35%), family members (34%) and people with lived
experience (33%).
29%
29%
15%
14%
16%
13%
18%
8%
10%
9%
10%
9%
80%
78%
42%
38%
43%
44%
39%
39%
32%
40%
35%
37%
35%
42%
22%
21%
8%
28%
27%
26%
27%
32%
35%
27%
25%
24%
21%
4%
4%
4%
5%
4%
5%
5%
2%
7%
8%
11%
5%
20%
4%
21%
9%
10%
15%
17%
13%
15%
20%
21%
19%
23%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Media (n=5)
MHCC Volunteer (n=9)
AC Chair/Member (n=52)
MHCC Staff (n=24)
Researcher (n=46)
Mental Health Service Provider (n=211)
Educator (n=80)
NGO (n=109)
Government Official/Staff (n=38)
Health Service Provider (n=48)
Family Member (n=217)
Person with Lived Experience (n=175)
Caregiver (n=96)
Other (n=57)
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 55
Figure 27: I have adequate opportunities to provide input to the MHCC (n=463)
For the most part, agreement and disagreement with the question was split relatively equally across
respondent groups. However, large percents of individuals from all roles indicated that they did not
have adequate opportunities to provide input to the MHCC. The highest percents came from the
following roles: researchers (50%), educators (49%), NGO’s (45%), family members (45%), people with
lived experience (44%), and MHCC volunteers (44%). It should be noted that these groups involve
individuals who are involved heavily with either the Commission or the mental health movement and
have indicated they do not have adequate opportunity to provide their voice.
Five Key Initiatives of the MHCC
This section of the survey included a brief reminder of the MHCC’s five key initiatives and was comprised
of five questions about the importance of each of the initiatives. The section also included a question
about the initiatives being the right ones for the MHCC, and whether there were issues the five key
initiatives were not addressing.
23%
9%
13%
10%
17%
13%
9%
7%
7%
7%
6%
7%
44%
56%
40%
35%
35%
29%
32%
35%
36%
34%
31%
27%
20%
42%
25%
44%
35%
35%
27%
29%
32%
39%
39%
32%
33%
38%
40%
25%
4%
8%
15%
14%
17%
5%
10%
6%
12%
12%
10%
12%
4%
9%
2%
14%
8%
18%
8%
12%
15%
16%
19%
40%
14%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
AC Chair/Member (n=52)
MHCC Volunteer (n=9)
Mental Health Service Provider (n=211)
Researcher (n=46)
Caregiver (n=96)
MHCC Staff (n=24)
Government Official/Staff (n=38)
Educator (n=80)
NGO (n=109)
Person with Lived Experience (n=175)
Family Member (n=217)
Health Service Provider (n=48)
Media (n=5)
Other (n=57)
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 56
Figure 28: Importance of five key initiatives - “It is important for the MHCC to…”(n=463)
When survey respondents were asked about developing the five key initiatives, the large majority
agreed that the initiatives were important. The initiatives, in order of agreed importance (as indicated
by survey respondents) were: mental health strategy for Canada (98%), anti-stigma initiative (94%), KEC
(92%), research project on homelessness and mental illness (88%), and partners for mental health
(87%). The vast majority of respondents agreed with developing the five key initiatives, however, the
“research project” question garnered a disagreement rating of 9% and “partners of mental health,” 8%.
In addition, participants were asked to indicate whether they thought the five key initiatives were the
right ones, and whether they believed there were issues that were not being addressed. Responses on
these two questions are below.
Figure 29: Questions regarding the five key initiatives overall and percent response of opinion (n=463)
84%
79%
54%
67%
67%
14%
15%
34%
25%
20%
1%
3%
7%
5%
5%
2%
3%
1%
2%
2%
3%
5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
...develop a mental health strategy for Canada.
...develop an anti-stigma initiative.
...carry out a national research project on homelessnessand mental illness.
...develop a Knowledge Exchange Centre.
...develop Partners for Mental Health.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
32%
25%
48%
41%
10%
17%
2%
1%
8%
16%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The five key initiatives of the MHCC are the right ones.
There are issues that are not being addressed in the five keyinitiatives.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 57
For the majority of respondents (80%), the five key initiatives are the right ones. Twelve percent (12%)
of respondents did not agree with the statement, and 8% did not know. In addition, 66% feel that there
are not any issues that are not being addressed in the five key initiatives, which is further supportive of
the MHCC’s focus. It should be noted, however, that 18% of respondents did feel that there were issues
not being addressed, and 16% did not know. The qualitative data sources delve more into what
respondents felt could be examined in the five key initiatives. The relatively large percent of
respondents who indicated they did not know if there were issues not being addressed in the five key
initiatives supports an underlying thread of increased communication and wanting to know more.
Participants who responded “don’t know” likely were not familiar with all the initiatives and could not
comment.
Promotion of the MHCC
The promotion of the MHCC section of the survey included three questions. Two questions were
presented as statements to be rated against the five point scale: one question regarding the MHCC
communicating effectively, and one on the MHCC disseminating information effectively.
Figure 30: Questions regarding the promotion of the MHCC and percent response of opinion (n=463)
When asked about communication and dissemination of information and the MHCC, less than 50% of
respondents strongly agreed or agreed with both questions. For communication, 43% of respondents
did not think that the MHCC effectively communicated its activities, and 13% did not know. Regarding
dissemination, 42% of respondents did not agree that the MHCC effectively disseminated information,
and 17% did not know. It is important to note that the percents for disagreement were large, likely
indicating that participants wanted to know more about the MHCC and its activities.
Participants were also asked to choose how they receive information about the MHCC, its products and
services from a pre-set list, and could check all that apply. Options included: newsletter; newspaper;
brochures; press releases/media coverage; emails; project reports; annual reports; formal
presentations; television; MHCC website; social media; word of mouth or “other”.
6%
4%
38%
37%
35%
34%
8%
8%
13%
17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The MHCC effectively communicates its activities.
The MHCC effectively disseminates its resources andinformation.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 58
Figure 31: How information is received (n=463)
Survey respondents indicated that the most frequent ways they receive information about the MHCC
was through emails (n=291), MHCC website (n=215), word of mouth (n=181), media (n=160) and the
newsletter (n=130). Least frequently cited were brochures (n=35), television (n=29), and social media
(n=24). Forty-eight (48) selected “other,” with 8 indicating they are not connected to a source of
information about the MHCC. Of those who do receive information, the following sources were cited:
Health organizations (x15): several people said they receive information from health organizations such as Canadian Mental Health Association, professional associations and NGOs;
Colleagues/direct contact with people (x12): others said they receive information about the MHCC from colleagues, coworkers, or discussions with MHCC staff; and,
Electronic media (x10): some receive information from emails, e-newsletters, listservs and websites.
Impacts of the MHCC
The impacts section was comprised of seven main questions. The questions were designed to assess the
impact of the MHCC to this point, the potential for the future, what products from the MHCC
stakeholders are using, and where survey respondents would go to influence change to the mental
health system. The first question asked respondents if, to this point, the MHCC’s activities, products and
resources contributed to the achievement of the MHCC’s immediate objectives.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 59
Figure 32: The impacts of the MHCC, “To this point, the MHCC’s activities, products and resources
contribute to…” (n=463)
For the most part, participants indicated they agreed that the MHCC’s activities, products, and resources
contribute to the above topic areas. However, there is a large percent of individuals who selected the
“don’t know” category. This again, could be indicative of respondents not being familiar with all of the
MHCC’s initiatives or focuses. The “don’t know” category was selected by approximately one third of
survey participants for improving collaboration among people with lived experience, families and
caregivers, and increasing the use of MHCC research to impact the development of policy and service
delivery. The areas with the most agreement were: reducing stigma and discrimination related to
mental illness (66%), and improving awareness of issues and evidence-informed practices to address
those issues (69%). The areas with the most disagreement were: enhancing integration and
collaboration in the mental health system in Canada (29%), improving collaboration with people with
lived experience and their families or caregivers (25%), and improving collaboration among partners
(24%).
The second question included identical statements as the first question, but respondents were asked if,
in the future, the MHCC is structured and resourced to contribute to achieving its immediate outcomes.
15%
9%
10%
11%
8%
11%
51%
40%
34%
48%
35%
38%
12%
17%
17%
15%
23%
12%
4%
7%
8%
4%
6%
5%
19%
27%
30%
22%
28%
33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
...reducing stigma and discrimination related to mentalillness.
...improving collaboration among partners.
...improving collaboration with people with lived experienceand their families and caregivers.
…improving awareness of issues and evidence-informed practices to address those issues.
…enhancing integration and collaboration in the mental health system in Canada.
…increasing the use of MHCC research to impact the development of policy and service delivery.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 60
Figure 33: The impacts of the MHCC, “Looking to the future, the MHCC is structured and resourced to
contribute to …” (n=463)
In looking to the future, more than half of all survey respondents agreed that the MHCC is structured
and resourced to contribute to the above statements. Again, there were a large percent of respondents
who indicated they did not know. The two statements that were most agreed upon were: reducing
stigma and discrimination (66%), and improving awareness of issues and evidence-informed practices to
address those issues (64%). The statements with the most disagreement were: enhancing integration
and collaboration (18%), improving collaboration with people with lived experience and their families or
caregivers (17%) and improving collaboration among partners (16%).
These results demonstrate the belief of the survey respondents that the MHCC has, and will contribute
the most to both reducing stigma and improving awareness. In addition, the results show that
respondents saw least contribution to this point in the areas of enhancing integration and collaboration
in the mental health system in Canada, improving collaboration with people with lived experience and
their families or caregivers and improving collaboration among partners. However, when looking to the
future, percent of those agreeing that there would be contribution in these three areas increased.
The next question asked participants if they relied on the products, information, and activities provided
by the MHCC. Respondents indicated their choice of response on the five point scale.
25%
18%
18%
21%
19%
20%
41%
38%
34%
43%
35%
41%
8%
12%
10%
7%
12%
6%
2%
4%
7%
3%
6%
3%
23%
28%
31%
26%
29%
30%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
...reducing stigma and discrimination related to mentalillness.
...improving collaboration among partners.
...improving collaboration with people with livedexperience and their families and caregivers.
…improving awareness of issues and evidence-informed practices to address those issues.
…enhancing integration and collaboration in the mental health system in Canada.
…increasing the use of MHCC research to impact the development of policy and service delivery.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 61
Figure 34: Reliance of information from the MHCC (n=463)
Forty-three (43) percent of respondents indicated agreement that they rely on the products, whereas
47% indicated disagreement. In addition, 9% indicated they did not know.
Figure 35: Respondents opinion on reliance of information from the MHCC (n=463)
When disaggregated by role, the groups that are most reliant (selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’) on
information from the MHCC are: media (100% of respondents), AC chairs/members (65%), health
service providers (55%), MHCC staff (55%), government officials/staff (52%), and researchers (50%). The
groups that are least reliant (selected ‘disagree’ or strongly disagree’) on information were: MHCC
10% 33% 37% 10% 9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I rely on the products, information, and activities provided bythe MHCC.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
40%
23%
13%
13%
13%
15%
11%
9%
12%
12%
20%
13%
11%
9%
60%
42%
42%
42%
39%
35%
38%
39%
36%
34%
26%
29%
22%
40%
25%
33%
25%
29%
37%
36%
37%
39%
34%
38%
38%
56%
37%
6%
4%
13%
5%
11%
7%
8%
7%
8%
9%
12%
9%
4%
8%
8%
13%
2%
7%
7%
6%
12%
8%
9%
11%
5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Media (n=5)
AC Chair/Member (n=52)
Health Service Provider (n=48)
MHCC Staff (n=24)
Government Official/Staff (n=38)
Researcher (n=46)
Caregiver (n=96)
Mental Health Service Provider (n=211)
NGO (n=109)
Family Member (n=217)
Educator (n=80)
Person with Lived Experience (n=175)
MHCC Volunteer (n=9)
Other (n=57)
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 62
volunteers (56% of respondents), people with lived experience (50%) government officials/staff (48%),
educators (47%), and NGOs (46%). In most cases, (except for media and AC chairs) over a third of all
roles indicated they are not reliant on information from the MHCC. It should be noted that government
officials/staff fall into both categories, half are reliant on information from the MHCC and the other half
are not. This finding is perhaps indicative of different types of government officials responding to the
survey – those that are involved with the Commission and those that are not.
The following question asked participants what products they relied on in their work for sources of
information. Participants were presented with a pre-set list of responses and were asked to “check all
that apply”. The options included: newsletters, fact sheets, annual reports, brochures, speeches,
interviews, news reports, reports and articles, and the MHCC website. They were also provided with an
“other” option where they could indicate other products they relied on that were not listed.
Figure 36: Frequency of selected products and information for the question: “In my work, I rely on the
following products for sources of information”
Results indicated that the most frequently selected sources of information were: the MHCC website
(n=236), newsletters (n=229), reports and articles (n=225), fact sheets (n=209) and news reports
(n=194). Less frequently cited were speeches (n=112), interviews (n=105), and “other” (n=88). For those
respondents that selected “other”, there were 96 open-ended responses:
Journals, textbooks and other research material (x21): some people said they receive information from peer-reviewed journals, textbooks, newspapers;
236 229 225
209 194
152 137
112 105
88
0
50
100
150
200
250
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 63
Colleagues/word of mouth (x18): there were responses indicating information is received directly from colleagues, MHCC staff, clients, doctors, counselors, family members or otherwise through word of mouth;
Health organizations (x17): some indicated they receive information from other health organizations (CMHA, Schizophrenia Society, and other NGOs);
Email (x14): some said they receive additional information through emails and one person mentioned listservs; and,
Websites (x7): a few participants mentioned they receive information from the internet without specifying the websites.
The next question on the survey asked participants to rate whether the MHCC is having a positive
impact on a variety of groups. The question asked respondents to focus on the progress made to date,
and the list included a range of groups (Figure 37).
Figure 37: Percent agreement the MHCC is having an impact on various groups (n=463)
10%
8%
10%
7%
4%
10%
7%
8%
7%
12%
4%
3%
36%
31%
42%
40%
33%
37%
30%
30%
33%
44%
25%
30%
18%
18%
16%
19%
15%
6%
14%
14%
11%
12%
22%
24%
7%
7%
5%
6%
6%
3%
4%
6%
4%
3%
6%
6%
30%
35%
27%
29%
42%
43%
44%
42%
45%
29%
42%
37%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
People with lived experience of mental illness
Families and caregivers
Mental health professionals
Service providers
Non-governmental organizations
Researchers
Educators
Government decision and policy makers
Health Canada
Media
Employers
Members of the general public
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 64
There is a large percent of “don’t know” responses, which suggest that the respondents were not
familiar enough with the MHCC’s work, or the above groups, to comment on the impact of the MHCC.
For those that did answer, the groups that were thought to have been receiving the most positive
impact were: media (56% of respondents indicated “strongly agree” or “agree”), mental health
professionals (52%), researchers (47%), service providers (47%), and people with lived experience (46%).
Respondents selected “disagree” and “strongly disagree” the most for: members of the general public
(30%), employers (28%), people with lived experience (25%), families and caregivers (25%), and service
providers (25%).
Participants were also asked to indicate (on the five point scale) their level of agreement or
disagreement with the statement that the MHCC is making a difference in the mental health sector.
Figure 38: Percent agreement with the MHCC making a difference in the mental health sector (n=463)
More than half of participants indicated that they thought the MHCC was making a difference in the
mental health sector (57%). Only nineteen (19) percent of participants did not agree with the statement,
and 24% of participants selected the “don’t know” response. This finding supports the work that the
MHCC has done, and continues to do, as survey respondents feel that the MHCC is are making a
difference.
11% 46% 13% 6% 24%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The MHCC is making a difference in the mental healthsector.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 65
Figure 39: Percent agreement with the MHCC making a difference in the mental health sector (n=463)
When disaggregated by role, most respondents felt similarly, but there are a few differences to note.
First, 100% of the media group felt the MHCC is making a difference in the mental health sector. As well,
over 50% of all roles except for MHCC volunteers “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the MHCC is
making a difference in the mental health sector. It is notable that only 33% of the MHCC volunteers felt
the MHCC is making a difference, 22% did not agree, and a large percent, 44%, did not know. For most
categories, there is a relatively substantial “don’t know” category. The groups that were most in
agreement that the MHCC is making a difference (selected the highest percent of “strongly agree” and
“agree”) were: the media (100%), AC chairs/members (71%), ‘other’ (70%), and health service providers
(67%). As a reminder, the group that most categorized ‘other’ was individuals with a comprehensive role
in the mental health sector. The groups that had the least agreement with the MHCC making a
difference in the sector (largest percent of ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’) were: researchers (26%),
MHCC volunteers (22%), caregivers (22%), and people with lived experience (20%).
The final question in this section provided participants with a pre-set list and asked them to indicate
whom they would be most likely to talk with if they wanted to influence changes to the mental health
system. Possible responses included: Mental Health Commission of Canada; Canadian Mental Health
Association; general practitioner/family physician; mental health professional; elected government
20%
21%
15%
9%
9%
11%
13%
10%
8%
10%
12%
13%
19%
80%
50%
52%
54%
54%
52%
45%
48%
50%
46%
42%
42%
33%
51%
12%
13%
14%
11%
15%
15%
15%
16%
12%
11%
8%
22%
7%
4%
2%
2%
5%
11%
3%
7%
3%
7%
9%
4%
7%
13%
19%
21%
21%
11%
23%
20%
24%
25%
26%
33%
44%
16%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Media (n=5)
AC Chair/Member (n=52)
Health Service Provider (n=48)
NGO (n=109)
Educator (n=80)
Researcher (n=46)
Mental Health Service Provider (n=211)
Caregiver (n=96)
Government Official/Staff (n=38)
Family Member (n=217)
Person with Lived Experience (n=175)
MHCC Staff (n=24)
MHCC Volunteer (n=9)
Other (n=57)
Very Fairly A Little Not At All Don't Know
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 66
official; Health Canada; Provincial/Territorial health department; local health authority; and, “other”
where respondents could indicate and describe other options that were listed.
Figure 40: Frequency of selected responses for, “If you wanted to influence changes to the mental
health system, with whom would you be most likely to talk?” (n=463)
Results indicated that the most frequently selected locations were: their elected government official
(n=245), the Canadian Mental Health Association (n=203), the Mental Health Commission of Canada
(n=197), or Provincial/Territorial or local health authority (n=186). Less frequently selected were a
mental health professional (n=107), Health Canada (n=101), general practitioner (n=47), and ‘other’
(n=72).
For those individuals who selected ‘other’, there were 77 responses. Nine responses were not clear or
did not respond to the question. Of those who provided a response, their suggestions are presented
below, in descending frequency of mention.
Health organizations (x21): some respondents said they would be most likely to talk with health organizations such as NGOs, local non-profit organizations, or community and grassroots entities. Some named specific organizations (i.e., the Canadian mental Health Association, Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, National Network for Mental Health, Alberta Alliance on Mental Health, Children’s Mental Health Ontario, Schizophrenia Society, and Dunara);
Patient groups (x19): other respondents said they would speak with patient groups, consumer groups (e.g., National Consumer Advisory Council, New Brunswick Consumer Network) survivor groups, patient advocates, and people with lived experience and their families;
245
203 197 186 181
107 101
47
72
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 67
Media (x7): a few people indicated they would speak more to the media;
Professionals and professional associations (x6): Others mentioned they would connect with professional associations, and a few offered specific examples (i.e., Professional Paramedic Association of Ottawa, provincial/national psychology associations);
Educators/academia (x5): a few people mentioned educators, medical schools, professors and researchers as likely people to speak with; and,
Justice system (x5): a few respondents indicated they would talk to people involved in the criminal justice system (e.g., police or court workers).
When the results were separated into discrete groups, people with lived experience (n=19) chose
mental health service providers, CMHA, and government as the top three, and MHCC was second last.
These results demonstrate an individual’s role influences with whom they would talk to influence the
mental health system, likely a result of whom they have previously contacted.
Overall Observations of the MHCC
The overall observations section included questions focused on opinions, recommendations, and
suggestions for the MHCC. The first three questions were open-ended and allowed respondents to write
a response. The first asked what aspects of the MHCC were working well, the second asked what aspects
were not working well, and the third asked if they had recommendations to strengthen the MHCC going
forward. The results include only the comments that garnered five or more respondents. Although a
response rate of five or less constitutes less that 1% of respondents, the quality and nature of the
responses are captured. As response rates of less than five have been removed, the numbers of
responses will not add up to the total “n” for each open ended question.
There were 599 responses offered to the first question, what aspects of the MHCC are working well.
Some respondents (x126) indicated they had insufficient knowledge about the MHCC or otherwise had
no response. A small number of people (x10) voiced their support for the MHCC without describing why
they felt this way. Of those who did describe what aspects they perceive are working well, their
responses are clustered into three main themes: communication and collaboration; initiatives and
programs; and organizational aspects. Each is described below in decreasing frequency of mention.
Communication and collaboration (x209): Overall, 45% of respondents thought that
communication and collaboration was working well. While about 70 indicated partnerships,
collaboration and information are working well without specifying the context, others provided
more detailed information, specifically:
Public awareness (x79). A few respondents perceived a change in public awareness and
attitudes and indicated that activities undertaken to change public awareness are
beneficial and to be continued. This includes media events, e.g., celebrity
spokespeople, newspaper articles and TV advertisements;
Government advocacy (x20). A few people think the communication and influence
gained with the provincial and federal governments is working well;
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 68
Communication tools (x18). A few respondents indicated they think some of the
communication materials are working well, such as the MHCC website, newsletters
(both the MHCC and other health organizations), and printed materials (brochure and
handbook);
Health professionals (x8). Very few people said they see the communication and
collaboration working well with health professionals and service providers;
Patients (x6). A small number of people think the collaboration with people with lived
experience and their families is working well; and,
Other (x5). Other aspects of the MHCC that are working well include communication
with employers, police and the self-promotion work of the organization.
Initiatives and programs (x165): some people feel MHCC initiatives are working well. While a
small number (x19) think all initiatives are working well in general without identifying a particular
program, others did specify, as follows:
Opening Minds Anti-stigma Campaign (x55);
Homelessness initiative (At Home/Chez Soi) (x44);
The Mental Health Strategy (x26);
Peer support activities (x7);
Knowledge exchange centre (x6); and,
Other (x6): a small number of other programs were identified, each mentioned only
once (i.e., recreation, bullying, depression, youth, occupational, and academic
programs).
Organizational aspects (x42): a few people described aspects of the MHCC organization that they
perceive as working well. Some of these respondents provided general comments regarding the
positive benefits of the MHCC organization (x15), and others were more specific, as described
below:
Skill and knowledge of MHCC staff (x15);
Funding (x5). Obtaining and granting funding; and,
Other (x7). Two positive comments were made about the working groups, and certain
structural elements were each mentioned once (i.e., governance, fluid work processes,
committees, management, and administrative structure).
Research (x33): a few people mentioned that the volume and quality of research being
undertaken is excellent.
Advisory committees (x10): a few respondents think the advisory committees are working well,
e.g., they make meaningful contributions and the members are well informed.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 69
There were 614 responses to the second question of what aspects about the MHCC are not working
well. Many respondents (111) stated they had no response or provided unclear responses. Two people
felt all aspects of the MHCC are working well and a small number of respondents (x16) commented that
the MHCC is generally not working well or that it is too early to tell if there have been benefits. The
remaining responses provide more detail into the areas people think are not working well, and these are
presented below in decreasing frequency of mention.
Communication and collaboration (x239): In contrast to those that thought communication and
collaboration was working well (45%), 49% indicated that they thought it was an aspect that was
not working well. The difference refers mostly to specifics, for example, those that thought
communication and collaboration was working well were generally referring to the effort the
MHCC is making to engage and communicate with other groups. Those that indicated they
thought communication and collaboration was not working well want to see increased
communication with specific groups of people. Some respondents (x69) described a general need
for more communication and collaboration with unspecified stakeholders. The others provided
more details in their reasons for this, as presented below:
Public awareness (x38). A few people described a perceived need for more public
awareness and education, to get the message out regarding mental health. This includes
for more media events, high-profile spokes people, etc;
Patients (x36). A few respondents think more effort should be made to communicate
with people with lived experience and their families, and to include their voice in the
work of the MHCC;
Other organizations (x34). Other respondents see a need for more partnerships with
organizations already active in mental health (e.g., Canadian Mental Health Association,
NGOs, regional staff and programs, volunteer groups, researchers from the west, front-
line workers). Two people identified the competitiveness among stakeholder
organizations as a barrier to collaboration;
Professionals (x21). Other respondents said they perceive poor communication and
collaboration with health professionals and other service providers on the front-line,
(e.g., mental health workers, psychologists, researchers);
Government advocacy (x20). A few people feel the MHCC ought to do more
communication to build influence and align policy with governments at federal,
provincial, regional health authority levels;
External enquiries (x7): A very small number of people expressed dissatisfaction with the
responsiveness of MHCC staff to external enquiries; and
Clearer communication materials (x6). A very small number of people think that MHCC
reports should be less technical and presented in plain language for the lay population.
Others think the MHCC website is not very good.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 70
Organizational aspects (x49): a few people think certain aspects of the organization of MHCC are
not working well, specifically:
Staffing (x19). Some respondents perceive issues relating to staff, such as: workplace
conflicts; a negative corporate culture; staff with stigmatizing attitudes; high staff
turnover; perceived conflicts of interests; heavy workloads; a need for more diversity in
the leadership; and role confusion between Board and staff;
Internal communication (x10). A few people said there exists poor internal
communication and collaboration, and a lack of bilingual communications;
Too bureaucratic (x6). A small number of respondents feel the organization is too
bureaucratic (e.g., heavy time demands for paperwork, and it is distanced from the
front-line); and,
Mandate (x5). A few people think the mandate is not focused enough and that it may
be too large for current organizational capacity.
System issues (x45): a few people perceive issues at the system level in mental health, and a
small number (x4) said they feel the health system needs to be improved, but did not specify how.
Others provided more detailed responses, for example:
Access (x20). Some people see the need for improved access to quality services, with
more high quality front-line services and facilities;
Funding (x10). Others feel that funding for mental health services is insufficient
throughout the system;
Government action (x6). A few respondents think federal and provincial governments
need to take more committed action to improve system issues; and,
Integration (x5). A small number perceive the need to integrate health services, as the
system is very complex.
Initiatives (x44): respondents indicated some areas specific to the initiatives, including:
Opening Minds Anti-Stigma Campaign (x25). Many respondents had comments
regarding the success of the anti-stigma campaign, for example, it is slow to start, and
stigma still exists in the health system and society at-large;
Knowledge Exchange Centre (x10). Some people mentioned problems or
disappointment with the KEC, for example, the delayed start-up, and the need for
support in knowledge translation; and,
Mental Health Strategy (x5). A small number of respondents feel the development of the
national strategy is not working well, for instance, some doubt that the MHCC will be
able to produce it by 2017, and others see a lack of research integrated into the
strategy.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 71
Gaps (x41): a few people identified gaps they perceive in the MHCC scope of work to meet the
needs of groups and certain areas, including:
Front lines services and hospital settings (e.g., wait times, hospital beds) (x9);
Children and youth mental health (x6);
Homeless people. (x5) A small number of respondents indicated a continued need for
housing; and,
Other (x5): community long-term follow-up, recreational and occupational training,
serious mental illnesses, the mentally ill in prisons.
Efficiency and effectiveness (x31): a few people think the MHCC efficiency and effectiveness
could be stronger in some areas, for example:
Initiative impact (x18). Many respondents said they see little or no impact on the front
lines and patients. A few said there is a lack of clarity of how the MHCC measures
program impact;
MHCC spending (x7). A few people felt the MHCC organization does not represent an
efficient use of taxpayers’ dollars, particularly regarding executive salaries and travel
budgets; and
Lack of action (x6). A small number of respondents see the need for more action instead
of conducting consultations and research. A couple of people feel the extensive
consultations have led to delays in programs and initiatives.
Framing (x16): a small number of people think the way the mental health issues are framed by the
MHCC could be improved, as described below:
Too strong bio-medical framing (x6). Some respondents say the approach should move
away from the biomedical model based on medical expertise and drugs; and,
Need stronger biomedical framing (x5). In contrast to the point above, some people
argue that serious mental illnesses require biomedical care and that anti-psychiatry
arguments are not helpful to people in need.
Education (x11): there is a need for education and capacity building among professionals, with
one person suggesting changes to the university curriculum for health professionals.
Research (x7): a small number of people see some issues in research activities, e.g., there is a lack
of clarity, uncertainty about how findings are used and disseminated, who is included in research,
and repetition/overlap in research.
There were 468 responses to the third question concerning respondent recommendations for the
future. Some respondents (95) were unclear or “did not know”. There was a small number (x11) of
comments encouraging the MHCC to continue as it has been doing. Other people provided further
comments, as presented below in decreasing frequency of mention.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 72
Communication and Collaboration (x265): 73% of the 362 respondents who made a specific
suggestion recommended that there be improved communication and collaboration. If you will
recall, 45% indicated they thought communication and collaboration was working well, and 49%
thought it was not working well. It is clear that on all fronts, although it may or may not be
working well depending on who you are engaging, the majority would like to see more of it. A few
respondents (x39) indicated a need for increased communication and collaboration, with no
specific groups mentioned. Others identified groups or areas to undertake further work to
strengthen the MHCC, and these are presented below.
Public awareness (x50). Some respondents suggested that the MHCC continue work to
increase awareness in the general public, using media (e.g., using television, celebrity
spokes persons, social media websites) and other information dissemination avenues;
Patients (x45). A few people suggested to further include the perspectives of people
with lived experience, their families and caregivers in the work of the MHCC;
Professionals (x35). A few people thought more communication and collaboration could
be done with medical professionals, service providers at the local and community levels,
and professional organizations. Respondents mentioned the need for information
dissemination to these groups, but also to provide the opportunity for them to provide
input to MHCC work;
Other organizations (x34). A few people suggested the MHCC partner with other
organizations already active in mental health such as the Canadian Mental Health
Organization, CAMIMH, and other national groups, but also the many community and
grass-roots organizations. According to respondents, this would help avoid “reinventing
the wheel”, improve efficiency and effectiveness of MHCC work, and also help ensure
the continuation of community-level organizations;
Government advocacy (x32). A few respondents expressed the desire for the MHCC to
build stronger connections to engage government at the national, provincial, regional
and health authority levels. This would increase awareness and collaboration with
governments to influence policy and place mental health higher on these decision
makers’ agendas; and,
Other (x6). A small number of additional comments were mentioned one time each,
namely: the need to use lay language in communications, to produce an annual report
for dissemination, and engage with other groups (i.e., volunteers, international
organizations, the justice system, Western and Northern Canada).
Organizational aspects of the MHCC (x60). Some people offered suggestions to strengthen the
organization of the MHCC, as presented below.
Mandate (x11). A few respondents commented on the mandate, for instance: the need
to focus more on action although there are barriers to service provision (since provinces
have autonomy here); the budget is too small for the mandate; possibly reduce mandate
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 73
(e.g., remove housing component or knowledge exchange) to make room for other
work;
Internal communications (x11). Many people suggest improving the communication and
collaboration within the MHCC, e.g., to educate staff on official MHCC positions and to
explain decisions. Communications should also be bilingual, according to a couple of
people;
Leadership and management (x9). A small number of people suggest that leadership
and management could be strengthened, to reduce micro-managing and improve
efficiency, ensure staff feel valued, reduce the stratified organizational structure, and
three people expressed the desire to change the leadership (unspecified as to Board, ELT
or other) in the organization;
Staff (x9). Respondents suggestions were to: value staff more, overcome territoriality,
overcome the geographic disparity of staff, continue to employ people with lived
experience, and ensure there are sufficient capacities to fulfill mandate;
Accountability and transparency (x7). A couple of comments related to improving
accountability within the organization through staff follow-up and evaluations like this
one, and increased transparency in governance and staffing. A small number of people
perceive a conflict of interest for some board members, and the roles between staff and
board need to be clarified; and,
Other (x5). Other comments included: the need to inform the public of job and
volunteer opportunities, to undertake organizational review to harmonize staff vision,
for the MHCC to become a part of Health Canada, and add more details to annual
reports.
Gaps (x39). Many people feel an increased focus on the needs of the following groups and areas
would strengthen the MHCC:
Homeless people (x6);
Rural and remote (northern) populations (x6);
People with multiple and concurrent diagnoses including addictions (x5); and,
Other groups (x6): Each of these groups was mentioned once each: dementia, autism,
low income people, serious illness, suicide, youth.
System changes (x29): a few respondents commented on the need for changes in the health
system. A handful (x4) indicated they wished to see changes without specifying them. Others
provide more detail, as follows:
Access (x17). Many people suggested the MHCC take more action to help improve
access to services for people; and,
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 74
Funding (x6). A few respondents saw a need to increase the funding to mental health
services.
Efficiency and effectiveness (x22): People commented on the efficiency and effectiveness of the
MHCC and had the following comments:
Action (x13). A small number of people are calling for more action by the MHCC to make
a difference, to affect change and improve the lives of people with lived experience;
and,
Impact (x6). A very few see the need for the MHCC to have a greater impact on those
people who need it most, and to measure this impact.
Initiatives and programs (x17): a few people offered suggestions to strengthen the MHCC
initiatives, as follows:
Opening Minds Anti-Stigma Campaign (x6) should be continued, perhaps expanded to
target youth, promote equality in workplace, or change it to be based on human rights,
and evaluate the impacts; and,
Other (x7). Additional comments were made regarding the need to measure outcomes,
to continue those initiatives that are effective, provide clear rationale and roles in
programs, and bring back some programs (e.g., Into the Light).
Research (x10): a few people suggested an increase in the funding and focus on research in
general. Others suggest conducting more research in the criminal justice system, and others
suggest reducing research in areas where there is enough in existence (e.g., homelessness).
Education (x9): a small number of respondents wanted to provide training for mental health
professionals, youth and workers in the justice system.
Framing (x6): framing changes vary in the data, for example, some want to change the paradigm
towards recovery and wellbeing, with less reliance on medication. Others want to remove the
anti-psychiatry groups, rely more on the medical model, and concentrate on the severely ill.
The final question in the overall observations section asked participants which of the five key initiatives
should be sustained beyond 2017. Participants were provided with a list of the five key initiatives and
could check all that apply. Immediately following, participants were asked to provide any comments
they had concerning the question above. This was provided to allow participants the opportunity to
explain why they indicated (or did not indicate) certain initiatives.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 75
Figure 41: Frequency of initiatives selected by respondents to be sustained after 2017 (n=463)
As demonstrated above, all of the initiatives were selected to be sustained beyond 2017. However, the
mental health strategy for Canada, and anti-stigma initiative were selected most frequently. Least
frequently selected were Partners for Mental Health and research on homelessness and mental illness.
In regards to the open-ended question that asked for participants to indicate any comments regarding
their selection of initiatives, there were 319 responses to this question with 36 “do not know” or unclear
replies. There were a small number of people (x17) who commented that all initiatives should be
continued as they are seen to be of equal importance or it is too early to tell if an impact has been
achieved. Comments on specific initiatives are presented below.
Research on homeless and mental illness (x28):
Stop research on homelessness now (x13). A few respondents indicated there is
sufficient research on the link between homelessness and mental illness, and that
resources should be put towards other areas;
Positive comments (x7). A small number of people made positive comments to
encourage the fight against homelessness through research. Some see the program
making good progress and hope homelessness will not be a problem in 2017; and,
352 332
267 243
204
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 76
Stop research on homelessness in 2017 (x5). A small number of respondents noted that
by 2017 the research mandate should be fulfilled.
Anti-stigma/Anti-discrimination initiative (x23):
Positive comments (x16). A few positive responses were provided, such as: the anti-
stigma initiative is very important and should be continued; it is a priority issue due to its
prevalence; and it is a root-cause of many related problems; and,
Negative comments (x5). A very small number of people commented that they feel, for
example, the anti-stigma campaign is not effective, that access to services is a bigger
issue, and the focus should shift to anti-discrimination.
Knowledge exchange centre (x13):
The comments under this section were all response rates less than five and equally split
between being positive/recommending continuation and negative /recommending
discontinuing or transferring the Knowledge Exchange Centre to other organizations.
Mental Health Strategy for Canada (x13):
The comments under this section were all response rates less than five and equally split
between positive/recommending the continuation of the Mental Health Strategy of
Canada and negative/recommending the completion by 2017.
Partners for Mental Health (x7):
The comments under this section were all response rates less than five and equally split
between positive/recommending the continuation of Partners for Mental Health and
negative/recommending completion immediately.
In addition to comments above pertaining to specific programs, respondents also provided feedback in
other areas (i.e., gaps, organizational aspects, communication and collaboration, health system issues,
and research). These comments are presented below in decreasing frequency of mention.
Gaps (x56):
Employment (x10). A few people called for increased focus on employment support for
people with lived experience, and also for the education of employers in dealing with
mentally ill employees;
Addictions and concurrent conditions (x9). A small number of people felt that
addictions, trauma and other concurrent conditions should be combined, whereas
others felt that mental illness and addictions should be kept separate;
Other illnesses (x9). A few respondents feel that people with serious illness should
receive higher priority, as should those with autism, developmental delay and Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder;
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 77
Children and youth (x7). A few people would like to see more focus on mental health
issues in children and youth; and,
Social supports (x5). A few people identified other gaps including: the needs of families
and caregivers, peer support, psychosocial support and education opportunities for the
mentally ill.
Organizational aspects (x34). There were also a few comments about the MHCC as an
organization. A few people (x8) provided positive general comments supporting the work of the
MHCC, encouraging them to keep up the good work. Other, more specific, suggestions included:
MHCC should change role or cease operation in 2017 (x12). A few people commented
that by 2017 the mandate should be fulfilled and therefore the organization should
cease; others say it is an ineffective organization and should be stopped immediately;
and a few others feel that in 2017 the MHCC should offload the programs to existing
organizations or be integrated into Health Canada; and,
Funding (x9). A small number of people see the need for more money to support
implementation and ensure sustainability.
Communication and collaboration (x24):
Awareness (x8). A few respondents called for continued media events to improve public
awareness;
Government advocacy (x5). A small number of people commented regarding the need
for more advocacy with governments to affect changes and influence policy; and,
People with lived experience involvement (x5). A small number of people suggest that
people with lived experience and their families should be more involved in MHCC
planning and programs.
Health system comments (x14):
A very small number of people (x10) commented on the need for improved access to
mental health services, e.g., decreasing wait times, more patient-focused care, more
facilities, and integrated services.
Research (x10):
There were some general comments about research; all in response rates less than five
across six different theme areas.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 78
4.3.2 Summary
The following section summarizes the detailed information provided previously. It is focused on key
themes and ideas, and important trends that emerged from the survey data, and includes the
observations of the evaluation team.
Concerning respondents, it is clear that individuals who completed the survey were very diverse. There
were a lot of overlapping roles and diversity of roles. Most individuals involved in the sector are
invested for many reasons, often a friend, family member, or they as an individual, are impacted by a
mental illness. The survey respondents often held more than one role, and thus had very unique and
insightful comments and responses. These individuals provided a good contrast to the respondents who
were included in focus groups and key informant interviews as many survey respondents were removed
from the day to day Commission work. Survey respondents rated themselves as very knowledgeable
about mental health, yet few of them indicated that they hear about the MHCC from other groups.
Finally, respondents indicated that they work in a variety of different areas, but the majority is involved
with organizations or service providers.
Communication
One of the themes that emerged from the survey data was a desire for more information and more
communication with the MHCC. Many people are aware of the MHCC, but would like to know more
about the Commission, its activities and products. When asked if they had adequate opportunity to
provide input to the MHCC, almost half of respondents (46%) indicated that they did not. In many cases,
groups that are heavily involved in mental health (e.g. people with lived experience, mental health
service providers) felt they do not have an opportunity to provide their voice. This question further
illustrates the perception from survey respondents that communication could be improved. The
communication theme followed through the entire survey, where less than 50% of respondents agreed
that the MHCC was effectively communicating and disseminating information.
With a national mandate, it is difficult to engage all stakeholders in Canada, but likely easier to
disseminate information and resources. In an age where social media is accessed by an extensive
population, these types of outlets can assist in disseminating information easily, cost effectively, and
well.33 However, survey respondents indicated that they are receiving information mostly through
emails, the MHCC website, and word of mouth. There were less that received information through
television or social media, which can both be very effective in garnering attention and passing on
information.34 Respondents also indicated that they relied the most on the MHCC website, newsletter,
reports and articles.
33
Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business
Horizons, 53, 59-68. 34
Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business
Horizons, 53, 59-68.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 79
The survey question that asked respondents if they thought the MHCC’s activities, products and
resources contribute to a variety of areas (e.g. reducing stigma and discrimination, enhancing
integration and collaboration in the mental health system in Canada), and the question that asked if the
MHCC in the future will contribute to the same areas garnered a high neutral response. In most cases, a
third of respondents chose the ‘don’t know’ category. The same trend occurred for the question that
asked respondents if the MHCC was having a positive impact on certain groups (e.g., people with lived
experience, families and caregivers, researchers). In this case, between 27% and 45% of respondents
selected the ‘don’t know’ category. One interpretation is that the respondents do not feel informed
enough about the MHCC to make a comment. This interpretation speaks again to the increased desire
for communication and dissemination of information by the MHCC.
In the open-ended questions that asked survey participants what aspects of the MHCC were working
well, were not working well, and what recommendations they had for the MHCC, communication was
the most predominant theme for each question. Forty-five (45) percent of respondents thought that
communication and collaboration was working well, 49% responded that communication and
collaboration was not working well, and 73% of respondents offered recommendations on
strengthening communication and collaboration.
The strong responses for all three questions has been broken down previously, but the general
observation is that individuals feel the MHCC has done a great job in attempting to build bridges and
engage in communication and collaboration with stakeholders. In addition, they feel the presence of the
MHCC is increasing public awareness of mental health, and providing useful materials and resources. For
those that feel communication and collaboration is not working well, in general, respondents want to
see more effort to increase public awareness of mental illness, and to engage more specific groups
affected by mental illness (e.g. people with lived experience, other organizations, professionals and
government). In this way, an individual can be both positive and negative about the communication and
collaboration mechanisms of the MHCC.
Concerning recommendations to strengthen the MHCC, 73% of respondents cited issues of
communication and collaboration. Suggestions offered by participants ranged from: using media to
increase public awareness of mental illness; including the perspectives of people with lived experience
in the work of the MHCC; collaborating with medical professionals; and, partnering with other
organizations already active in mental health. The suggestions were very perceptive, and again
demonstrate that communication and collaboration is a double edged sword in the sense that you can
engage as many people as you can possibly think of, but there will always be a desire for another voice
to be included.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 80
Inclusion and Partnership
Along with increased communication, one of the other main themes from the survey results was one of
inclusion and partnership. Survey respondents indicated in many forms that they would like increased
partnership and collaboration with the MHCC, but also that they would like to see other groups more
included in the process.
Almost a third of survey respondents indicated that they did not understand how their work contributes
to the MHCC, and the same percent did not understand how the MHCC contributes to their work. The
message through these two questions is that some respondents do not understand the partnered
relationship between their work, themselves, and the MHCC. This partnering may be a very faint
partnership, for example, between the media and the MHCC. In this collaboration, they may not be
directly involved in the Commission but realize that a component of the success of the MHCC is
information dissemination and media awareness. Some groups that are directly linked with the MHCC
(e.g. Advisory Committee members, government, and MHCC staff) indicated that they do not
understand how their work contributes to the MHCC, or how the MHCC contributes to their work.
Individuals residing in these roles should be very much aware of the partnering relationship between
their work and the MHCC.
Concerning inclusion, 25% of respondents disagreed that the MHCC’s activities, products, and resources
to this point have contributed to improving collaboration with people with lived experience and their
families or caregivers. In addition, 24% of respondents disagreed (to this point) that the MHCC has
contributed to improving collaboration among partners. The responses indicate that participants feel
that more partnership and inclusion could have been achieved over the past three years. However,
when respondents were asked if the MHCC would contribute to those areas in the future, disagreement
levels decreased, and agreement levels increased. Overall, 52% indicated agreement for improving
collaboration with people with lived experience, their families and caregivers, and 56% agreed the
MHCC would improve collaboration among partners.
Survey respondents also indicated some disagreement that the MHCC is having a positive impact on
some of the most heavily invested groups (e.g., people with lived experience, families and caregivers,
mental health professionals, and service providers). For example, 25% of survey respondents did not
think the MHCC was having a positive impact on people with lived experience, families and caregivers,
or service providers. In addition, 21% disagreed there was a positive impact for families and caregivers,
for mental health professionals. The results indicate that although survey respondents feel the MHCC is,
and can make a difference, a portion do not feel that they are having a positive impact on those that the
MHCC was designed to benefit. It may be too early in the evolution of the MHCC for impact to be felt
substantially at the front line. Their efforts have largely (and understandably) been directed to getting
the organization up and running, setting a vision and strategy and it is too early to be held accountable
for results.
Survey respondents also indicated that they were not very involved with the MHCC (which could be for a
variety of reasons, not necessarily exclusion), they do not often hear about the MHCC from people with
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 81
lived experience, family members or caregivers. They also commented in the open-ended section on
recommendations to strengthen the MHCC, that there are gaps in the MHCC scope of work to meet the
needs of certain groups for example, front lines service staff; children and youth; homeless people;
people in rural areas; and, various cultural groups. These comments speak to the increased desire for
more inclusion and partnership between individuals, organizations, and other stakeholders.
Catalyzing Change
The final main theme that emerged out of the data was consistently that the MHCC is, and will continue
to make a difference in the mental health sector. Regardless of comments with suggestions on ways to
improve the MHCC, most survey respondents were positive about the creation of the MHCC and the
idea behind the organization, but wanted more information about it. For instance, 67% of respondents
indicated that they believed the MHCC had a positive reputation. This is the majority of respondents,
and when the ‘don’t know’ category is removed, 82% of respondents thought the MHCC had a positive
reputation. It should be noted however, that when the people with lived experience and family-
caregiver groups were examined discretely, there was less positivity. This likely could be attributed to
two main themes discussed previously regarding increased communication, inclusion and partnership.
Regarding the initiatives chosen by the MHCC, very high percents of people thought it was important to
work in those five core areas. The areas with the most support were: the mental health strategy for
Canada, and developing an anti-stigma initiative. Least supported were the homelessness research
project and partners for mental health, although both agreement percents were above 85%. In addition,
most respondents thought the five initiatives were the right ones, and for the most part, there are not
any issues outstanding that are not being addressed in the five key initiatives. In addition, large
frequencies of respondents indicated that if the MHCC were to pursue activities beyond 2017, they
should continue work on the five key initiatives. The initiatives with the most support were the mental
health strategy and anti-stigma initiative.
Most participants indicated positively that to this point, the MHCC’s activities, products, and resources
contribute to: reducing stigma; improving collaboration among partners, people with lived experience
and their families/caregivers; improving awareness of issues; enhancing integration and collaboration;
and increasing the use of MHCC research to impact policy and service delivery. Even better, the
percents increased for all of the areas when participants were asked to think about the future. The
results help demonstrate that survey respondents feel quite strongly about the MHCC, and the
difference that it can, and will make in the mental health sector.
Survey respondents also indicated that the MHCC was having a positive impact on various groups
(agreement ranging from 29% for employers to 56% for media). The groups indicating positive impact
the most were: media; mental health service providers; and researchers. As mentioned, there were a
large category of ‘don’t know’ responses, which could be changed by increasing the communication,
inclusion and partnership as previously discussed. Over half the respondents thought the MHCC was
making a difference in the mental health sector, but when the neutral category is removed, this number
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 82
increases to 75%. This result summarizes the general perception about the MHCC, that respondents
remain positive about the possibility of change in the sector.
4.4 Key Informant Interviews and Focus Groups Qualitative data does not, nor is meant to provide information that is representative of the full
population under study. Rather, this research technique is meant to explore issues in greater depth
than would typically be allowed through the use of quantitative data collection. Qualitative data must
be reported on in a defensible manner and with other lines of evidence to ensure accurate analysis.
Using the principles of content analysis, Charis reviewed the qualitative data and identified key themes
and areas of concurrence or areas of divergence within the data. We reported the data in the
framework of the following touchstones:
Determine who and how many informants expressed the same opinion/assessments;
Identify areas where there appears to be no agreement/alignment in qualitative
opinions/assessments;
Ensure that qualitative data results were verified, cross-referenced and integrated with results
from other components of the research; and,
Report only those findings that fall within the scope of key informant knowledge/expertise and
the scope of the evaluation.
Phase 2 qualitative data collection took place in the months of January and February, 2011. This section
presents the integrated qualitative data from the key informants and focus group participants. The
guides created for this data collection queried respondents (both internal and external to the
Commission) about the specific impacts in the five areas of inquiry:
Mandate: Is the MHCC initiative consistent with the assigned mandate as per the funding agreement with Health Canada?
Inputs/Structure: how are the MHCC’s governance structure, processes and support mechanisms contributing to the achievement of the MHCC mandate and goals?
Achievements: What has been achieved by the MHCC to date in terms of implementation for the assigned mandate?
Early Impacts: How has the MHCC affected the work and lives of partners and collaborators in the mental health system?
Recommendations: What can be learned from implementation to date and are there any recommendations for improvement?
Confidential interviews were held with 29 individuals noted as key informants to the work of the MHCC.
The four focus group interviews were held with members of selected core groups, and focused on the
same questions, but with an opportunity for discussion and the development of synergy between
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 83
participants. Copies of key informant interview and focus group guides and the interview questions for
all methods can be found in Appendix C.
Individual and group interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded for common themes by the
evaluation team under each of the relevant evaluation indicators. In general, at least three individuals
had to express a similar comment before it was considered to be a theme or sub-theme35.
Finally, upon completion of the qualitative data collection process, Charis implemented an
interpretation workshop with key stakeholders from the MHCC, including the evaluation project team,
members of the ELT and others, as well as the Charis team. Preliminary findings were discussed and
where relevant, the discussion was integrated into this report.
4.4.1 Results
This section provides a synthesis of the key findings from the individual and group interviews. It includes
comment on the degree of continuity among the two data sets of respondent opinion/assessment.
Additionally, where it clarifies understanding, quantitative data sets are referenced. Results are
reported by the five areas of inquiry and their associated questions. Response prevalence was
categorized, where possible. Focus group responses were themed by each focus group and counted as
one response when reporting by key themes.
When reporting key themes and/or perceptions, the following qualitative content analysis descriptors
have been used:
No/None: refers to instances where no individual identified the particular issue.
Few/Very Few: refers to instances where fewer than one-tenth of individuals have expressed a particular opinion.
Some: refers to instances where between one-tenth to one-third of individuals interviewed expressed a particular opinion.
Several: refers to instances where between one-third to one-half of individuals interviewed expressed a particular opinion.
Many/Most: refers to instances where between one-half to three-quarters of individuals interviewed expressed a particular opinion.
Majority: refers to instances where more than three-quarters, but not all, interviewees were of the same opinion and/or held similar perceptions regarding an issue or topic.
Almost All: refers to instances where all but one or two individuals expressed a particular opinion.
All: reflects consensus across all individuals within a stakeholder group. All interviewees questioned on the topic expressed the same view or held the same/similar opinion.
35 When coding themes for the open ended questions from the online survey, there had to be at least 5 individuals
express a similar comment before it was reported as a theme or sub-theme.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 84
The detailed results from the individual and groups interviews as well as the open-ended survey
questions are provided in Appendix C.
Mandate
All individual and group interview respondents as well as survey respondents were reminded of the
MHCC Mandate and the five key initiatives that were being examined as part of the formative
evaluation. Results are reported by the specific question.
To what extent the MHCC is meeting its assigned mandate and are the five key initiatives the right
ones?
Respondents were generally consistent in their opinions regarding the MHCC’s congruence with the
assigned mandate. While most of the respondents indicated the five initiatives were the right ones and
the majority observed the initiatives are aligned with the mandate, some inconsistency was indicated.
The area of divergence concerned the perceived service delivery function of the At Home/Chez-Soi
Homelessness Research Demonstration initiative. In this case, provision of service was seen to be
beyond the scope of the Commission’s mandate. Additionally, there was concern expressed that the
Knowledge Exchange Centre and the Partners for Mental Health initiatives were not developing at the
same pace as the other initiatives. The MHCC was seen to be entering a phase in implementation that
would really need these initiatives to be functioning. Finally, respondents were typically agreed that the
scope and expectations associated with the mandate were very high.
Are there any gaps in the five key initiatives?
Interview respondents who noted gaps in the realization of the mandate and initiatives offered specific
examples. The themes that emerged included:
The specific initiatives of Knowledge Exchange Centre (KEC) and Partners for Mental Health are not progressing as well as the others.
The MHCC is not sufficiently achieving inclusiveness. People with lived experience, family and caregivers, First Nations Inuit Métis, and Francophone representatives (particularly from the province of Québec) are not being fully integrated into the work of the Commission.
The sector’s expectations for advocacy, especially among community organizations, are not being realized. These groups anticipate that the MHCC will be their advocate. The Commission is seen to be privileging health ministries and not as actively engaging other relevant departments (e.g. Justice, Immigration, and Employment).
The connections are weak between the MHCC and front line service delivery organizations.
Linkages are missing with addictions stakeholders and primary health care service delivery providers.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 85
Is the allocated funding sufficient to implement the mandate and is the funding being used to
leverage additional funding supports?
Respondents had diverse opinions as to funding sufficiency for mandate implementation. Many respondents stated the MHCC has received sufficient funding. Respondents both internal and external to the Commission indicated that better efficiencies, and not more funding, would ameliorate perceived problems and insufficiencies. For those respondents who queried return on investment, lack of easy access to financial documentation was seen to be a key to this perception. Some respondents suggested that the funding level is inadequate to implement the mandate and noted the funding allocations recommended in Out of the Shadows have not been realized and this impacts results. However, most believe that some leveraging of funding is occurring (e.g. leveraging of funds and in-kind resources for At Home/Chez-Soi). Some further noted that in order to adequately leverage funding with provinces and territories, better alliances need to be formed with these groups. These respondents saw the need to build targeted linkages with all levels of government to insure MHCC sustainability.
Structure
Respondents were asked specific questions about the MHCC governance, organizational structure and
processes. Appendix D presents the organizational chart that was relevant to this evaluation and
against which respondents’ opinions/assessments were analyzed by Charis.
Are the MHCC’s governance structure, processes and support mechanisms contributing to the
achievement of the MHCC’s mandate and goals?
Several respondents (between one third and one half) think the governance/structure contributes to the
achievement of goals. These respondents were generally satisfied that the structure facilitates the
MHCC’s work and that the development process has been evolutionary and changing for the better.
These respondents cite the way the Commission began, and its many different executive leads, but
nonetheless acknowledge an overall trajectory to a more solid and better organized system. However,
other respondents provided a divergent opinion, noting that the governance of the MHCC has become a
barrier to mandate achievement. Often, these observations were noted in the context of organizational
change—that in the past the MHCC’s structure was more effective. These respondents offered the
following reasons as to why the Commission is less effective today than previously:
Restructuring was noted as a barrier (on-going organizational change and the complexities of this was diminishing capacity to achieve goals);
Increased hierarchy and bureaucracy over time reduces organizational effectiveness; and,
Lack of transparency in decision-making is proving to be a barrier to success.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 86
Are organizational structures, processes and support mechanisms functioning as expected and are
they congruent with the (implied) organizational values of the MHCC?
Most key informants believed that the MHCC work is congruent with (implied) organizational values.
These respondents note the passion of the leadership team, the commitment of the staff and the
involvement of people with lived experience in various components of the Commission’s work. These
respondents see the Commission as engaged in sustained dialogue with stakeholders to ensure the work
moves forward.
Several respondents identified gaps and barriers in structure and function, with the following four key themes emerging:
Staffing retention and attrition issues, including all levels of staff;
Internal communication moving from clear communication to the introduction of barriers through complex reporting and unclear decision-making processes. Additionally, this impacts capacity to be cross-cutting across project areas and weakens internal organizational awareness;
Increased bureaucracy and infrastructure adding layers to communication and internal procedures; and,
Funding issues related to the scope of the mandate and the impossibility of contributing to all that is required, given the current level of funding.
Are the Advisory Committees the right ones, focused on the right content areas and with the right
people involved?
First, respondents were reminded of the eight functioning Advisory Committees (ACs), organized around
the following content areas:
Child and Youth
Family Caregivers
First Nations Inuit Métis
Mental Health and the Law
Science
Seniors
Service Systems
Workforce
When respondents were asked if the current ACs were the right ones, focused on the right content
areas and with the right people involved, the following themes emerged:
The majority of respondents believe that the ACs are the right ones, focused on the right content areas and involving the right people. These committees are seen as thriving environments with very engaged volunteers who have strong subject area expertise.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 87
The majority of respondents noted changes in AC reporting and their capacity to engage decision-makers (Board and ELT) are seen as a loss. These respondents note that previously, AC chairs had more direct access to decision-makers and knew how to engage the MHCC structure and provide their expertise to these leaders. Changes in the MHCC’s structuring have impacted reporting functions and access to decision-makers. This has led to perceptions of the ACs being “working committees” rather than “advisory committees”.
Concerning AC research and projects, several respondents noted the MHCC is at a phase now where it is necessary to ensure that AC projects are in alignment with the MHCC mandate and scope. Additionally, there was a perceived need to address structural components of the AC work, facilitating a move towards using “cross-cutting” methods across content areas and work less in “silos”. In consonance with this theme is the observation that ACs need to better integrate First Nations Inuit and Métis peoples, francophone people (particularly from Québec) and people with lived experience into their committees’ memberships. Finally, the degree of research independence related to the AC projects is valued.
Respondents observed the need for the KEC to begin functioning, to facilitate the knowledge exchange/transfer of information derived from AC research and project work. Respondents noted that there are many projects coming to completion and many products/reports that will rely on the KEC to assist in dissemination and knowledge translation.
Is the role of people who have experienced mental health problems either directly or as family
members or caregivers, authentically involved with the MHCC (as staff; volunteers; consultants)?
Respondents were invited to discuss their opinions as to the authentic inclusion of people with lived
experience, their families and caregivers. To that end, many informants (half to three-quarters) believe
that these groups have been authentically involved. These informants, who work closely with the
Commission, believe it has achieved success in providing processes and structures to facilitate an
inclusive environment. They cite as evidence the Hallway Group, the Youth Council and membership on
ACs.
Alternatively, several respondents (less than half) do not believe that people with lived experience, their families and caregivers have been authentically involved. For these, specific concerns were cited:
There are challenges related to the lack of a “Consumer Council” and a sense that affirmative action36 is still a legitimate way to design systemic inclusion. Further, intentional inclusion would risk manage the perception of “tokenism” that is present with some respondents.
The same people with lived experience and family members are involved repeatedly and the MHCC is not recruiting different representatives, but relying upon the access they have to this select group.
MHCC staff recruitment is not observed, by respondents, as based on an affirmative action policy. This is seen to result in the lack of a critical mass that would provide energy and voice to bringing about a truly “model workplace” environment.
36 In this context, affirmative action refers to a policy based targeting of an under-represented group, that has is typically
excluded from the workplace. Historically, this has referred to the hiring of women and minority groups, but has been extended, in this case, to include persons with lived experience.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 88
There was an observation that the MHCC needs to build its capacity to work with people with lived experience in alignment with the principles of “recovery orientation” that was so central to the Mental Health Strategy Framework document.
Has the MHCC been able to establish effective and collaborative partnerships?
Many respondents indicated that the MHCC has worked very hard and successfully in developing
partnerships and nurturing collaborations. Informants refer to the short period of time during which the
MHCC has been operational and note that much has been done, nonetheless. While respondents noted
a large number of developments in terms of partnerships/networking, several were mentioned with
some frequency. Of importance is the influence and reach of the ACs, who have brought extensive
partnerships with them, to the Commission. Additionally, At Home/Chez Soi is cited as a good example
of working/partnering with service providers and building relationships. The development of the
Provincial/Territorial Reference Group was cited as a success. For these respondents there have been
many partnership wins created, through the growing links with media, all levels of government, the
private sector, and researchers across Canada and internationally. These partnerships are seen to be a
core factor of MHCC sustainability.
Alternatively, many participants also indicated that the MHCC needs to improve their partnerships and
capacity for collaboration. Several of these observed the lack of intentional engagement with service
provider organizations; these groups are seen to be less involved with the Commission than is wanted.
In consonance with this group are the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). These two groups are
of concern, as respondents assess as inadequate the Commission’s acknowledgement of their work.
Further, many of these groups are experts in service provision and have been working long, hard and
effectively in the sector. Their perceived lack of inclusion is prominent and in some cases, the MHCC is
seen as a destabilizing influence in the sector. Similarly, the MHCC is not assessed by these respondents
as successfully engaging people with lived experience, their families and caregivers, nor the
Francophone community (particularly from Québec), nor the First Nations Inuit and Métis groups. While
these respondents describe impacts to sustainability, they further see that without a thriving KEC, the
Commission’s work will not be made available to these groups and nor will their participation be present
in the research and projects.
Has the MHCC established itself as a model workplace?
Very few informants (less than 10%) identified the MHCC as a model workplace; in fact, this area emerged as one of the central concerns to those interviewed and participating in the focus group sessions. While many felt unable to assess the Commission on this indicator, the remainder believed the MHCC was “not yet,” or was not, a model workplace.
Respondents were probed as to what barriers they identified as impeding the goal of becoming a model
workplace. The following core themes emerged:
Recruitment/retention/attrition practices have created concerns for respondents both internal and external to the Commission. For instance, they note that staff are fired and there is no
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 89
notice; they simply are no longer there. Others commented on people being hired and quickly moving on.
Lack of work-life balance and capacity for self-care for staff are noted as serious impediments to the work of the MHCC, by respondents both internal and external. They observe a growing culture of affirmation for those who work too long hours and neglect a healthy life balance. This is seen as an increasing and counter-productive trend that will impact MHCC sustainability and reputation.
Lack of accountability and transparency in Human Resource processes are identified as growing concerns. Changes in MHCC structure, noted above, are included in this concern. These respondents look for a return to simple reporting structures and increased capacity to share their expertise with the Commission in an authentic and affirming way. Further, they noted that there is incapacity of staff or partners to work to the full scope of their skill set and remarked that there are perceptions that staff/partners’ skills and knowledge are not valued or known.
Internal and external respondents perceived the MHCC workplace as “silo-ed.” This was identified as counter-productive and inhibiting the work of the MHCC, the creativity and expertise that could cross-pollinate the work.
Several internal and external respondents who had expressed concerns about the MHCC workplace observed that in spite of perceived corporate culture issues, there are thriving relationships between colleagues and/or the volunteers or partners with whom they work. The horizontal communication, collegiality and respect are strong and there is acknowledgement of the expertise and skill sets of one another. The wish here is for this culture that is emerging at the grassroots level of the organization to impact the larger structures.
Early Achievements
While it is early in the life of the MHCC and only possible to address immediate achievements, this
section of questions focused on those aspects of their work that can be identified as emerging examples
of success. Additionally, Charis asked the interview and focus group participants about the transition
and implementation of Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) to the Commission’s work, and any barriers and
challenges to the overall work of the MHCC that are evident.
Concerning all aspects of the MHCC’s activities, products and services, what early examples of success
are evident?
Many respondents spoke to the early achievements of the Commission, with enthusiasm and citing
concrete examples. Overall, three over-arching themes emerged as core components that have
facilitated MHCC success:
The developing capacity within the Commission for clear communication and collaboration, particularly in terms of raising public awareness, engaging the media, the emerging role of the Commission as a trusted advisor to all levels of government, and the skillful development of effective communication tools.
The level of expertise that has been brought to the MHCC through internal and external connections and their contribution to establishing the organization as a centre of excellence. The
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 90
reputation of the MHCC as a credible organization providing credible products and information was of note.
The innovation and creativity of the Commission, for example in the establishment of the Youth Council. The engagement of youth and foregrounding their voice and experience is seen to be a significant achievement.
Participants were asked what have been the MHCC’s most important early achievements. They
grounded their observations in the concrete achievements gained, most significantly by the three
initiatives of Opening Minds, At Home/Chez Soi, and the Mental Health Strategy. These initiatives were
seen to be the front runners in garnering attention and producing early results in the sector. For
instance, the At Home/Chez Soi project was noted as facilitating structured and measurable
demonstration projects that will provide best practice results to the intersection of homelessness and
mental illness. As well, Opening Minds was cited as innovative in having fields added to the Statistics
Canada survey that will provide, for the first time, benchmark data on mental illness and stigma; in
garnering interest in the business community; and generating a positive and engaged public awareness
campaign. Concerning the Mental Health Strategy, respondents spoke to the development of a
framework that has acceptance across the country and with all levels of governments. The tactics used
to generate this support (e.g., public consultations, focus groups) were seen to be well-managed and
inclusive. The framework is described as generating hope in a sector where making policy shifts is
experienced as difficult.
In addition to the three initiatives outlined above, some respondents commented upon the work of the
ACs, the value of their networks and the level of their experience. Of note were the achievements of
the Workplace (A Perfect Storm) and the Child and Youth Committees (Evergreen Project) and the
emerging results these projects have produced. The ACs capacity to generate a Pan-Canadian dialogue
on the issues and to take recommendations produced to the decision-makers was observed as strength.
How effective was the transition of the Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) program to the MHCC? Is the
MHFA program being implemented effectively?
As the MHFA was first added to the MHCC work in April 2010, respondents were asked to discuss a
program that is very new to the Commission. Given how recent these developments have been, it is
not surprising that essentially, most respondents (half to three-quarters) did not know enough to
comment about MHFA and the transition. The few (less than 10%) who did know about the program
were equally divided as to whether the MHFA was effective in its implementation. While some saw
congruence between the MHFA and, for instance, the anti-stigma initiative (both empower public
engagement and build capacity for public response), others affirmed the potential of the MHFA as a
Canada-wide program. However, other respondents expressed concern. Two themes emerged:
The lack of transparency at the time of the program’s transition to the MHCC. Perceived
communication lacks created concerns as to why other effective mental illness awareness
programs were not also explored for MHCC adoption.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 91
MHFA is viewed as service provision and, as also noted about the At Home/Chez-Soi initiative, this
type of programming was perceived to be beyond the scope of the MHCC mandate.
What have been the key challenges and/or barriers to the work of the MHCC?
Concerning early achievements, informants were asked to identify the challenges and barriers to MHCC
success. The following themes were indicated:
Communication and collaboration – although identified as an early success by many, just as many
respondents felt this was an area where the MHCC could continue to improve, particularly with
respect to the perceived lack of transparency of decisions taken (e.g. project approval) and the
perceived lack of capacity to have input/influence on the direction and focus of the MHCC’s work.
Organizational aspects – included human resource issues such as limited ability of
staff/volunteers/ACs to contribute to decision making; perceived limited engagement with the
community, service providers and people with lived experience; and internal silos.
Managing expectations – there were challenges identified related to the MHCC having a national
scope combined with the provinces/territories having the responsibility for the operation of most
components of the mental health system. Many respondents have high expectations and hopes
for what the MHCC can achieve.
Systemic issues – advocacy (expectations and ability/inability to act on these) and the fact that the
mental health “system” has been “built as we go” over multiple decades, with multiple
stakeholders within and outside of health (e.g. housing, employment, justice) and that systemic
change will require time and a comprehensive approach.
MHFA – the lack of transparency and knowledge about this program is cited as a barrier to
success.
Early Impacts
It is early in MHCC implementation to discuss anything but the most emerging impacts of their work.
Guided by the Level 1 logic model and the anticipated early impacts outlined in this program tool, Charis
framed questions that invited respondents and focus group participants to consider what initial impacts
MHCC implementation has produced. Respondents were asked a series of questions related to how the
MHCC has affected the work and lives of partners and collaborators in the mental health system. They
offered the following self-identified impacts.
Is the MHCC a catalyst for the mental health sector in Canada?
At inception the MHCC was designed “to be a catalyst for reform of mental health policies and
improvements in service delivery.”37 Thinking of a catalyst as a spark that initiates and accelerates an
action, respondents noted new levels of government engagement with mental health issues and policy
37 Kirby, et al. Out of the Shadows at Last, p. 74.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 92
impacts. Others spoke of the KEC’s capacity to facilitate this “catalyst” role, once it begins to work.
Many indicated that they believe the MHCC has begun to fulfill this role, citing effectiveness in:
Mobilizing resources and people, and especially in engaging people with lived experience;
Building awareness and the extending the profile of mental health;
Establishing national communication and collaboration; and,
Emerging as a provider of valid and useful information and research.
A few informants believe that it is still too early in the mandate to assess if the MHCC has been a
catalyst.
What principles and values do you see reflected in the work of the MHCC?
Respondents were invited to identify any principles or values that they thought were reflected in the
work of the MHCC. In this case, they were being probed for an organic response; no principles or values
were provided to the respondents, who were free to identify any that they thought were most relevant.
For comparative purposes, the MHCC Guiding Principles concern (located in the “Code of Conduct
”2011): improving the lives of Canadians with mental illness; integrity and public scrutiny; respect for
people; openness and transparency; stewardship; accountability; and, application (the code applies to
all). Additionally, the guiding principles in the 2010/2011 – 2014/2015 Business Plan are an important
reference for this discussion.38
In the framework of this evaluation, most respondents identified the following three principles and
values:
Inclusiveness: citing the inclusion of people with lived experience, the Canada-wide scope, the place created for families and caregivers, the level of public consultation, the respect for the issues.
Value of systemic change: mentioning the vision to transform the mental health system to improve lives; to design and implement a national strategy; to facilitate individuals and organizations that work in the sector and build their capacity to impact systems.
Collaboration: indicating the value of team work, the collaborative processes that are embedded in programs and approaches, the hard work and dedication evident in the MHCC “family.”
Is the MHCC innovative?
While many respondents believe that the MHCC has been innovative, some either do not assess the
MHCC as innovative or do not know. For those many that have experienced the early impacts as
bringing innovation to the sector, the following themes emerged:
38 See MHCC Business Plan 2010/2011 – 2014/2015, pgs 71 – 72.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 93
Raising awareness of mental health: for instance, the launch of the Into the Light conference; Partners in Mental Health with its goal to establish a national social movement to engage public support; others mentioned adapting MHFA to Aboriginal contexts; and, the inclusion of people with lived experience in raising awareness and public engagement.
Linking health and mental health: respondents commented upon this transition in thinking and its capacity to generate new and effective responses to the issue, by seeing mental health in the larger continuum of health. Additionally, respondents mentioned the focus on recovery and wellness as opposed to mental health as a medical problem, particularly in the approach used with the Mental Health Strategy Framework
Innovative projects: At Home/Chez-Soi; Partners for Mental Health; and, in general, providing focused research attention on the Canadian experience of mental illness/mental health.
Supporting others to do their work: respondents mentioned the role of the MHCC to act as a catalyst and build the mental health sector’s capacity to respond and provide services that will make a difference.
A learning organization: respondent’s observed that the MHCC has been well positioned to learn from national strategies implemented elsewhere (e.g., Australia, New Zealand) and adapt those learning’s to the Canadian context.
Do you rely upon the MHCC’s products and services?
Through the individual interviews and focus groups, approximately half of respondents indicated that
they rely on the MHCC. These respondents mentioned a growing expectation that the MHCC will
provide sector stakeholders with valid and usable resources and tools; will take the lead in garnering
national attention to the issues; will move agendas and facilitate policy shifts; and, will build
collaborations and provide support and direction. Others indicated that they partially rely on the MHCC.
Several respondents (one third to a half) noted they did not rely on the MHCC at all.
Keeping in mind that key informants and focus group participants were recruited from groups engaged
with the MHCC, their rate of reliance on the Commission is generally higher than that of the survey
respondents (engaged in mental health but rarely with the Commission). Survey respondents rate of
reliance was overall lower (43% indicated they rely on the MHCC) but when examining the results by
respondents’ roles, those survey respondents who were more informed and involved with the MHCC
(staff, AC chairs or members or government officials) had more than 50% reliance on the MHCC.
Survey respondents outlined what aspects of the MHCC’s work and products they rely upon:
Documents;
Website;
Policy ; and
Best practice knowledge.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 94
Is the MHCC making a difference to the sector?
Many informants believe that the MHCC is making a difference for people with lived experience, families
or caregivers whereas some believe it is too early to tell or they didn’t know. Core themes of what was
making a difference were identified by key informants and focus group participants:
Anti-stigma and awareness: the MHCC is seen to be clearly building national awareness about the issue of stigma; respondents anticipate that this campaign is beginning to produce systemic change in the workplace, schools and in homes.
Policy: respondents attribute new interest in mental health issues, among all levels of government, in part to MHCC presence and engagement with policy makers.
Programs and services: respondents spoke to MHCC internal programs that are having an impact, citing At Home/Chez Soi’s early achievements in the homelessness sector, and Opening Minds similar emerging success within the anti-stigma sector. More respondents identified the Commission as making a difference to external programs, in this case citing emerging transformations in service delivery (both in the way people with lived experience are treated and receive treatment); new indicators of systemic/structural impacts; media programs; and, the provision of a national strategy to the sector.
To further clarify what the respondents said about the emerging impacts of the MHCC on the mental health sector in Canada, some specific examples they offered are outlined in Table 15. Table 15: Respondents provide specific examples of ways the MHCC is making a difference
MHCC activities Examples of early impacts
Opening Minds
Anti-stigma and Awareness/Programs and Services:
Identified some high functioning and effective programs – e.g. Ontario Shores Mental Health Centre and their Talking About Mental Illness (TAMI) program for youth was linked to a group of territorial government leaders to assist them in providing help to youth in the north.
Identified an Ontario organization that appeared to be the only one across the country with a program to reduce stigma among hospital staff; it was used recently in all of the interior BC hospitals.
Mental Health Strategy Framework
Policy:
Inspired Nova Scotia, Manitoba and other provinces to work on a provincial mental health strategy.
Programs and Services:
Ministry in Québec has used it to inspire 72 school boards to develop tools for teachers and students.
At Home/Chez-Soi
Programs and Services:
The consumer panel and their work for At Home/Chez-Soi could be transferred or used in other initiatives. For example, they did their own training and development of “telling your story”.
Advisory Committee Projects
Policy:
Service Systems AC – recommendations from the “Making the Case for Peer Support” is being used in some jurisdictions to further the work and inclusion of peer support within mental health services.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 95
Workforce AC – documents developed and the Leadership Framework for Advancing Workplace Mental Health has led to partnerships with large corporations such as Canada Post and Bell Canada.
Programs and Services:
Mental Health and the Law AC - policy advice on police training in mental health awareness has been picked up by policing groups across Canada and is being included in their curriculum.
AC chairs brought their own, well developed networks to the MHCC, and many of the expert committee members have leveraged their own networks for the work of the MHCC. This has been an easy, but substantive achievement for the organization.
Finally, the following survey respondents (57%) identified the MHCC as “making a difference to the
sector:” media (100%); Advisory Committee chairs/members (71%); other (70%); service providers
(67%); NGOs/educators (63%); caregivers (58%); people with lived experience (56%); and, family
members (56%).
Recommendations:
Respondents were asked what could be learned from the implementation of the MHCC to date and
indicated the following themes:
Specific strategies, such as Opening Minds and the Mental Health Strategy Framework, developed best practice dissemination techniques that should be replicated.
Several observed that leadership is integral to the successful implementation of the initiatives. The sector is identified as complex and with ingrained practices. MHCC leadership needs to continue to develop its capacity to effectively mitigate these realities and build on and develop strong relationships in the sector.
Some noted that there were specific initiatives that merited more focused attention:
Partners for Mental Health: this initiative is needed and should be brought into implementation.
Organizational growth: MHCC governance and organizational issues need focused attention and management to mitigate perceived lacks and to manage the rapid growth in numbers of staff.
Managing expectations: the great expectations to which the MHCC is held by the sector and that there needs to be intentional management of this, to mitigate risk.
Are there recommendations for improvement?
Respondent data resulted in six themes concerning recommendations for MHCC improvement:
Communication and collaboration, specifically:
Build greater public awareness;
Expand partnerships with people with lived experience, professionals and service providers, provincial/territorial governments and other organizations;
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 96
Improve internal and external communication for specific project information so more stakeholders are better informed about upcoming research projects. This may increase internal and external partner participation;
Organizational aspects of the MHCC:
Increase stakeholder understanding of the MHCC’s mandate and boundaries, to clarify stakeholder expectations;
Build capacity to work as a catalyst, with the focus on developing stakeholder programs;
Mitigate perceptions of micro-management, blurred Board boundaries and the increasing bureaucracy of the MHCC structure;
Increase transparency in key functions, such as hiring, financial reporting, and decision making;
MHCC as model workplace:
Implement processes that enable staff to work to their full scope, including acknowledgement of their expertise;
Attend to imbalances within the organization that impact workload, reporting processes and the transparency around decision making;
Focus attention on matters of workplace wellness, such as work-life balance;
Improvements for specific initiatives:
Operationalize the Knowledge Exchange Centre and Partners for Mental Health initiatives;
Continue to expand Opening Minds to target youth and promote equality in the workplace;
Build evaluation into the initiatives to track progress on the outcomes;
Ideas of what should be sustained in the future:
There was no consensus in the responses and responses were split as to whether the initiatives and the MHCC as an organization should be sustained beyond the 10 year mandate;
The most important contributions for the future:
Many respondents indicated that the anti-stigma and public awareness campaigns could be the most important contribution;
Several respondents identified that the Mental Health Strategy could be the most important; and,
Other themes identified by some respondents were the At Home/Chez-Soi research projects, partnerships with others, and the ACs’ work/projects.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 97
Summary
Key informants and focus group participants provided a rich data set of qualitative information to this
formative evaluation. While the sample of respondents was far reaching in terms of role, all of them
were engaged with the MHCC in some capacity. Their level of engagement, experience in the mental
health system, and in many cases, lived experience, ensured a robust and comprehensive response to
the evaluation questions. Together, there was solid consensus on several key issues. These informants
see the MHCC as in alignment with its mandate and undertaking the work the organization was
intended to do; they assess the governance and structures as functioning to ensure MHCC sustainability;
they are clear-headed about the early achievements, as well as the early impacts. In short they are
hopeful that the MHCC is performing in a way that ensures an effective and efficient long term impact
on the mental health system in Canada.
Further, the respondents are in agreement as to where the MHCC is up against barriers and provided
keen insight into the impacts of on-going structural changes on corporate culture commenting on the
role of the Board, the ELT and the staff in contributing to current challenges; the losses in terms of the
perceived lack of affirmative action in hiring and the engagement of people with lived experience, their
families and caregivers; and the strong recommendation that the MHCC produce results through the
initiatives of KEC and Partners for Mental Health, which are understood to be initiatives whose time has
come. As well, the informants provided wise insight into increasing expectations for the Commission
and the need for this to be risk managed. Finally, the Commission needs to be authentically pan-
Canadian in its work, and collaborate with the groups that are currently invisible, such as stakeholders in
Québec, the North, and the First Nations Inuit and Métis.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 98
5. Summary and Recommendations
5.1 Summary Results from this formative evaluation of the first four years of the MHCC’s implementation have proven
to be rich in information. Respondents to the multiple lines of data gathering have provided a
comprehensive set of data to the five lines of evaluation inquiry: questions on the mandate, the
structure, the early achievements, the early impacts and recommendations for the future.
The survey respondents were a diverse group that provided valuable insight and expertise to the survey
questions. For the most part, respondents were positive about the ability of the MHCC to effectively
catalyze change in the mental health system in Canada. Two main themes related to areas of
improvement emerged throughout the data: a desire for more communication, knowledge and resource
dissemination on the part of the MHCC; and, increased inclusion and partnership with groups heavily
invested, or actively involved in the mental health sector. The themes indicate a direction for future
projects and decisions by the MHCC; and, although there are always ways to improve, most survey
respondents stood behind the MHCC as a positive force to catalyze change in the mental health sector.
The key informants and focus group participants were generally well informed and engaged with the
Commission. Their insights into all matters of implementation and operational aspects of MHCC work
were solid and resulted in an overall positive assessment of achievements to date. These respondents
affirmed the direction of the work but challenged the Commission to actualize the KEC and Partners for
Mental Health—the two under-developed, but much needed, initiatives. They identified key values, but
exhorted the MHCC to take seriously the need to address emerging issues in the workplace and build
authentic and inclusive partnerships with stakeholder groups that are currently perceived as
marginalized and/or invisible. Finally, they encouraged the Commission to manage the growing risks of
stakeholder expectations and actualizing the national function of their work.
Based on the evidence derived from this formative evaluation, and grounded in the evaluation questions
developed, the following summary is presented in Table 16.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 99
Table 16: Summary and Conclusions Presented by Evaluation Question
Evaluation Question Summary and Conclusions
Is the MHCC meeting the assigned mandate that has been set out in their funding agreements with Health Canada?
Consensus that the work of the MHCC has been consistent with the assigned mandate.
Consensus that the five key initiatives are the right ones and that these are aligned with the mandate. Exceptions:
· At Home/Chez-Soi Homelessness Research Demonstration projects are perceived as service delivery and beyond the scope of the mandate;
· Knowledge Exchange Centre and Partners for Mental Health initiatives not developing at the same pace and with the same level of early success as the other initiatives; and,
· The scope and expectations associated with the mandate are very high and attention needs to be paid to mitigating these expectations.
Concern about the extensive mandate with restricted and time-limited funding. Some leveraging of funding is occurring and it is recommended that in order to adequately secure provincial/territorial support, better alliances need to be formed.
How are the MHCC’s structures, processes and support mechanisms contributing to the mandate and goals?
The MHCC was successful in establishing:
· A governance structure that generally contributes to MHCC outputs;
· Offices in Calgary and Ottawa;
· Five key initiatives, in varying stages of development and implementation;
· Strong Advisory Committees in eight different content areas with expert chairs and members contributing to a multitude of successful projects;
· A passionate Executive Leadership Team, an expert and committed staff and involvement of people with lived experience, families and caregivers in various components of the Commission’s work;
· A business and strategic planning process for measuring and reporting on performance over time;
· Numerous and effective communication tools for raising awareness of mental health and illness (i.e. newsletters, speaking engagements, media releases and website); and,
· Linkages with provincial, territorial and national partners.
Consensus that the organizational structure facilitates the MHCC’s work and the development process has been evolutionary. With the growing size and complexity of the organization over time, comments were made that increasing hierarchy and bureaucracy combined with lack of transparency in decision making is proving to be a barrier to success.
Advisory Committee structures are working well and have produced excellent products and reports. There is need to clarify the role (advisory vs. working) and reporting of the Advisory Committees. Additionally, the Advisory Committees depends upon the Knowledge Exchange Centre’s implementation to ensure the dissemination of their outputs.
Respondents were uneven in their perceptions of MHCC inclusiveness and many encouraged the authentic involvement of several marginalized groups, such as people with lived experience.
There are emerging relationships with governments and selected service providers, educators and researchers, but improvements are needed in engaging front line service providers and marginalized populations (i.e., First Nations, Inuit and Métis people, Francophone populations, people with lived experience, families and caregivers). Also, respondents cited the need for the Commission to build relationships evenly across Canada and continue to strength work with governments.
Process of developing an inclusive and model workplace has begun with the establishment of policies, directives and an internal working committee (Committee of Champions) but the MHCC needs to put into practice what is theoretically in place.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 100
What has been achieved to date in terms of implementation of the assigned mandate?
The most important early achievements to date have been:
· The establishment and implementation of the three successful initiatives: Opening Minds, At Home/Chez-Soi, and the Mental Health Strategy;
· High level of expertise made available through internal and external relationships, contributing to the reputation of the MHCC as a credible organization providing credible products and information;
· The work of Advisory Committees and linkages to their networks;
· Capacity for clear and effective communications and collaborations;
· Utilized products and research products;
· Innovation and creativity in establishing the Youth Council and the Hallway Group; and,
· Creation of an emerging role of the MHCC as a trusted advisor to all levels of government.
Challenges to success:
· Communication and collaboration were cited as areas in which the MHCC could continue to improve;
· Organizational aspects including human resource issues, limited engagement with community, service providers and people with lived experience, and perceived internal department silos that limit cross fertilization;
· High expectations and hopes for the MHCC to have a pan-Canadian scope when the provinces/territories have the responsibility for the operation of most components of the mental health system; and,
· Systemic issues such as advocacy, multiplicity/complexity of stakeholders both within and outside of health and the need for a comprehensive approach to attain systemic change.
The Mental Health First Aid program is generally unknown; the transition of this program to the MHCC and its effectiveness are undetermined.
How has the MHCC affected the work and lives of partners and collaborators in the mental health system?
The MHCC succeeds as a catalyst in :
· Mobilizing resources and people, especially engaging people with lived experience;
· Building awareness and extending the profile of mental health;
· Establishing pan-Canadian communication and collaboration; and,
· Emerging as a provider of valid and useful information and research.
The three values seen as reflected in the work of the MHCC were:
· Inclusiveness – people with lived experience, the pan-Canadian scope, place created for families and caregivers, level of public consultation and respect for the issues;
· Value of systemic change – the vision to transform the mental health system, to improve lives, to design and implement a pan-Canadian strategy, to facilitate individuals and organizations that work in the sector and build their capacity to impact systems; and,
· Collaboration – the value of team work, the collaborative processes and building of partnerships that are embedded in programs and approaches, the hard work and dedication evident in the MHCC “family”.
The MHCC is innovative in:
· Raising awareness of mental health;
· Linking health and mental health;
· At Home/Chez-Soi and focused research attention on the Canadian experience of mental illness/mental health;
· Supporting others to do their work; and,
· Being a learning organization, taking knowledge from other jurisdictions and adapting it to the Canadian context.
Respondents rely on (and mentioned a growing expectation that the MHCC will be relied on the
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 101
In conclusion, the staff, leadership and partners of the MHCC have had a successful first three years of
implementation. Despite this relatively short time frame the MHCC has created allies across Canada and
produced results that are attracting attention.
Stakeholders perceive that the MHCC is achieving the mandate but are concerned that this will prove to
be a challenge over time, given the Commission’s restricted and time-limited resources. In general the
organizational structure, processes and mechanisms that have developed over the first three years are
functioning and stakeholders are positive about what the MHCC has accomplished to date.
The Commission is encouraged to build on the achievements and to work collaboratively with the range
of enthusiastic partners and stakeholders that are committed to the transformation of the mental
health system. In this way, the MHCC is well positioned to make a difference in the lives of people with
lived experience, families and caregivers.
future):
· Valid and usable resources and tools (such as documents, website, policy and best practice knowledge);
· Taking the lead in garnering pan-Canadian attention to the issues, moving agendas and facilitating policy shifts; and,
· Collaborations that provide support and direction.
The MHCC is making a difference for people with lived experience, families and caregivers in three ways:
· Building awareness about anti-stigma, to produce systemic change, in the workplace, schools and homes,
· Engagement and renewed interest in mental health issues and policy among all levels of government; and,
· Program impacts in the lives of homelessness individuals derived from At Home/Chez-Soi and Opening Minds reducing stigma for people with lived experience, in general.
What can be learned from implementation to date?
Respondents were a diverse group that provided valuable insight and expertise to the evaluation. They were positive about the MHCC’s capacity to catalyze effective change in the mental health system in Canada. Two main themes emerged related to areas for improvement:
· A desire for more communication, knowledge and resource dissemination; and,
· A need to increase inclusion and partnership with groups heavily invested or actively involved in the mental health systems in Canada.
The most important contributions for the future were considered to be:
· Anti-stigma and public awareness campaigns;
· Mental Health Strategy;
· At Home/Chez-Soi Homelessness Research Demonstration Projects;
· Partnerships with others; and,
· The Advisory Committees’ work and projects.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 102
5.2 Recommendations
Observations have been offered in this section and the entire document about the initiatives and efforts
of the MHCC that are seen to be going well by the respondents to this evaluation. While it is early to tell
what longer term impact the MHCC will have, respondents have indicated what they perceive to be the
successes. In order to ground the data results and in consonance with the success factors as outlined in
the MHCC’s business plans, Charis summarized the data and made observations that the Commission
may want to consider (see Appendix E). Our assessment of the lines of evidence indicates that if the
following recommendations are implemented, the MHCC will move closer to fully actualizing the
mandate.
With the question will this MHCC activity/product make a difference to people who experience mental
illness? kept central to their work, the evaluators recommend the MHCC:
Fulfill the pan-Canadian mandate by ensuring focused engagement with all regions, including those currently less actively involved.
Proceed with full implementation of the Knowledge Exchange Centre and Partners for Mental Health initiatives to fulfill the mandate and make certain they develop to the same standard as the other key initiatives.
Continue to build collaborations and stakeholder engagement with the groups most perceived as poorly represented:
Individuals: people with lived experience; families and caregivers; First Nations, Inuit and
Métis; and, Francophone populations, particularly from Québec.
Grassroots/front line service providers creating meaningful networks with them to validate
their work and catalyze their capacity to impact policy.
National First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations that work in the health and mental
health sector, for the purposes of forming partnerships and building alliances.
Develop a clear communication plan to inform stakeholders of the MHCC’s approach to actively include people with lived experience and other diverse groups within their staff.
Increase communication and promotion about Mental Health First Aid, to build awareness and mitigate concerns about its transfer to the Commission.
Review evidence based models of governance and structure to inform decisions to be made regarding Advisory Committees’ structure and reporting mechanisms.
Focus on building a model workplace:
Fully assess staff skill sets in order to fully utilize their skills in their work with the
Commission;
Provide opportunities for collaboration and encourage cross-cutting discussions to mitigate
the perception that staff work in “silos;” and,
Continue to build the capacity of the Committee of Champions to positively influence
workplace culture.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 103
LDER I
Appendix A: Logic Models, Evaluation Questions, Data Matrix
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 104
Logic Model for the Evaluation of the MHCC – Level 2: Mental Health Strategy for Canada (as of December 2010) Vision: A society that values and promotes mental health and helps people living with mental health problems and mental illness to lead meaningful and productive lives
KEY ACTIVITIES IMPACT/ INITIAL
OUTCOMES (2-4 YRS) INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES
(5-8 YRS)
OUTPUTS INPUTS/RESOURCES AUDIENCES
MHCC has contributed to:
System outcomes
A transformed mental
health system and
transformed Canadian
society as outlined by
the 7 goals of the Mental
Health Strategy for
Canada and evidenced
by effective and efficient
delivery of services
PWLE outcomes
Active engagement for
improved health
outcomes/ quality of life
and able to live
meaningful, productive
lives
Phase 1 – WHAT
12 invitational regional
dialogues
Online bilingual public and
stakeholder consultation
3 focused consultations with
other key stakeholders
Ongoing consultation with the
FPT table
Consultation with the 8 advisory
committees
Production of final document
Phase 2 – HOW
Consultation with 8 Advisory
Committees
7 roundtables
Review of international and
national strategies -Assessment of
international strategies to inform
Phase 2
Research and analysis to propose
strategic directions, criteria and
priorities for action as well as
promising practices.
Priority setting against criteria
Consultations with provincial and
territorial government mental
health managers
Consultations with federal
agencies
Consultations with mental health
consumer, family, non-
governmental and professional
stakeholders
Writing and production of final
documents
Increased awareness of the
Mental Health Strategy for
Canada among stakeholders
Increased national focus on
mental health issues among
stakeholders.
Increase collaboration with
stakeholders in the
consultation process
Utilization of the MHCC
Vision and goals in
stakeholders’ documents and
programming
Action plan have begun to be
funded and implemented by
stakeholders
Increased use of the Mental
Health Strategy to inform
stakeholder policy and
decision making
Goals
Focus national attention on
mental health issues
Set clear targets for
transforming the mental health
system
Promote recovery & well-being
Establish priorities for action
Funding
HC - $4.0 (per year as per the
2010/2011 Business Plan)
Accountability
Governance Board
GOC/HC
Human resources
MHCC Executive Team and
Staff
Contracted staff and agencies
Volunteers (Advisory
Committees and others)
Partners/collaborators
People with lived experience of
mental illness
Families and caregivers
Policy makers and government
Stakeholders
NGO Stakeholders
Service Provider Stakeholders
Researchers
People living in Canada
Phase 1: Framework for Mental health
strategy
Developed a broad consensus on the
vision and goals for a mental health
strategy, resulting in identification of 7
goals
Released and disseminated Toward
Recovery and Well-Being: Framework
for a Mental Health Strategy for Canada
that sets out the vision and goals
(3400 English and 600 French copies
distributed) (2009)
Presentations at conferences about the
framework
ULTIMATE
OUTCOMES (9-10YRS)
PWLE /
Families/Caregivers
Mental Health
Professionals/Service
providers/
NGOs
All
People living in
Canada
Federal, Provincial
and Territorial
Ministries and
Authorities
Minister of Health/
Health Canada
Federal, Provincial
and Territorial Decision
and Policy Makers
The MHCC is responsible to people with
lived experience of mental illness and
their families, service providers,
researchers and governments in
Canada.
The MHCC and the mental health
system have a responsibility related to
the mental well being, mental health
promotion and mental illness prevention
for all people living in Canada, including
children, youth, adults and seniors.
The implementation of a mental health
strategy for Canada relies not just on the
development of the strategy by the
MHCC but the combined support and
collaboration of all stakeholders to make
this a reality.
People living in Canada support the work
of the MHCC.
Communities and service providers are
responsive to and working
collaboratively to support the work of the
MHCC.
People in the mental health community
(including PWLE, families, caregivers,
mental health service providers and
other stakeholders) who are aware of the
MHCC, have high expectations including
an expectation of real and concrete
deliverables.
Increased progress on
each of the 7 goals;
Increased utilization by of
the MHCC Strategy Action
plan in government mental
health funding, plans and
strategies
Phase 2: Development Products
Roundtables held on key topic areas
7 background papers and roundtable
reports
Report on international and national
review
Revised work plan for Phase 2
Draft strategy document for
consultations and consultation
materials
Phase 2 final products:
Business Case for Investing in Mental
Health
Mental Health Strategy for Canada
(Action plan) 2012
ASSUMPTIONS
GOC – Government of Canada
HC – Health Canada
MHCC – Mental Health Commission of Canada
KEC – Knowledge Exchange Centre
PWLE – People with lived experience
NGOs – Non-Governmental Organizations
(Red text indicates future)
Note: outcomes not all
directly attributable to the
MHCC
105
KEY ACTIVITIES IMPACT/ INITIAL
OUTCOMES (2 – 4 YRS) INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES
(5 – 8 YRS) OUTPUTS INPUTS/RESOURCES AUDIENCES
Contribute to: System outcomes A transformed mental health system and transformed Canadian society as outlined by the 7 goals of the Mental Health Strategy for Canada and evidenced by effective and efficient delivery of services PWLE outcomes Active engagement for improved health outcomes/ quality of life and able to live meaningful, productive lives
Undertake environmental scan to identify English and French mental health knowledge exchange activities across Canada
Undertake scoping review of French and English literature to better understand the mental health knowledge exchange field
Develop a comprehensive knowledge management system to organize information and data
Develop and support networks, communities of practices and communities of interest across the country to catalyze knowledge exchange among stakeholders
Engage with people and organizations across Canada and link and leverage their work
Develop a portal that will increase access to information and highlight best practices
Develop cross cutting Knowledge to Action group that will work together in a coordinated and organized way to mobilize MHCC knowledge
Identify and invest in Knowledge Activation Initiatives focused at transforming the system
Evaluate knowledge exchange activities and contribute to the field of knowledge exchange
Consult 8 advisory committees and other external key stakeholders
Increased awareness of MHCC products and resources
Increased access to information among MHCC partners and collaborators
Increased utilization of MHCC resources among partners and collaborators
Enhanced communication and networks among MHCC partners and collaborators
Improved communication and collaboration between stakeholders
Improved process and mechanisms to mobilize knowledge to action
Linking and connecting stakeholders together
Promotion of best practices
Goals
To facilitate the development, uptake, adoption and integration of different types of knowledge and to close the gap between knowledge and practice.
Funding
HC - $3.1 M (per year as per the 2010/2011 Business Plan)
Accountability
Governance Board
GOC/HC
Infrastructure
Vision, mission and goals
Policies and procedures
Human resources MHCC Executive and Staff Contracted staff and agencies Volunteers (Advisory
Committees and others)
Partners/collaborators
People with lived experience of mental illness
Families and caregivers
Government and FPT stakeholders
NGO stakeholders
Service provider stakeholders
Researchers
Educators
People living in Canada
Content Management system developed
Knowledge Activation Framework developed to guide development of the KEC and provide lens for its activities
Communities of practice/interest and networks supported, developed and linked to foster collaboration and communication among diverse groups/individuals across the country
Knowledge to Action team developed and process in place to mobilize knowledge in a coordinate and integrated way
Online activities and web components created
Contribute to the field of knowledge exchange and transfer
Program linkages developed
KE capacity development (Scheduled for implementation in summer
2011)
ULTIMATE
OUTCOMES (9 – 10 YRS)
Note: outcomes not all
directly attributable to the
MHCC
PWLE/ Families/ Caregivers
Health Canada and other Policy
and Decision Makers
Researchers
Health Care Providers/
Professional/
NGOs
Logic Model for the Evaluation of the MHCC – Level 2: Knowledge Exchange Centre (KEC) (as of December 2010)
Vision: A society that values and promotes mental health and helps people living with mental health problems and mental illness to lead meaningful and productive lives
The MHCC is responsible to people with lived experience of mental illness and their families, service providers, researchers and governments in Canada.
The MHCC and the mental health system have a responsibility related to the mental well being, mental health promotion and mental illness prevention for all people living in Canada, including children, youth, adults and seniors. The implementation of a mental health strategy for Canada relies not just on the development of the strategy by the MHCC but the combined support and collaboration of all stakeholders to make this a reality. People living in Canada support the work of the MHCC.
Communities and service providers are responsive to and working collaboratively to support the work of the MHCC. People in the mental health community (including PWLE, families, caregivers, mental health service providers and other stakeholders) who are aware of the MHCC, have high expectations including an expectation of real and concrete deliverables.
Contribute to: Increased percent
evidence-informed knowledge available on KEC
Increased number of
users report evidence-informed knowledge applied to programs as services
Enhanced knowledge of/ understanding of mental health issues shown by: Increased number of
“communities of interest” operating through KEC
Increased number of
users report information provided by KEC created greater knowledge/ understanding of mental health issues
GOC – Government of Canada HC – Health Canada MHCC – Mental Health Commission of Canada KEC – Knowledge Exchange Centre PWLE – People with lived experience NGOs – Non-Governmental Organizations
(Red text indicates future)
ASSUMPTIONS
Educators
106
KEY ACTIVITIES IMPACT/ INITIAL
OUTCOMES (2-4 YRS) INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES
(5-8 YRS) OUTPUTS INPUTS/RESOURCES
AUDIENCES
Contribute to: System outcomes
A transformed mental health
system and transformed
Canadian society as outlined
by the 7 goals of the Mental
Health Strategy for Canada
and evidenced by effective
and efficient delivery of
services
PWLE outcomes
Active engagement for
improved health outcomes/
quality of life and able to live
meaningful, productive lives
Strategy Development
Undertake research of organizations that have engaged Canadians at a large scale as well as research successful social movements
Development of the Partners for Mental Health team, concept and strategic objectives
Development of project management tools, protocols
and processes
Partner Outreach and Coalition
Building
Extend the reach of the MHCC through partnerships with existing mental health and mental wellbeing organizations and other organizations (from labour unions, to banks, to large employers) to support the MHCC’s immediate and long term goals
Leverage partner organizations’ resources to increase the resource pool available to achieve the aims of the MHCC
Increased engagement of partner organizations, both in number and variety of partners
Increased involvement of people living in Canada in discussing the issues of mental health and mental well being
Increased awareness of mental health and mental wellbeing across a broad spectrum of organizations and stakeholders
Increased resources available to achieve the goals of the MHCC
Goal
Engage Canadians, raise
awareness of mental health and
mental illness and build support
for mental health system reform
Concept
A national engagement and
partnership of people and
organizations across Canada
dedicated to advancing the
priorities of the mental health
community with the MHCC.
Galvanize the partners with
various events either tangible or
virtual – designed to raise
awareness of mental health
issues and attract people and
organizations across Canada to
the mental health cause.
Funding
HC - $2.4M (per year as per
2010/2011 Business Plan)
Accountability
Governance Board
GOC/HC
Infrastructure
Vision, mission and goals
Policies and procedures
Human resources
MHCC Executive and Staff
Contracted staff and agencies
Volunteers (Advisory
Committees and others)
Partners/collaborators
PWLE of mental illness
Families and caregivers
NGO stakeholders
Service provider stakeholders
Other organizations
People living in Canada
Social Media & Marketing
Development of bilingual on-line technology platform to invite and engage people living in Canada to join a discussion on mental health and wellbeing
Development of on the ground mechanisms and concepts
Development of access to large scale mailing lists and plan to access these
Marketing and communication strategy developed
List of organizations who have engaged Canadians
Understanding of other organizations that have successfully accomplished large scale engagements and mobilization
Partners for Mental Health Strategy developed
Project management tools, protocols and processes developed
ULTIMATE
OUTCOMES (9-10 YRS)
Note: outcomes not all
directly attributable to
the MHCC
PWLE/ Families/
Caregivers
Mental Health
Professionals/ Service
providers
All
People living in
Canada
Non-governmental
Organizations
Governments/ Health
Canada
Other
Organizations
Figure 4. Logic Model for the Evaluation of the MHCC – Level 2: Partners for Mental Health (as of December 2010)
Vision: A society that values and promotes mental health and helps people living with mental health problems and mental illness to lead meaningful and productive lives
The MHCC is responsible to
people with lived experience of
mental illness and their families,
service providers, researchers
and governments in Canada.
The MHCC and the mental health
system have a responsibility
related to the mental well being,
mental health promotion and
mental illness prevention for all
people living in Canada, including
children, youth, adults and
seniors.
The implementation of a mental
health strategy for Canada relies
not just on the development of the
strategy by the MHCC but the
combined support and
collaboration of all stakeholders to
make this a reality.
People living in Canada support
the work of the MHCC.
Communities and service
providers are responsive to and
working collaboratively to support
the work of the MHCC.
People in the mental health
community (including PWLE,
families, caregivers, mental health
service providers and other
stakeholders) who are aware of
the MHCC, have high
expectations including an
expectation of real and concrete
deliverables.
Increased recognition of a broad base of public support t for the MHCC goals
Improved awareness of issues related to mental health and mental illness and the evidence-informed best practices to address those issues
Increased support from people living in Canada for change to the mental health services and systems that exist for mental health and mental illness
Partnerships built with multiple organizations (within the mental health/mental wellbeing field as well as more broadly)
Building and expanding existing successful awareness programs
Resources leveraged to support the work of the MHCC
Online platform developed to engage and galvanize Canadians
Marketing and communication strategy developed
Mailing lists established and widespread contact made with potential
participants
GOC – Government of Canada
HC – Health Canada
MHCC – Mental Health Commission of Canada
NGOs – Non-Governmental Organizations
(Red text indicates future)
ASSUMPTIONS
107
KEY ACTIVITIES IMPACT/ INITIAL
OUTCOMES (2-4 YRS) INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES
(5-8 YRS)
OUTPUTS INPUTS/RESOURCES AUDIENCES
Contribute to:
System outcomes
A transformed mental health
system and transformed
Canadian society as outlined
by the 7 goals of the Mental
Health Strategy for Canada
and evidenced by effective
and efficient delivery of
services
Pilot Projects
Consultation with 8 Advisory Committees
Pilot Symposium for journalism students at Mount Royal University
RFI calling for existing anti-stigma programs
Establishment of a national consumer panel “the Hallway Group”, a Mental Health Table (national health care professional associations)
Public Awareness
Integrated Media Campaign Opening Minds website Statistics Canada Survey Tool Canadian Community Health
Survey Mental Health First Aid program
delivery
Increased contact with people living with mental illness
Increased engagement of the media
Increased positive reporting and reduced negative reporting on mental health and mental illness
Increased awareness of mental health and mental illness
Increased understanding of best practice aimed at reducing -stigma and-discrimination
Establish baseline of Canadians’ attitudes about mental health and mental illness
Improved collaboration across stakeholders to address stigma and discrimination
Increased engagement with diverse partners on stigma reduction
Identification and replication of effective anti-stigma programs
Goals
To change the view of people
living in Canada so they treat
people with mental illness as
full citizens
To encourage organizations to
eliminate stigma &
discrimination
To ensure individuals living with
mental illness experience equal
opportunities in society & daily
life
Target Groups
Children and Youth
Health Care Providers
Workforce
Seniors (future)
First Nations/Inuit/Métis (future)
Other cultural groups (future)
Funding
HC - $4.8 M (per year as per
2010/2011 Business Plan)
Accountability
Governance Board
GOC/HC
Infrastructure
Vision, mission and goals
Policies and procedures
Human resources
MHCC Executive and Staff
Contracted staff and agencies
Volunteers (Advisory
Committees and others)
Partners/collaborators
PWLE
Families and caregivers
Government stakeholders
NGO stakeholders
Service provider stakeholders
Researchers
Educators
People living in Canada
Media & Professional Education
Media Guidelines
Media Council
Media Monitoring
Ongoing Symposia (Journalism
Schools)
Mount Royal Project
Justice Symposia with Alberta
Criminal Justice Assoc. in
Calgary and Edmonton;
Manitoba Criminal Justice
Assoc. in Winnipeg
Release of symposium evaluation at “Into the Light” conference
Partnered with 49 Pilot projects targeting Youth and Health Care Providers and the Workforce
Evaluation teams established
Survey instruments developed; evaluation underway
ULTIMATE
OUTCOMES (9 – 10 YRS)
Note: outcomes not all
directly attributable to the
MHCC
PWLE/ Families/
Caregivers
Federal, Provincial
and Territorial
Decision and Policy
Makers
Minister of
Health/ Health
Canada
Federal, Provincial and
Territorial Ministries
and Authorities
People living in
Canada/ Workplaces
Mental Health
Professionals/ Service
providers/
NGOs
Logic Model for the Evaluation of the MHCC – Level 2: Opening Minds (Anti-Stigma/Anti-Discrimination Initiative) (as of December 2010)
The MHCC is responsible to
people living with mental illness
and their families, service
providers, researchers and
governments in Canada.
The MHCC and the mental health
system have a responsibility
related to the mental well being,
mental health promotion and
mental illness prevention for all
people living in Canada, including
children, youth, adults and
seniors.
The implementation of a mental
health strategy for Canada relies
not just on the development of the
strategy by the MHCC but the
combined support and
collaboration of all stakeholders to
make this a reality.
People living in Canada support
the work of the MHCC.
Communities and service
providers are responsive to and
working collaboratively to support
the work of the MHCC.
People in the mental health
community (including PWLE,
families, caregivers, mental health
service providers and other
stakeholders) who are aware of
the MHCC, have high
expectations including an
expectation of real and concrete
deliverables.
Reduced stigma and discrimination related to mental illness
Earlier access to treatment
Improved participation in education and the workplace
Validation of best practice to reduce stigma and discrimination
Opening Minds Launch
(October 2, 2009) Integrated media
campaign Open Minds intranet site Survey instrument
developed for Statistics Canada
Stigma measurement survey commissioned
Canadian Community Health Survey
Mental Health First Aid trainings provided
Media monitoring study initiated
Symposia held Evaluation of Mount Royal
Media/professional education program
3 Justice Conferences
Scholarships established
GOC – Government of Canada
HC – Health Canada
MHCC – Mental Health Commission of Canada
NGOs – Non-Governmental Organizations PWLE – People with lived experience
(Red text indicates future)
ASSUMPTIONS
108
KEY ACTIVITIES IMPACT/ INITIAL
OUTCOMES (2 – 4 YRS) INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES (5 –
8 YRS)
OUTPUTS INPUTS/RESOURCES AUDIENCES
Contribute to:
System outcomes
A transformed mental health
system and transformed
Canadian society as outlined by
the 7 goals of the Mental Health
Strategy for Canada and
evidenced by effective and
efficient delivery of services
Project Development &
Management
Establish project infrastructure (selection and funding of service and research partners, contracts, grants, service and research staff, data plan and support contracts)
Establish National Working Group, National Consumer Panel and local governance structures
Service Stream
Developed service contracts
and model
Training on “Housing First” and
technical support to site teams
Provision of housing and
recovery-oriented services
Fidelity scales developed and
implemented
Improved housing stability for some project participants
Improved functioning and quality of life for some project participants
Improved health outcomes for some project participants
Reduced involvement with justice system
Reduced use of the health care system
Increased knowledge about the impact of interventions on participants
Increased knowledge about
on better meeting the unique needs and outcomes for special groups (e.g. ethnocultural, rural, youth)
Improved knowledge about the implementation of Housing First programs in Canada
Mandate
To launch 5 research
demonstration projects on
housing and complementary
supports as they relate to mental
health and homelessness in order
to identify best practices that
could be applicable on a national
scale.
Objectives
Multi-site, field research trial, two
program variations of the Housing
First model are being compared to
care-as-usual in the following five
cities: Moncton, Montreal,
Toronto, Winnipeg & Vancouver
Funding
HC - $110 M (as per 2010/11
Business Plan)
Leveraged “in kind”
contributions - $20 M+
Accountability
Governance Board
GOC/HC
Human resources
MHCC Executive and Staff
3rd party service providers
Contracted staff and agencies
Researchers
Consumer consultants
Partners/collaborators
PWLE of mental illness
Families and caregivers
Government (FPT)
stakeholders
NGO stakeholders
Service provider stakeholders
Researchers
Educators
Universities
International partners
People living in Canada
Local communities
Research Stream
National research teams
established
Qualitative & quantitative data
protocols
designed/implemented
Qualitative & quantitative data
management support
Site visits to ensure fidelity
Support research governance
committees
ULTIMATE
OUTCOMES (9-10 YRS)
Note: outcomes not all
directly attributable to the
MHCC
PWLE/ Families/
Caregivers
FPT Decision and
Policy Makers,
Ministries and
Authorities
Minister of
Health/ Health
Canada
People living in
Canada/ Local
Communities
Mental Health
Professionals/ Service
Providers/ NGOs
Logic Model for the Evaluation of the MHCC – Level 2: At Home/Chez Soi Research Demonstration Sites
The MHCC is responsible to people
with lived experience of mental
illness and their families, service
providers, researchers and
governments in Canada.
The MHCC and the mental health
system have a responsibility related
to the mental well being, mental
health promotion and mental illness
prevention for all people living in
Canada, including children, youth,
adults and seniors.
The implementation of a mental
health strategy for Canada relies not
just on the development of the
strategy by the MHCC but the
combined support and collaboration
of all stakeholders to make this a
reality.
People living in Canada support the
work of the MHCC.
Communities and service providers
are responsive to and working
collaboratively to support the work of
the MHCC.
People in the mental health
community (including PWLE,
families, caregivers, mental health
service providers and other
stakeholders) who are aware of the
MHCC, have high expectations
including an expectation of real and
concrete deliverables.
Project legacy including:
Improved support systems, including IT solutions
Improved & enduring service & evaluation capacity
Communities, service providers &
governments:
Improved delivery of services and supports for individuals who are homeless and mentally ill across Canada
Improved, safer and healthier communities
Improved creative collaboration among service providers to provide integrated services
Improved ability to invest in recovery oriented services and supports based on evidence
Knowledge on Homelessness &
Mental Illness:
Improved effective approaches to integrating housing & other supports
Improved knowledge of best practices & lessons learned
Improved solutions for diverse
ethno-cultural groups
CIHR Complementary Funding
Selection of 3 complementary
research projects, 2 focused on
youth who are homeless and
mentally ill and 1 on the service
context
Co-funding with CIHR of 3
complementary projects
Initiate and evaluate
complementary research
projects
Project staff hired/ contracted
Research project implemented in all 5 communities (Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver)
Established national and
local committees
Two national training events held
Intake of participants Provision of Housing First
with supports Recovery-oriented
treatment and intervention 1300 participants 600 individuals have new
homes
Recruitment of participants Screening and
randomization Data gathering including
fidelity visits Data analysis and reporting Knowledge transfer
exchange plan implemented
Findings shared nationally and internationally
Selection of complementary research projects
Establishment of collaboration/ communication linkages between At Home/ Chez Soi and complementary projects
GOC – Government of Canada
HC – Health Canada
MHCC – Mental Health Commission of Canada
PWLE – People with lived experience
NGOs – Non-Governmental Organizations
FPT – Federal, Provincial, Territorial
ASSUMPTIONS
109
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 110
KII Staff and Partners KII PWLE FG
Mandate
To focus national attention on mental health issues and to work to improve the health and social outcomes of people living with mental illness— Generally speaking, is the MHCC doing this?
Is the MHCC meeting the mandate that has been set out in their funding agreements with Health Canada?
B1 Are the MHCC 5 initiatives consistent with the assigned
mandate as per the funding agreements with Health
Canada?
From your experience, do you think the MHCC’s 5
initiatives will improve the mental health of
Canadians?
Are the 5 initiatives the right ones? Are they consistent with the MHCC’s
mandate?
B2 Are the 5 initiatives the right ones? Are there any gaps? Are the 5 initiatives the right ones? Are there any
gaps?
Is the mandate sill relevant? Are there gaps? Have the priorities changed
Are there activities that should no longer be implemented?
B3 Is the allocated funding sufficient to implement the
mandate? Is the funding used to leverage additional
funding supports?
Is the funding sufficient to implement the mandate?
Structure Are the current organizational structure, processes and support mechanisms functioning as expected?
C1 Are the MHCC’s governance structure, processes and
support mechanisms contributing to the achievement of
the MHCC mandate and goals?
Are the current organizational structure, processes and support
mechanisms functioning as expected?
C2 In your opinion, are the current organizational structure,
processes and support mechanisms functioning as
expected? Are they congruent with the (implied)
organizational values of the MHCC?
How are decisions being made? Are the
governance and management structures
congruent with the MHCC’s implied organizational
values?
Are there the right mix of staff and the right functions for staff? Is the
staffing model adequate to support the work of the Commission, for
instance the AC’s?
C3 Are the current advisory committees the right ones? Are
the advisory committees focused on the right content
areas? Are the right people involved?
Are there the right number and mix of AC’s members and other
volunteers, including PWLE?
C4 Is the role of the people who have experienced mental
health problems either directly or as family members or
caregivers, authentically involved with the MHCC?
From your perspective, do you see that the MHCC
includes you or others who have experience with
mental health in their lives within MHCC activities
or structures? What is working well? What are the
challenges?
Is the role of the people with lived experience authentically a key
component of the MHCC? Please describe.
MHCC Formative Evaluation
Qualitative Questions - Key Informant Interviews, Focus Groups, and Open Ended Survey Questions
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 111
KII Staff and Partners KII PWLE FG
C5 Has the MHCC been able to establish effective and
collaborative partnerships?
Do you see the MHCC achieving collaboration with
the groups that mean the most to you?
Has the MHCC established effective and collaborative partnerships with all
stakeholders? What contributes to these partnerships? What are the
barriers?
C6 Has the MHCC established itself as a model workplace? From your experience, do you think the MHCC’s 5
initiatives will improve the mental health of
Canadians?
Achievements What has been achieved by the MHCC to date in terms of implementation of the assigned mandate?
D1 How effective was the transition of the Mental Health
First Aid (MHFA) program to the MHCC? Is the MHFA
program being implemented effectively?
D2 Concerning all aspects of the MHCC’s activities, products
and services: what early examples of success are evident?
What has been the MHCC’s most important achievement
to date?
What early examples of success are evident, in
terms of the MHCC’s work? What has been the
MHCC’s most important achievement to date?
What aspects of the implementation of the MHCC are working well? What
early examples of success are evident? What has been the MHCC’s most
important achievement to date?
D3 What have been the key challenges and/or barriers to
the work of the MHCC?
What aspects are problematic? What are the challenges/barriers? Why?
D4 How effective are the MHCC’s communication strategies?
D5 How effective is the MHCC in:
*Catalyzing the reform of mental health policies?
*Communication
*Facilitating a national/Pan-Canadian approach to mental health issues?
*Diminishing stigma/discrimination faced by Canadians living with mental
illness?
*Disseminating evidenced informed information on mental health/illness
to government?
*Providing a workplace congruent with the MHCC (implied) organizational
value
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 112
KII Staff and Partners KII PWLE FG
Early Impacts
How has the MHCC affected the work and lives of partners and collaborators in the mental health system?
E1 Is the MHCC a catalyst for the mental health sector in
Canada? In what ways?
Is the MHCC making a difference? How does the MHCC act as a catalyst for the work that is done by partners
and collaborators?
E2 What principles and values do you see reflected in the
work of the MHCC?
What would you identify as the principles and values of the MHCC
workplace?
E3 Is the MHCC innovative? What is innovative in the work of the MHCC? What do you think is innovative about the work of the MHCC?
E4 To what extent do stakeholders rely on the MHCC? To what extent do you rely on the MHCC? To what extent do governments rely on the work of the MHCC?
E5 Is the MHCC going to make a difference for people with
lived experience of mental illness or mental health
problems and their families or caregivers?
If you wanted to have influence on changing the
mental health system, with whom would you talk
about this?
Is the MHCC well positioned for success?
Recommendations What can be learned from implementation to date? Are there any recommendations for improvement?
F1 What can be learned from implementation to date? What can be learned from implementation to
date?
What can be learned from implementation to date?
F2 Are there any recommendations for improvement? Are there any recommendations for
improvement?
Are there any recommendations for improvement?
F3 What could be the MHCC’s most important contribution
In the future?
What could be the MHCC’s most important
contribution In the future?
What could be the MHCC’s most important contribution in the future?
F4 Do you have any final comments? Do you have any final comments?
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 113
KII Staff and Partners KII PWLE FG
Mandate To focus national attention on mental health issues and to work to improve the health and social outcomes of people living with mental illness— Generally speaking, is the MHCC doing this?
Is the MHCC meeting the mandate that has been set out in their funding agreements with Health Canada?
B1 Are the MHCC 5 initiatives consistent with the assigned
mandate as per the funding agreements with Health
Canada?
From your experience, do you think the MHCC’s 5
initiatives will improve the mental health of
Canadians?
Are the 5 initiatives the right ones? Are they consistent with the MHCC’s
mandate?
B2 Are the 5 initiatives the right ones? Are there any gaps? Are the 5 initiatives the right ones? Are there any
gaps?
Is the mandate sill relevant? Are there gaps? Have the priorities changed
Are there activities that should no longer be implemented?
B3 Is the allocated funding sufficient to implement the
mandate? Is the funding used to leverage additional
funding supports?
Is the funding sufficient to implement the mandate?
Structure Are the current organizational structure, processes and support mechanisms functioning as expected?
C1 Are the MHCC’s governance structure, processes and
support mechanisms contributing to the achievement of
the MHCC mandate and goals?
From your perspective, do you see that the MHCC
includes you or others who have experience with
mental health in their lives within MHCC activities
or structures? What is working well? What are the
challenges?
Are there the right mix of staff and the right functions for staff?
C2 In your opinion, are the current organizational structure,
processes and support mechanisms functioning as
expected? Are they congruent with the (implied)
organizational values of the MHCC?
How are decisions being made? Are the
governance and management structures
congruent with the MHCC’s implied organizational
values?
Is the staffing model adequate to support the work of the Commission, for
instance the AC’s?
C3 Are the current advisory committees the right ones? Are
the advisory committees focused on the right content
areas? Are the right people involved?
Are there the right number and mix of AC’s members and other
volunteers, including PWLE?
C4 Is the role of the people who have experienced mental
health problems either directly or as family members or
caregivers, authentically involved with the MHCC?
Is the role of the people with lived experience authentically a key
component of the MHCC? Please describe.
Qualitative Data
Blended Detailed Results
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 114
Appendix B: Program Utilization Table
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 115
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 116
Mental Health Commission of Canada Speaking Engagements Chart
Who Speaking engagement Location Type
2010
Michael Kirby Homeward Trust Edmonton Conference AB Conference
Louise Bradley Café Scientifique (CIHR), Calgary Alberta AB Other
Louise Bradley Café Scientifique AB Symposium
Louise Bradley Northern ADM’s AB Meeting
Jayne Barker Conference Board of Canada, Chronic Disease Prevention and Management – presentation – Co-morbidity between mental illnesses and other chronic diseases, Calgary
AB Presentation
Louise Bradley East Kootenay Conference, Cranbrook, BC BC Conference
Dr. Gillian Mulvale MHCC Strategist: Into the Light conference, Vancouver BC Conference
Michael Kirby A Mental Health Strategy for Canada and British Columbia, UBC Dept. Psychiatry, CHEOS, BC Alliance on Mental Health / Illness & Addiction, Vancouver.
BC General
Louise Bradley Grand Opening of the Bosman Hotel Community Vancouver, British Columbia BC Launch
Louise Bradley BC Provincial Mental Health and Substance Use Services Planning Council Meeting, Vancouver BC BC Meeting
Catharine Hume & Cameron Keller
Presentation to the “Mental Health Systems and Services” class, Vancouver, BC BC Presentation
Louise Bradley East Kootenay Conference BC Conference
Louise Bradley CCSA Conference BC Conference
Louise Bradley PSR –Convention – per Vicky Heuhn, Keynote BC Conference
Jayne Barker presentation – BC Provincial Community Safety Steering Committee – Mental Illness and Homelessness and the relation to justice issues.
BC Presentation
Jayne Barker Wosk Center for Dialogue, Vancouver – Forum on Mental Health and Homelessness – speaker BC Forum
Jayne Barker Killarney, Ireland – C&Y Mental Health Forum – speaker – Mental Health and Homelessness Ireland Forum
Jayne Barker Killarney, Ireland – IIMHL Conference – workshop presentation – At Home/Chez Soi Project Ireland Workshop
Louise Bradley Jt. presentation with Ian Arnold – Ministers MB Presentation
Geoff Couldrey National Health Care Leadership Conference – Transforming Health – From Silos to Systems, “Knowledge to Action: Advancing healthcare reform through knowledge exchange and social marketing”.
MB Conference
Louise Bradley & Michael Kirby
Canadian Rural Health Conference, Beyond City Limits: Creating a Mental Health Strategy That Works For Rural Canadians, Fredericton, New Brunswick
NB Conference
Louise Bradley Canadian Rural Health Research Society - “Rural Life: Connecting Research and Policy” Fredericton, NB NB General
Louise Bradley AARAO Conference - Atlantic Association of Registrars and Admissions Officers NB Conference
Louise Bradley Cdn. Rural Health Conference NB Other
Jayne Barker Moncton, NB – At Home/Chez Soi National Training event – keynote speaker NB Keynote Speech
Louise Bradley Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights 2010 Conference, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador NL Conference
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 117
Who Speaking engagement Location Type
Louise Bradley Newfoundland Public Health Forum, panel discussion on Peer Support and Recovery, St. John’s , NL NL Forum
Louise Bradley Rotary Club, St. John’s Newfoundland NL Other
Michael Kirby Newfoundland and Labrador Public Service, St.John’s Newfoundland NL Other
Louise Bradley Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights 2010 Conference NL Conference
MHCC St. John’s Conference NL Presentation
Louise Bradley CASHRA Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission NL Other
Louise Bradley NL Public Health Forum NL Other
Louise Bradley Rotary Club NL Other
Louise Bradley AARAO Conference - Atlantic Association of Registrars and Admissions Officers, Sackville, NS NS Conference
Andy Cox Schizophrenia Society, Nova Scotia NS General
Louise Bradley Mental Health Summit of Nova Scotia, Halifax, NS NS Summit
Louise Bradley Mental Health Summit @ Health Assoc. of NS NS General
Louise Bradley Prov. MH Strategy Adv. Group NS Other
Louise Bradley Ministers MH and Addiction Adv. Council NS Meeting
Dr. David Goldbloom The Mental Health Commission of Canada. Knowledge Transfer Conference on Re-Thinking Borderline Personality Disorder, funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Toronto, Ontario.
ON Conference
Dr. David Goldbloom The Mental Health Commission of Canada: Working to Catalyze Change. Schizophrenia Update Conference, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health/University of Toronto
ON Conference
Louise Bradley CMHA - Thriving Conference, London, ON ON Conference
Dr. Tim Aubrey 16th
Annual First Nations, Metis and Inuit Urban Housing Conference, Ottawa ON Conference
Dr. David Goldbloom Anti-Stigma First Annual McMaster University Mental Health and Wellness Fair- McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario
ON Fair
Fern Stockdale Windsor Health Canada - Mental Health Table, Access to Mental Health Services and Supports Forum, Greetings on behalf of MHCC, Ottawa
ON Forum
Phil Upshall Health Canada - Mental Health Table, Access to Mental Health Services and Supports Forum - Greetings on behalf of MHCC, Ottawa
ON Forum
Dr. David Goldbloom Breaking the Barriers of Mental Illness, Bell Canada Enterprises, Mississauga, Ontario ON General
Dr. David Goldbloom Summary comments, Child and Youth Mental Health, The Walrus RBC Conversation Series, Toronto, Ontario ON General
Dr. David Goldbloom Mental Health and Stigma, Taking Action for Workplace Mental Health, Ministry of Education, Government of Ontario
ON General
Dr. David Goldbloom The Stigma of Mental Health “Issues” in the Workplace, 5th
Annual Mental Health Forum, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto
ON General
Faye More At Home/Chez Soi Multi-Site Homelessness Research Demonstration Project, Community Connections, Toronto, Ontario
ON General
Shalini Lal & Carol Adair Canadian Association for Health Services and Policy Research, Toronto ON General
Dr. David Goldbloom The Future of Psychiatry. Massey College Grand Rounds Seminar, Massey College, University of Toronto ON Grand Rounds
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 118
Who Speaking engagement Location Type
Dr. David Goldbloom The Future of Psychiatry - Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry, University Health Network. Toronto, Ontario ON Grand Rounds
Dr. David Goldbloom Responsible Use of Advanced Technologies in Medicine: Summary Perspective, Massey Grand Rounds Symposium - Massey College, University of Toronto
ON Grand Rounds
Dr. David Goldbloom The Mental Health Commission of Canada Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry, Credit Valley Hospital, Oakville, Ontario
ON Grand Rounds
Dr. David Goldbloom Mental Illness, Stigma and Mental Health Keynote Address - Annual General Meeting, Brockville General Hospital. Brockville, Ontario
ON Keynote Speech
Dr. David Goldbloom Mental Illness, Stigma and Discrimination Keynote Address - Royal Ottawa Hospital Centennial Open House ON Keynote Speech
Dr. David Goldbloom The Mental Health Commission of Canada. Keynote Address, Annual General Meeting, The Eating Disorders Association of Canada, Toronto, Ontario
ON Keynote Speech
Louise Bradley Building Healthier Workplaces, Addressing the Growing Impact of Mental Health in the Workplace, Ottawa, Ontario ON Keynote Speech
Dr. David Goldbloom Healing and Recovery: The Hope for the Future Special 25th
Anniversary Keynote Address for the Mood Disorders Association of Ontario Annual General Meeting
ON Keynote Speech
Dr. David Goldbloom Stigma and Mental Illness in the 21st
Century - CAMH in the Community Lecture Series, Kingston, Ontario. ON Lecture
Dr. David Goldbloom The Mental Health Commission of Canada Is Two Years Old: Walking, Talking and Running. Massey College Senior Fellows’ Luncheon - Massey College, University of Toronto
ON Luncheon
Michael Kirby Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, Board of Trustees Meeting, Ottawa ON Meeting
Dr. David Goldbloom The Mental Health Commission of Canada. Annual General Meeting, Medical Staff Association. Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre. Midland, Ontario
ON Meeting
Dr. David Goldbloom Understanding Mental Illness in the Workplace: Stigma, Reality & Hope. Municipal employees, Region of Peel. Brampton, Ontario
ON Presentation
Dr. David Goldbloom Embracing New Approaches: Reducing Stigma in Substance Use and Mental Health Services, CAMH in the Community, Orillia, Ontario
ON Presentation
Louise Bradley Ontario Health Workplace Coalition Symposium, Toronto, Ontario ON Symposium
Patrick Dion First Nations and Inuit Mental Wellness Team (MWT) Workshop, Ottawa, Ontario ON Workshop
Patrick Dion CSLS-ICP Conference on the Implications of Happiness Research for Public Policy in Canada ON Conference
Michael Kirby Canadian Auto Workers National Workers' Compensation Conference, "Challenging the Impact of Workplace Stress"
ON Conference
Dr. Tim Aubrey PSR Canada 2010 Conference ON Conference
Paula Goering & Carol Adair
Canadian Association for Health Services and Policy Research (CAHSPR) 2010 Annual Conference ON Conference
Patrick Dion Official Ribbon Cutting Ceremony for the new North Bay Regional Health Centre ON Launch
Sonia Cote and Cecile Leclercq
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s national research committee about housing ON Other
Louise Bradley Ontario Health Workplace Coalition Symposium ON Symposium
Louise Bradley Building Healthier Workplaces ON Other
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 119
Who Speaking engagement Location Type
Louise Bradley CPA – Can Psychological Assoc. – Board meeting (15 ppl) ON Meeting
Geoff Couldrey Mobilizing Research Knowledge. Pannelist “As Knowledge Mobilizes, Paradigms Shift”. ON Other
Jayne Barker Youth Housing Forum – speaker – CHEO, Ottawa ON Keynote Speech
Jayne Barker Toronto – speaker at Institute for clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES): Mental Health and Addictions Research Initiative "Strategy Symposium"
ON Keynote Speech
Stephanie Lassonde Anti-stigma conference Québec QC Conference
Dr. David Goldbloom Breaking the Barriers of Mental Illness, Bell Canada Enterprises, Montreal, Québec QC General
Louise Bradley Clubhouse, Montréal: Communities Creating Opportunities for People with Mental Illness QC General
Eric Latimer & Sonia Cote
Congrès de l'ACHRU, Congrès annuel de lʼAssociation canadienne dʼhabitation et de rénovation urbaine Montreal, Québec
QC General
Jijian Voronka & Sonia Cote
Living homeless: My learnings from street life, Dept. of Psychology, Concordia University and Ami Québec QC Keynote Speech
Jijian Voronka Collectif de Recherche sur L’Itinerance, University of Québec at Montreal QC Other
Louise Bradley Women’s Canadian Club of Montreal QC Other
Eric Latimer l'ACFAS, a French-speaking scientific congress, Université de Montreal QC Other
Louise Bradley Women’s Cdn. Club QC Other
MHCC Health Canada - Mental Health Table, Access to Mental Health Services and Supports Unknown General
Col. Stephanie Granier Symposium – Department of National Defense Unknown Symposium
MHCC VAC-DND-RCMP Mental Health Committee Unknown Presentation
MHCC National Association for the Dually Diagnosed conference Unknown Keynote Speech
MHCC Institute for Mental Health Research Board Retreat Unknown Presentation
MHCC Thriving Conference Unknown Keynote Speech
MHCC Access Forum Unknown Presentation
MHCC CAMH-PAHO Symposium Unknown Keynote Speech
Louise Bradley Sixth World Conference on the Promotion of Mental Health and Prevention of Mental and Behavioral Disorders http://wmhconf2010.hhd.org
USA Conference
Geoff Couldrey Sixth World Conference on the Promotion of Mental Health and Prevention of Mental and Behavioral Disorders: “Transforming Mental Healthcare through Knowledge Exchange and Grassroots Mobilization”.
USA Conference
Jayne Barker Washington DC – workshop presentation on At Home/Chez Soi, Mental Health Promotion and Prevention Conference
USA Workshop
Louise Bradley Opening Remarks, 6th
World Conference on the Promotion of Mental Health and Behavioural Disorders, Washington DC
USA Conference
Michael Kirby Expert Panellist, 6th
World Conference on the Promotion of Mental Health and Behavioural Disorders, Washington DC
USA Conference
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 120
Who Speaking Engagement Location Type
2009
Michael Kirby Key note address at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce AB Keynote Speech
Michael Kirby Focussing upstream: The role of medical education in encouraging diversity in the organization and delivery of health services
AB Presentation
Louise Bradley Schizophrenia Conference Sutton Place
AB Conference
Louise Bradley Organization of Bipolar Affective Disorders (OBAD) AB General
Louise Bradley Wild Rose Room, Lister Conf. Centre, University of Alberta AB Forum
MHCC Mental Health Leadership issues in Canada: what led to the creation of the Mental Health Commission of Canada? The Mental Health Services Conference - Sydney, Australia
Australia Conference
MHCC CAMH: An Overview, Cohos Evemy Architects Toronto, Ontario. The Mental Health Commission of Canada Seminar for Residents in Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia
BC Seminar
Geoff Couldrey Into the Light: Transforming Mental Health in Canada. Panellist “From Silos to Systems: Brining Knowledge to Action through the Development of the Mental Health Commision of Canada’s “Knowledge Exchange Centre”.
BC General
Jayne Barker Vancouver – presentation at Forum: Serving More People More of the Time: Advancing High Capacity Mental Health Programs through Partnerships with Primary Health Care, sponsored by the BC Government
BC Presentation
Jayne Barker presentation at Symposium on Workforce Standards for Psychological Safety in the workplace, Vancouver BC Presentation
Louise Bradley Youth and Mental Health and the Justice System Conference MB Conference
MHCC The Homelessness Initiative of the Mental Health Commission of Canada Project Launch - Moncton, New Brunswick. NB Launch
MHCC The Mental Health Commission of Canada is Two Years Old: Talking, Walking and Running. Distinguished Member Lecture, Canadian Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting - Saint John’s, Newfoundland
NL Lecture
MHCC Adolescent Mental Health, Special Lecture for Parents, Halifax Grammar School. Halifax, Nova Scotia. NS Lecture
MHCC Reflections on the Halifax Grammar School, Distinguished Alumni Lecture, Halifax Grammar School - Halifax, Nova Scotia
NS Lecture
Louise Bradley Queen’s International Institute on Social Policy 2009 Conference, Kingston, Ontario ON Conference
MHCC Be it Resolved: The Short Man is the Better Man (arguing in the negative), Leacock Debate - Toronto, Ontario ON Debate
MHCC Creativity, Mental Illness and Mental Health. 17th
Annual Rendezvous With Madness Film Festival, Workman Arts, Toronto, Ontario.
ON Festival
MHCC The Mental Health Commission of Canada. Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion - Toronto, Ontario ON General
MHCC The Mental Health Commission of Canada, Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion - Toronto, Ontario. ON General
MHCC Mental Health Awareness and the Jewish Response, Beth Tzedec Synagogue - Toronto, Ontario. ON General
MHCC Mental Health and the Workplace, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto ON General
MHCC Mental Health and Stigma Hats On For Awareness - Toronto, Ontario. ON General
MHCC The Canadian Health System and Mental Health Care, Toronto, Ontario ON General
MHCC Mental Health in Canada: Imagining the Future, Canadian Club of Halton-Peel - Oakville, Ontario. ON General
MHCC Mental Health Issues, Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario, Waterloo Region - Waterloo, Ontario ON General
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 121
Who Speaking Engagement Location Type
Dr. David Goldbloom The Mental Health Commission of Canada Grand Rounds, Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Science - Whitby, Ontario.
ON Grand Rounds
MHCC The Mental Health Commission of Canada Grand Rounds Department of Psychiatry, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario.
ON Grand Rounds
MHCC The Mental Health Commission of Canada Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital - Toronto, Ontario
ON Grand Rounds
MHCC Social Responsibility and Social Entrepreneurship: A Public Health Perspective, Summary Remarks, Massey College Grand Rounds Symposium, Massey College, University of Toronto
ON Grand Rounds
MHCC The Mental Health Commission of Canada: Child and Youth Mental Health is Everybody’s business, Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry, Hospital for Sick Children - Toronto, Ontario
ON Grand Rounds
Patrick Dion Key note address by Patrick Dion, Director of the Board of MHCC, to the Ottawa Symposium on Mental Health ON Keynote Speech
MHCC The Future of Stigma Keynote Address - Weaving the System Together, Public Symposium - University of Ottawa Mental Health Research Institute
ON Keynote Speech
MHCC Stigma Keynote Address, Parents for Children’s Mental Health - Mississauga, Ontario. ON Keynote Speech
MHCC A Journey into Advocacy Keynote Address, Residents’ Day on Advocacy, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto
ON Keynote Speech
Michael Kirby Launch of the York University Psychology Clinic, Toronto, Ontario ON Launch
MHCC Creativity, Mental Health and Mental Illness, The Harry Somers Lecture, Stratford Summer Music Festival - Stratford, Ontario
ON Lecture
MHCC Stigma and Mental Illness in the 21st
Century, CAMH in the Community Lecture Series - Waterloo, Ontario ON Lecture
MHCC Stigma and Mental Illness in the 21st
Century, CAMH in the Community Lecture Series -Hamilton, Ontario. ON Lecture
MHCC Stigma and Mental Illness, Mini-Med School Public Lecture, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Mississauga, Ontario.
ON Lecture
MHCC Stigma and Mental Illness. Mini-Med School Public Lecture, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, ON Lecture
MHCC Mental Health and the Workplace, Women’s Executive Network Diversity Luncheon -Toronto, Ontario ON Luncheon
MHCC Interactions with Industry: A Perspective. Canadian Association of Chairs of Surgery Annual Meeting - Toronto, Ontario.
ON Meeting
MHCC Mental Health: 15-24 Joint meeting, Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities/Council of Ontario Universities/Ontario Committee on Student Affairs/Inter-University Disabilities Issues Association - Toronto, Ontario
ON Meeting
MHCC The Mental Health Commission of Canada Ontario District Branch, American Psychiatric Association - Toronto, Ontario.
ON General
Michael Kirby Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee ON Presentation
Michael Kirby Presentation to the House of Commons ON Presentation
MHCC The Mental Health Commission of Canada at 18 months of age – running, walking and talking, Association of Canadian Chairs in Psychiatry, Toronto, Ontario
ON Presentation
MHCC The CAMH Redevelopment: Adventures of a psychiatrist in architecture and fundraising , Residents’ Seminar, Centre ON Seminar
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 122
Who Speaking Engagement Location Type
for Addiction and Mental Health - Toronto, Ontario.
MHCC Advocacy, Psychiatry Residents’ Seminar, Department of Psychiatry, Saint Michael’s Hospital - Toronto, Ontario ON Seminar
MHCC The Mental Health Commission of Canada, Special Symposium, Department of Psychiatry, McMaster University - Hamilton, Ontario
ON Symposium
Kathryn Power Key note speech at MHCC May Board meeting ON Meeting
MHCC Royal Ottawa Health Care Group brainstorming session ON Presentation
MHCC Ottawa Symposium on Mental Health ON Presentation
Louise Bradley Frontenac Community Mental Health Strategies AGM ON Meeting
Louise Bradley Queen’s International Institute on Social Policy ON Other
Louise Bradley OHA / CPSI ON Conference
Louise Bradley National PSR Conference ON Conference
Louise Bradley CSTD Conference ON Conference
Louise Bradley Symposium in Ottawa with Patrick Dion ON Symposium
Louise Bradley Speaking in place of Mike K. Info to come – Nancy Lawand ON Other
Michael Howlett The Dominion Insurance company ON Keynote Speech
Michael Howlett Medavie Blue Cross - Meeting of the Board of Directors ON Conference
Michael Howlett Mental Health in the Workplace – CEO Forum ON Keynote Speech
Michael Howlett 2nd
National Symposium on Child and Youth Mental Health ON Keynote Speech
Jayne Barker Presentation on At Home/Chez Soi Project – Researcher’s Symposium on Mental Health and Homelessness – City of Toronto
ON Presentation
Jayne Barker presentation on Mental Health and Homelessness – House of Commons Human Resources Parliamentary Committee
ON Presentation
Jayne Barker Presentation at Wellsley Institute, Toronto – Mental Health and Homelessness ON Presentation
Jayne Barker Toronto – Keynote speaker, National Training event, At Home/Chez Soi ON Keynote Speech
Jayne Barker Keynote speaker – 2nd
National Child and Youth Mental Health Forum, Ottawa – sponsored by the Child Welfare League
ON Keynote Speech
Jayne Barker speaker – National launch of At Home/Chez Soi, Toronto – also did 10 radio shows and 3 TV shows ON Keynote Speech
MHCC Mental Health and the Mental Health Commission of Canada. Premier and Members of the Legislature of the Province of Prince Edward Island. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island
PEI General
Michael Howlett Keynote address to Board of Directors, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Charlottetown, PEI PEI Keynote Speech
MHCC The Mental Health Commission of Canada Keynote Address, Canadian Mental Health Association Prince Edward Island Annual General Meeting - Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
PEI Meeting
Michael Howlett The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Board meeting PEI Keynote Speech
MHCC Assoc. Québécoise pour la réadaptation psycosociale QB Webinar
Louise Bradley Federal / Provincial / Territorial Heads of Corrections Working Group on Health QB Meeting
Jayne Barker Keynote speaker – Symposium on Mental Health and Homelessness – Montreal, CSSS Jeanne-Mance QB Keynote Speech
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 123
Who Speaking Engagement Location Type
Jayne Barker Keynote at National training event, At Home/Chez Soi Project, Montreal QB Keynote Speech
Jayne Barker presentation – National Roundtable on Ethics and Cultural Safety – Saskatoon SK Presentation
MHCC Mental health table for regulated health professions Unknown Presentation
MHCC Public Health Agency Knowledge Exchange Forum Unknown Conference
MHCC Clifford Beers Mental Health Promotion Conf Unknown Keynote Speech
MHCC Canadian Medical Association Board working group Unknown Presentation
MHCC CAMIMH Unknown Presentation
MHCC International Psychogeriatric Association Unknown Workshop
MHCC OPDI Annual General Meeting Unknown Keynote Speech
MHCC Canadian Psychiatric Assoc Board meeting Unknown Keynote Speech
MHCC Canadian Assoc. for Suicide prevention Unknown Keynote Speech
MHCC Making Gains Conference Unknown Keynote Speech
MHCC Stand in the Light Unknown Keynote Speech
MHCC Connections Canada Unknown Webinar
MHCC “Is there hope for recovery” symposium Unknown Keynote Speech
Who Speaking Engagement Location Type
2008
MHCC Overview of the Mental Health Commission of Canada. Alberta Mental Health Board 4th
annual Research Showcase - Banff, Alberta
AB Showcase
Michael Howlett Homelessness and Mental Illness: We Can’t Address One without the Other AB General
Jayne Barker presentation at Mental Health Think Tank AB Presentation
MHCC The Mental Health Commission of Canada: A One-Year Update. Canadian Psychiatric Association 58th
Annual Meeting - Vancouver, British Columbia
BC Meeting
Michael Kirby Simon Fraser Convocation BC Other
Dr. David Goldbloom The Homeless and Mental Illness: Solving the Challenge BC General
Jayne Barker presentation on “Lessons on What Works: A Housing First Approach” to the Greater Victoria Commission to end Homelessness
BC Presentation
Jayne Barker Keynote speaker - Forum on Mental Health and Homelessness – Simon Fraser University, Vancouver BC Keynote Speech
Jayne Barker keynote speaker at Child and Youth Mental Health Conference put on by the Interior Health Authority “Creating System Change in C&YMH Service Systems”
BC Keynote Speech
MHCC Out of the Shadows: The Mental Health Commission of Canada, Stigma and You, Plenary Lecture. 11th
International Continuing Professional Development Conference, Canadian Psychiatric Association - Montego Bay, Jamaica
Jamaica Lecture
Jayne Barker Presentation on Mental Health and Homelessness at Winnipeg Invitational Symposium put on by Winnipeg Health Authority.
MB Presentation
Michael Howlett Luncheon Address, Mental Health Forum, Moncton, NB NB Luncheon
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 124
Who Speaking Engagement Location Type
MHCC One Year Later – the Mental Health Commission of Canada NB General
Michael Howlett Blue Cross Mental Health Symposium NB Symposium
Jayne Barker presentation on “Homelessness and Mental Illness” to Moncton City Council and University of NB NB Presentation
MHCC Stigma in Mental Illness: Past, Present and Future Keynote Address, Canadian Mental Health Association National Annual Meeting - Halifax, Nova Scotia
NS Keynote Speech
MHCC Canadian Mental Health Association National Conference NS Conference
Michael Howlett Keynote Address at Ontario Hospital Association Aboriginal Conference ON Conference
MHCC Mental Health in the Workplace: A Measurable Cost. Employer Forum – Measuring for Success: The Why and How of Measurement in Workplace Health, Connex Health - Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario
ON Forum
MHCC The Good, The Bad and the Ugly: Attitudes Toward Mental Illness in the 21st
Century, The Canadian Club - Toronto, Ontario
ON General
MHCC Depression in the Workplace, Ernst and Young Human Resources Professionals -Toronto, Ontario ON General
MHCC Mental Health in the Workplace, Gowlings LLP - Toronto, Ontario, ON General
MHCC Stigma and Mental Illness, Self-Help Resource Centre - Toronto, Ontario. ON General
MHCC Adolescents and substance abuse, Branksome Hall School - Toronto, Ontario ON General
MHCC Mental Health and the Workplace: Stigma, Reality and Hope, Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP - Toronto, Ontario ON General
MHCC The Canadian Health System and Mental Health Care Graduate Program in Health Administration, Pfeiffer University, North Carolina - Toronto, Ontario.
ON General
MHCC Teen Drinking. Bishop Strachan School - Toronto, Ontario. ON General
MHCC Transforming Mental Illness in the 21st
Century: Stigma, Reality and Hope, Kiwanis Club of Don Mills - Don Mills, Ontario.
ON General
MHCC The Mental Health Commission of Canada: A One-Year Update. Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
ON Grand Rounds
MHCC The Mental Health Commission of Canada, Suicide Studies Rounds, Department of Psychiatry, Saint Michael’s Hospital - Toronto, Ontario
ON Grand Rounds
MHCC Out of the Shadows: The Mental Health Commission of Canada, Stigma, and You, Grand Rounds, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health - Toronto, Ontario
ON Grand Rounds
MHCC Out of the Shadows: The Mental Health Commission of Canada, Stigma, and You Grand Rounds, Department of Psychiatry, Toronto East General Hospital - Toronto, Ontario.
ON Grand Rounds
MHCC Perspectives on Creativity in Mental Illness and Mental Health Keynote Address, Expressions! Creativity in Mental Health, Family Services Ottawa/Canadian Mental Health Association Ottawa/The National Gallery - Ottawa, Ontario.
ON Keynote Speech
Dr. David Goldbloom The Nature and Impact of Mental Health Issues Keynote Addres, Mental Health Trends: An Emerging Social Trends Forum, Research and Evaluation Unit, Ministry of Community and Social Services, Government of Ontario
ON Keynote Speech
MHCC Mental Health in the Workplace: Stigma, Reality and Hope, Hospital for Sick Children; Mental Health Issues in the Workplace. Keynote Address 23
rd Fasken Forum: Employment, Labour, Human Rights, Pensions and Benefits
ON Keynote Speech
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 125
Who Speaking Engagement Location Type
Conference - Toronto, Ontario.
MHCC Mental Illness in the 21st
century Vic One Lecture Series, Victoria College, University of Toronto - Toronto, Ontario ON Lecture
MHCC The Mental Health Commission of Canada: A One-Year Update, Health Science Information Consortium of Toronto Annual General Meeting - Toronto, Ontario
ON Meeting
MHCC Anxiety: An Overview. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto - Toronto, Ontario ON Meeting
MHCC Thinking About Stigma, Plenary Address, Annual General Meeting, Consent and Capacity Board of Ontario - Toronto, Ontario
ON Meeting
MHCC Adolescent Mental Health Havergal College -Toronto, Ontario ON General
Michael Howlett Speech To The Toronto Board Of Trade "Turning Caring into Action” - Presentation to the RPNC World Congress for Psychiatric Nurses
ON Presentation
MHCC Journeys in Therapeutics, History of Psychiatry Seminar, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto ON Seminar
Dr. David Goldbloom Mental Illness in the 21st
Century Special Seminar, Trinity College, University of Toronto - Toronto, Ontario ON Seminar
MHCC Transforming the treatment of mental health and addiction, Open Minds Speakers Series - Toronto, Ontario ON Series
MHCC Summary Remarks and Synthesis. Well-Being in a Competitive World in Students and Beyond, 2nd
Annual Massey College Grand Rounds Symposium, Massey College, University of Toronto - Toronto, Ontario
ON Symposium
MHCC Mental Illness in the Workplace: Stigma, Reality and Hope, Ontario Teachers Insurance Plan Benefits Workshop - Mississauga, Ontario
ON Workshop
Michael Kirby Silver Dinner Remarks ON Keynote Speech
Michael Kirby ‘Children’s Mental Health and the Need for a National Mental Health Movement’ ON General
Jayne Barker Raising the Roof – conference on youth homelessness – workshop presentation on Housing First ON Workshop
MHCC The Mental Health Commission of Canada: A New Model for Change, Plenary Address, Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention Annual Meeting: Suicide et Addictions - Québec City, Québec
QB Meeting
Tony Clement Minister of Health at Canadian Medical Association Annual Conference Unknown Conference
MHCC Throne speech supports the MHCC Unknown Other
MHCC “Group of 7” providers Unknown Presentation
MHCC RAMHPS seminar Unknown Seminar
MHCC Mental Health Promotion Think Tank Unknown Presentation
Jayne Barker presentation to the US Committee to end Homelessness (chaired by Phillip Mangano) USA Presentation
Jayne Barker workshop presentation at Forum on Mental Illness and Homelessness – Columbia University, New York USA Workshop
MHCC Mental Illness in the Workplace: Stigma, Reality and Hope. Plenary Lecture, Institute of Health and Productivity Management International Conference - Scottsdale, Arizona
USA Lecture
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 126
Who Speaking Engagement Location Type
2007
MHCC Future Opportunities and Challenges Keynote Address, Inukshuk Conference on The Brain, Mental Health, and Addiction: From Synapse to Society, Alberta Heritage Fund for Medical Research - Banff, Alberta.
AB Keynote Speech
MHCC Mental Health in the Canadian Workplace, Spectra Energy - Medicine Hat, Alberta; Mental Health in the Canadian Workplace, Spectra Energy, Fort St. John’s, British Columbia
BC General
MHCC Mental Health in the Canadian Workplace, Spectra Energy - Halifax, Nova Scotia. NS General
MHCC A Perfect Storm Yielding a Perfect Opportunity 2nd
US/Canada Forum on Mental Health and Productivity - Ottawa, Ontario.
ON Forum
MHCC Mental Health Issues, Challenges and Opportunities, Group Insurance and Pharmaceuticals Committee - Toronto, Ontario
ON General
MHCC Mental Health in the Canadian Workplace, Faskens LLP - Toronto, Ontario ON General
MHCC Mental Health in the Canadian Workplace, Amgen Canada Inc. - Mississauga ON General
MHCC Adolescent Mental Health, The York School, Toronto, Ontario ON General
Dr. David Goldbloom Mental Health and the 21st
Century Massey Grand Rounds, Massey College - Toronto, Ontario ON Grand Rounds
MHCC Mental Illness and the Workplace: Stigma, Reality and Hope, Stephen E. Lett Lecture, Homewood Health Centre - Guelph, Ontario
ON Lecture
MHCC Mental Health in the Canadian Workplace, Spectra Energy, Brantford, Ontario ON General
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 127
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 128
Appendix C: Survey Instrument and Interview Guides
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 129
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 130
EVALUATION OF THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION OF CANADA
REVISED KEY INFORMANT GUIDE – PHASE 1
Name:
Date and Time:
Phone:
LDER I Please note that your privacy is protected throughout this process. The information that we, as
consultants, provide to the Mental Health Commission of Canada will not contain names or personal
information.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact the following:
Mental Health Commission of Canada Charis Management Consulting Inc.
Laureen MacNeil
Planning & Risk Management Officer
Suite 800, 10301 Southport Lane S.W.
Calgary, Alberta T2W 1S7
(403) 385-4068
Lynn Damberger
Senior Evaluation Consultant
418, 10123 99 Street
Edmonton, AB T5J 3H1
(780) 496-9067 ext 226
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 131
INTRODUCTION
The Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) was created in 2007 as a result of recommendations
made in the ground breaking report Out of the Shadows at Last – Transforming Mental Health, Mental
Illness and Addiction Services in Canada (May 2006). To fulfill its mission, the MHCC is actively engaged
in five key initiatives, addressing areas of core significance to the sector’s needs:
1) A mental health strategy 2) An anti-stigma initiative 3) Homelessness research demonstration projects 4) Knowledge exchange 5) Partners for mental health
In compliance with the Health Canada funding framework and Treasury Board evaluation guidelines, the
MHCC has initiated a formative evaluation process to garner an assessment of: progress made towards
the five key initiatives; policy or program effectiveness; of impacts (intended and unintended); and, if
located, of alternative ways of achieving results. Charis Management Consulting has been selected as
the Canadian evaluation firm to complete this formative evaluation of the MHCC.
The focus of the Phase 1 Key Informant interviews is to probe on MHCC activities, outputs, and
outcomes; evaluation issues/questions; and potential data sources. The purpose is to understand the
MHCC’s objectives and priorities and the five identified initiatives sufficiently to inform the development
of the logic model and evaluation matrix to be utilized in the next phase of the evaluation. Key
individuals from the MHCC Executive Team and additional key stakeholders, selected by the MHCC, have
been asked to provide their perspective in this phase of the evaluation. You may also be interviewed or
surveyed in the second phase of the evaluation that will occur in early 2011.
The interview should take around 45 to 60 minutes to complete.
Do you consent to do this interview?
Do you consent to our audio-taping the interview to ensure the data collection is complete? The tape
file will be held confidential – to be used by evaluators as backup to their notes. Data will be aggregated
in order to assist in the completion of the logic model and evaluation framework and methodology
which will guide Phase 2 of the evaluation.
Finally, do you have any questions before we start the interview?
How long have you been involved with the MHCC?
What is your role?
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 132
SECTION A: PROPOSED LOGIC MODEL FOR THE MHCC EVALUATION
I would like to talk about the proposed level 1 logic model that will be utilized for Phase 2 of the MHCC
evaluation. The attached logic model is the highest level logic model that captures the overall
implementation of the MHCC. Charis Management Consulting will also be developing Level 2 logic
models for each of the 5 initiatives undertaken by the MHCC.
A1. Are the assumptions listed on the right side of the page accurate? Is there anything more to
these assumptions that you would like to add?
A2. Is the identification of inputs/resources a valid description of the resources available? Are there
any gaps?
A3. Are the key activities listed accurate? Are there any gaps?
A4. Are there any other outputs that you believe should be reflected in the logic model?
A5. Do the audiences listed accurately reflect the groups that were intended to be impacted by the
implementation of the MHCC?
A6. This evaluation will focus on the impact/initial outcomes derived from the first 4 years of the
MHCC implementation. In this outcome area, are there any other aspects of the overall
implementation that you believe need to be included?\
A7. While it is too early to do a full impact assessment of the MHCC’s work, we are contemplating
highlighting or profiling examples of early impacts that have been achieved to date. Do you
have any suggestions of particular work that has been completed that we could review and
consider for profiling?
A8. Both of the Intermediate and ultimate outcomes areas will be examined in future evaluations of
the overall implementation of the MHCC. Are there any other outcomes that you believe should
be added for these future evaluations?
SECTION B: LOOKING FORWARD TO THE EVALUATION
In the next phase of the evaluation, Charis Management Consulting will be conducting a systematic
review of all project documentation, completing a targeted literature review and collecting data through
interviews, focus groups and surveys to answer key evaluation questions. This formative evaluation will
focus on assessing aspects of the MHCC’s work from inception until March 31, 2010. Later in
implementation, the MHCC will undertake a separate summative evaluation to assess the impact of
strategies over the entire lifespan of the organization.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 133
B1. As a formative evaluation of the MHCC, what questions do you think will be most critical for
Charis Management Consulting to ask others in surveys, interviews or focus groups?
B2. Do you believe there are any specific issues for the evaluation that Charis needs to be aware of
and if so, please describe these issues?
B3. Key documents being reviewed include funding agreements, strategic and business plans,
implementation plans for each initiative, Advisory Committee projects and other projects
completed/in process, communication plans, media releases, Board reports, organizational
policies and procedures, environmental scans, surveys and frameworks that have been
developed. Are there any other key documents or key people that would you recommend we
review/interview as part of this evaluation?
SECTION C: OTHER QUESTIONS
This next group of questions is more evaluative and seeking your thoughts and opinions on the MHCC
rather than on the evaluation process. Before I ask you this final group of questions, let’s review what
the MHCC vision and mandate are:
MHCC Vision:
A society that values and promotes mental health and helps people living with mental health problems
and mental illness to lead meaningful and productive lives.
MHCC Mandate:
To act as a catalyst to improve the mental health system in Canada, develop a mental health strategy for
Canada, reduce stigma and discrimination faced by people living with mental illness and mental health
problems, and create a knowledge exchange centre (2001- 2017)
C1. Do you believe the MHCC has been formed and organized as intended? Please describe.
C2. How effective are the structures and processes implemented by the MHCC to achieve their
mandate?
C3. What do you believe has been working best in terms of the MHCC?
C4. What do you believe has been most challenging for the MHCC?
C5. Are there any major suggestions or recommendations you would like to make?
C6. Is there anything else that you would like to add or any questions that you have?
We would like to thank you very much for your time.
If you have any questions about the study, please do not hesitate to contact Lynn Damberger at 780 496 9067, ext 226.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 134
EVALUATION OF THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION OF CANADA
KEY INFORMANT GUIDE PHASE TWO
PEOPLE WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE (8-10), FAMILY MEMBERS AND CAREGIVERS (3-5)
Name and Role:
Date and Time:
Phone:
Interviewer:
Please note that your privacy is protected throughout this process. The information that we, as
consultants, provide to the Mental Health Commission of Canada will not contain names or personal
information. We will not use direct quotes from interviews in the evaluation report without specific
consent from you to do so.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact the following:
Mental Health Commission of Canada
Laureen MacNeil
Planning & Risk Management Officer
Suite 800, 10301 Southport Lane S.W.
Calgary, Alberta T2W 1S7
(403) 385-4068
OR
Sapna Mahajan
Executive Associate to the President and Chief
Executive Officer
Suite 800, 10301 Southport Lane S.W.
Calgary, Alberta T2W 1 S7
(403) 385-4054
Charis Management Consulting
Lynn Damberger
Senior Evaluation Consultant
418, 10123 99 Street
Edmonton, AB T5J 3H1
(780) 496-9067 ext 226
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 135
The Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) was created in 2007. To fulfill its mission, the MHCC
is actively engaged in five key initiatives:
1. A mental health strategy 2. An anti-stigma initiative 3. Homelessness research demonstration projects 4. Knowledge exchange 5. Partners for mental health
In order to meet the requirements set up by Health Canada, the funder of the MHCC, an evaluation
process has been started to assess the progress made towards achieving the mandate of the MHCC.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. has been selected to complete this work.
The interview should take around 45 to 60 minutes to complete.
Do you consent to do this interview?
Do you consent to our audio-taping the interview to ensure the data collection is complete? The tape
file will be held confidential to Charis Management Consulting Inc. and will only be used by evaluators as
backup to their notes. If you choose not to be audio-taped, we can continue with the interview with
only notes being taken. You have the right to not answer any question that you would prefer not to
answer, to conclude the interview at any point, and to withdraw your information at any time during or
after the interview without having to give a reason for this or without fear of retribution. Data will be
aggregated and your privacy is ensured.
Finally, do you have any questions before we start the interview?
SECTION A: DESCRIPTIVE - ROLES
A1. Please describe your involvement with the MHCC. (Describe the length of time, role and
experience you have brought to the work.)
SECTION B: MHCC MANDATE
Before I ask you the following group of questions, let’s review the MHCC’s mandate and 5 initiatives:
MHCC Mandate:
To act as a catalyst to improve the mental health system in Canada, develop a mental health strategy for
Canada, reduce stigma and discrimination faced by people living with mental illness and mental health
problems, and create a knowledge exchange centre (2001- 2017).
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 136
MHCC 5 initiatives:
1. A mental health strategy 2. An anti-stigma initiative 3. Homelessness research demonstration projects 4. Knowledge exchange 5. Partners for mental health
B1. From your experience, do you think the MHCC’s five key initiatives will improve the mental
health of Canadians?
B2. Are the five key initiatives the right ones? Are there any gaps?
SECTION C: MHCC STRUCTURE
C1. From your perspective, do you see that the MHCC includes you or others who have experience
with mental health in their lives within MHCC activities or structures? (For example, as staff
members, volunteers, committee members, or for consultation). What is working well? What
are the challenges?
SECTION D: MHCC ACHIEVEMENTS
D1. What early examples of success are evident, in terms of the MHCC’s work?
D2. What has been the MHCC’s most important achievement to date?
D3. Do you see the MHCC achieving collaboration with the groups that mean the most to you?
SECTION E: MHCC EARLY IMPACTS
E1. Is the MHCC making a difference?
E2. What is innovative in the work of the MHCC?
E3. To what extent do you rely on the MHCC? For example, their website, documents, newsletters, etc.
E4. If you wanted to have influence on changing the mental health system, with whom would you talk about this?
SECTION F: RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINAL COMMENTS
F1. What can be learned from implementation to date?
F2. Are there any recommendations for improvement?
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 137
F3. What could be the MHCC’s most important contribution in the future?
F4. Do you have any final comments?
We would like to thank you very much for your time. If you have any questions about the study, please do not hesitate to contact
Lynn Damberger at 780 496 9067, ext 226.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 138
EVALUATION OF THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION OF CANADA
KEY INFORMANT GUIDE PHASE TWO
MHCC STAFF (6-8) AND PARTNERS (6-10)
Name and Title:
Date and Time:
Phone:
Interviewer:
LDER I Please note that your privacy is protected throughout this process. The information that we, as
consultants, provide to the Mental Health Commission of Canada will not contain names or personal
information. As well, we will not use direct quotes from interviews in the evaluation report unless
interviewees’ permission is granted for citing directly from their interviews.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact the following:
Mental Health Commission of Canada
Laureen MacNeil
Planning & Risk Management Officer
Suite 800, 10301 Southport Lane S.W.
Calgary, Alberta T2W 1S7
(403) 385-4068
OR
Sapna Mahajan
Executive Associate to the President and Chief
Executive Officer
Suite 800, 10301 Southport Lane S.W.
Calgary, Alberta T2W 1 S7
(403) 385-4054
Charis Management Consulting
Lynn Damberger
Senior Evaluation Consultant
418, 10123 99 Street
Edmonton, AB T5J 3H1
(780) 496-9067 ext 226
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 139
INTRODUCTION
The Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) was created in 2007 as a result of recommendations
made in the ground breaking report Out of the Shadows at Last – Transforming Mental Health, Mental
Illness and Addiction Services in Canada (May 2006). To fulfill its mission, the MHCC is actively engaged
in five key initiatives, addressing areas of core significance to the sector’s needs:
1. A mental health strategy 2. An anti-stigma initiative 3. Homelessness research demonstration projects 4. Knowledge exchange 5. Partners for mental health
In compliance with the Health Canada funding framework and Treasury Board evaluation guidelines, the
MHCC has initiated a formative evaluation process to garner an assessment of: progress made towards
the five key initiatives; policy or program effectiveness; of impacts (intended and unintended); and, if
located, of alternative ways of achieving results. Charis Management Consulting has been selected as
the Canadian evaluation firm to complete this formative evaluation of the MHCC.
The interview should take around 45 to 60 minutes to complete.
Do you consent to do this interview?
Do you consent to our audio-taping the interview to ensure the data collection is complete? The tape
file will be held confidential to Charis Management Consulting Inc. and will only be used by evaluators as
backup to their notes. If you choose not to be audio-taped, we can continue with the interview with
only notes being taken. As well, you have the right to not answer any question that you would prefer
not to answer, to conclude the interview at any point, and to withdraw your information at any time
during or after the interview without having to give a reason for this or without fear of retribution. Data
will be aggregated and your privacy is ensured.
Finally, do you have any questions before we start the interview?
SECTION A: DESCRIPTIVE - ROLES
A1. Please describe your involvement with the MHCC. (Probe for length of time, role and
experience brought to the work.)
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 140
SECTION B: MHCC MANDATE
Before I ask you the following group of questions, let’s review the MHCC’s mandate and 5 initiatives:
MHCC Mandate:
To act as a catalyst to improve the mental health system in Canada, develop a mental health strategy for
Canada, reduce stigma and discrimination faced by people living with mental illness and mental health
problems, and create a knowledge exchange centre (2007- 2017).
MHCC 5 initiatives:
1. A mental health strategy 2. An anti-stigma initiative 3. Homelessness research demonstration projects 4. Knowledge exchange 5. Partners for mental health
B1. Are the MHCC five key initiatives consistent with the assigned mandate as per the funding
agreements with Health Canada?
B2. Are the 5 initiatives the right ones? Are there any gaps?
B3. Is the allocated funding sufficient to implement the mandate? Is the funding used to leverage
additional funding supports?
SECTION C: MHCC STRUCTURE
C1. Are the MHCC’s governance structure, processes and support mechanisms contributing to the
achievement of the MHCC mandate and goals?
C2. In your opinion, are the current organizational structure, processes and support mechanisms
functioning as expected? Are they congruent with the (implied) organizational values of the
MHCC?
C3. Are the current Advisory Committees the right ones? (Child & Youth; Family Caregivers; First
Nations, Inuit, & Métis; Mental Health & the Law; Science; Seniors; Service Systems; and,
Workforce). Are the Advisory Committees focused on the right content areas? Are the right
people involved?
C4. Is the role of people who have experienced mental health problems either directly or as family
members or caregivers, authentically involved with the MHCC? (Probe: as staff? Volunteers?
Consultants?)
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 141
C5. Has the MHCC been able to establish effective and collaborative partnerships? (Probe: e.g., with
governments? Service providers? Researchers? Media? People with mental health problems,
their families and caregivers?)
C6. Has the MHCC established itself as a model workplace?
SECTION D: MHCC ACHIEVEMENTS
D4. How effective was the transition of the Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) program to the MHCC? Is the MHFA program being implemented effectively?
D5. Concerning all aspects of the MHCC’s activities, products and services: what early examples of success are evident? What has been the MHCC’s most important achievement to date?
D6. What have been the key challenges and/or barriers to the work of the MHCC?
SECTION E: MHCC EARLY IMPACTS
E5. Is the MHCC a catalyst for the mental health sector in Canada? In what ways?
E6. What principles and values do you see reflected in the work of the MHCC?
E7. Is the MHCC innovative?
E8. To what extent do stakeholders rely on the MHCC?
E9. Is the MHCC going to make a difference for people with lived experience of mental illness or mental health problems and their families or caregivers?
SECTION F: RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINAL COMMENTS
F5. What can be learned from implementation to date?
F6. Are there any recommendations for improvement?
F7. What could be the MHCC’s most important contribution in the future?
F8. Do you have any final comments?
We would like to thank you very much for your time. If you have any questions about the evaluation, please do not hesitate to contact
Lynn Damberger at 780 496 9067, ext 226.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 142
EVALUATION OF THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION OF CANADA
FOCUS GROUP GUIDE - ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
VANCOUVER (FEBRUARY 03, 2011)
Introductory Remarks:
I am ______________________ from Charis Management Consulting Inc. and will be facilitating today's
focus group discussion.
Description of the evaluation data gathering process:
a. This focus group is one of four that will assist us with answering questions on the early
results and impacts of the MHCC over the first 3 years of implementation of their
mandate.
b. We are also conducting interviews with key individuals and implementing an online
survey.
Before we get started, it would be great to have some introductions from all of you. Please provide your
name, position, where you are working and which Advisory Committee you represent.
(After the round table introductions)
I have a few housekeeping items to make you aware of:
If at all possible, please turn off cell phones or place them on vibrate.
Please help yourself to refreshments.
The washrooms are located. . .
Guidelines for today’s session:
You have received an invitation which provided some information about the purpose of this
focus group.
This will be up to a 2 hour session.
We will be taking notes/recording the discussion with a view to summarizing the feedback into
themes.
Will follow a round table format for initial questions
To facilitate recording, please speak one at a time
Please note that your privacy is protected throughout this process. The information that we, as
consultants, provide to the MHCC will not contain names or personal information, or any means
of identifying you.
Do you have any questions?
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 143
Questions
1. Mandate –to focus national attention on mental health issues and to work to improve the
health and social outcomes of people living with mental illness—Generally speaking, is the
MHCC doing this? Is the MHCC meeting the mandate that has been set out in their funding
agreements with Health Canada?
Probes:
a. Are the 5 key initiatives the right ones? Are they consistent with the MHCC’s mandate?
b. Is the mandate still relevant? Are there gaps? Have the priorities changed? Are there
activities that should no longer be implemented?
c. Is the funding sufficient to implement the mandate?
2. Structure –are the current organizational structure, processes and support mechanisms of the
ACs functioning as expected?
Probes:
a. Is your role and the purpose of the AC clear to you?
b. Are there the right number and mix of AC’s members?
c. What kind of support should MHCC staff provide to the ACs? To what extent do you
receive the support you need?
d. Have the ACs established effective and collaborative partnerships with all stakeholders?
What contributes to these partnerships? What are the barriers?
e. Is the role of people with lived experience authentically a key component of the ACs?
Please describe (e.g., roles, types of participation and perceptions of involvement).
3. Achievements – what has been achieved by the ACs to date in terms of contributing to the
MHCC’s implementation of its mandate?
Probes:
a. Do you feel the work of the AC and your role in it has an impact on the functioning of
the MHCC?
b. What aspects of the implementation of the ACs are working well? What early examples
of success are evident? What have been the most important achievements to date?
c. What are the challenges/barriers?
d. How effective are the communication strategies?
e. Are the AC’s products and services consistent with the mandate and vision?
4. Early Impacts – how have the ACs affected the work and lives of partners and collaborators in
the mental health system?
Probes:
a. What difference are the ACs making to the system? Do they inform or influence system
improvements?
b. Do the ACs act as a catalyst for the work that is done by partners and collaborators?
c. What do you think is innovative about the work of the ACs?
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 144
d. To what extent do stakeholders rely on the work of the ACs?
e. Is the MHCC well positioned for success?
5. Recommendations – what can be learned from implementation to date? Are there any
recommendations for improvement?
Probe:
a. What should be the MHCC’s most important contribution in the future?
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 145
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 146
EVALUATION OF THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION OF CANADA
FOCUS GROUP GUIDE – MHCC STAFF
CALGARY (FEBRUARY 8, 2011) AND OTTAWA (FEBRUARY 23, 2011)
Introductory Remarks:
I am ______________________ from Charis Management Consulting Inc. and will be facilitating today's
focus group discussion.
Description of the evaluation data gathering process: c. This focus group is one of four that will assist us with answering questions on the early
results and impacts of the MHCC over the first 3 years of implementation of their mandate.
d. We are also conducting interviews with key individuals and implementing an online survey.
Before we get started, it would be great to have some introductions from all of you. Please provide your
name and position with the Commission.
(After the round table introductions)
I have a few housekeeping items to make you aware of:
If at all possible, please turn off cell phones or place them on vibrate. Please help yourself to refreshments.
Guidelines for today’s session:
You have been randomly selected and received an invitation letter that provided some information about the purpose of this focus group.
This will be up to a 2 hour session. We will be taking notes/recording the discussion with a view to summarizing the feedback into
themes. Will follow a round table format for initial questions To facilitate recording, please speak one at a time
Please note that your privacy is protected throughout this process. The information that we, as consultants, provide to the MHCC will not contain names or personal information, or any means of identifying you.
Do you have any questions?
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 147
History
The Mental Health Commission of Canada was established in the fall of 2007 as an independent, not-for-
profit organization funded by the Government of Canada. The Commission grew out of a
recommendation in the first-ever national report on mental health, Out of the Shadows at Last,
prepared by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Technology. The creation of
the Commission was endorsed by all provincial and territorial governments (with the exception of
Québec, which is involved in a bi-lateral process) at a meeting of Ministers of Health in 2005, and all
governments have since confirmed their support for the Commission. The report and the 10 year Health
Canada funding agreement recommended that the Commission undertake three major initiatives:
Develop a Mental Health Strategy for Canada
Create a national Knowledge Exchange Centre
Implement a national anti-stigma/ anti-discrimination initiative
In addition to the three initiatives stated above, a fourth initiative was added when the Commission
entered into a five year Health Canada funding agreement in 2008, to support five research
demonstration projects on mental health and homelessness. The fifth key initiative, Partners for Mental
Health, was added in 2008/09 to support the other initiatives by engaging Canadians in the work of the
Commission and to bring mental health issues into the public eye.
Vision and Mission
The Commission remains committed to the vision and mission stated below. At the highest level, the
vision describes the future the commission wants to see, and long term aspirations, based on the
fundamental beliefs and values of the Commission, its stakeholders and Canadian society as a whole.
The mission expresses the role the Commission will play in achieving the long term vision.
The Vision of the Commission is:
A society that values and promotes mental health and helps people living with mental health problems
and mental illness to lead meaningful and productive lives.
The Mission of the Commission is:
To promote mental health in Canada change the attitudes of Canadians toward mental health problems
and mental illness, and to work with stakeholders to improve mental health services and supports.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 148
Questions
6. Mandate –to focus national attention on mental health issues and to work to improve the health and social outcomes of people living with mental illness—Generally speaking, is the MHCC doing this? Probes:
a. Are the 5 key initiatives the right ones? b. Are they consistent with the MHCC’s mandate? c. Is the mandate still relevant? Are there gaps? Have priorities changed? Are there
activities that should no longer be implemented? d. Is the funding sufficient to implement the mandate
7. Structure –are the current organizational structure, processes and support mechanisms
functioning as expected? Probes:
a. Does the MHCC have the right mix of staff and the right functions for staff? b. Are there the right number and mix of AC’s members, and other volunteers, including
PWLE? Is the staffing model adequate to support the work of the Commission, for instance, the ACs?
c. How are decisions being made? d. What would facilitate your work to make it more effective? e. Are the governance and management structures congruent with MHCC’s (implied)
organizational values?
8. Achievements – what has been achieved by the MHCC to date in terms of implementation of the mandate? Probes:
a. What aspects of the implementation of the MHCC are working well? What early examples of success are evident? What has been the MHCC’s most important achievement to date?
b. What are the challenges/barriers? c. How effective is the MHCC, in:
i. Communication? ii. Facilitating a pan -Canadian approach to mental health issues?
iii. Diminishing stigma/discrimination faced by Canadians living with mental illness? iv. Disseminating evidenced informed information on mental health/illness to
government? v. Providing a workplace congruent with MHCC (implied) organizational values?
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 149
9. Early Impacts – how has the MHCC affected the work and lives of partners and collaborators in the mental health system? Probes:
a. What would you identify as the principles and values of the MHCC workplace? b. What difference is the MHCC making to the system? Does it inform or influence system
improvements? c. Does the MHCC act as a catalyst for the work that is done by partners and
collaborators? d. What do you think is innovative about the work of the MHCC? e. To what extent do stakeholders rely on the work of the MHCC? f. Is the MHCC well positioned for success?
10. Recommendations – what can be learned from implementation to date? Are there any recommendations for improvement? Probe:
a. What should be the MHCC’s most important contribution in the future?
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 150
EVALUATION OF THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION OF CANADA
FOCUS GROUP GUIDE – PT REFERENCE GROUP
OTTAWA (FEBRUARY 23, 2011)
Introductory Remarks:
I am ______________________ from Charis Management Consulting Inc. and will be facilitating today's
focus group discussion.
Description of the evaluation data gathering process:
a This focus group is one of four that will assist us with answering questions on the
early results and impacts of the MHCC over the first 3 years of implementation of
their mandate.
b We are also conducting interviews with key individuals and implementing an online
survey.
Before we get started, it would be great to have some introductions from all of you. Please provide your
name, expertise, and ministry.
(After the round table introductions)
I have a few housekeeping items to make you aware of:
Washrooms located. . .
If at all possible, please turn off cell phones or place them on vibrate.
Please help yourself to refreshments.
Guidelines for today’s session:
You have received an invitation which provided some information about the purpose of this
focus group.
This will be up to a 2 hour session.
We will be taking notes/recording the discussion with a view to summarize the feedback into
themes.
Will follow a round table format for initial questions
To facilitate recording, please speak one at a time
Please note that your privacy is protected throughout this process. The information that we, as
consultants, provide to the MHCC will not contain names or personal information.
Do you have any questions?
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 151
The Mental Health Commission of Canada is a non-profit organization created to focus national
attention on mental health issues and to work to improve the health and social outcomes of people
living with mental illness.
The Commission, while funded by the Government of Canada, is a national body, not a federal one. It
has been endorsed by all levels of government, although the Commission operates at arm's length from
them.
The Commission's work currently includes the following key areas:
1. A Mental Health Strategy for Canada 2. Opening Minds - an anti-stigma / anti-discrimination initiative 3. At Home / Chez Soi - Homelessness research demonstration projects 4. Knowledge Exchange Center 5. Partners for Mental Health
The Mental Health Commission of Canada will:
Be a catalyst for the reform of mental health policies and improvements in service delivery; Act as a facilitator, enabler and supporter of a national approach to mental health issues; Work to diminish the stigma and discrimination faced by Canadians living with mental illness; Disseminate evidence based information on all aspects of mental health and mental illness to
governments, stakeholders and the public.
Questions
11. Mandate –to focus national attention on mental health issues and to work to improve the
health and social outcomes of people living with mental illness-- is the MHCC meeting the
mandate that has been set out in their funding agreements with Health Canada?
Probes:
a. Are the 5 key initiatives the right ones? Are the consistent with the MHCC’s mandate?
b. Is the mandate still relevant? Are there gaps?
c. Is the funding sufficient to implement the mandate?
12. Structure –are the current organizational structure, processes and support mechanisms
functioning as expected?
Probes:
a. Has the MHCC established effective and collaborative partnerships with all levels of
government and other stakeholders?
b. Is the role of people with lived experience, their families and caregivers authentically a
key component of the MHCC?
c. How are decisions being made? Are the governance and management structures
congruent with the MHCC’s (implied) organizational values?
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 152
13. Achievements – what has been achieved by the MHCC to date in terms of implementation of
the assigned mandate?
Probes:
a. What aspects of the implementation of the MHCC are working well? What early
examples of success are evident? What has been the MHCC’s most important
achievement to date?
b. What are the challenges/barriers?
c. How effective is the MHCC, in:
i. Catalyzing the reform of mental health policies?
ii. Facilitating a national approach to mental health issues?
iii. Diminishing stigma/discrimination faced by Canadians living with mental illness?
iv. Disseminating evidenced informed information on mental health/illness to
government?
14. Early Impacts – how has the MHCC affected the work and lives of partners and collaborators in
the mental health system?
Probes:
a. What difference is the MHCC making to the sector? Does it inform or influence sector
improvements?
b. Is the MHCC contributing to meeting the broader mental health goals for people in
Canada?
c. How does the MHCC act as a catalyst for the work that is done by partners and
collaborators?
d. What do you think is innovative about the work of the MHCC?
e. To what extent do governments rely on the outputs of the MHCC, to inform their work?
f. Is the MHCC well positioned for success?
15. Recommendations – what can be learned from implementation to date and are there any
recommendations for improvement?
Probe:
a. What could be the MHCC’s most important contribution in the future?
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 153
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 154
The Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) was created in 2007 as a result of recommendations made in the ground breaking report Out of the Shadows at Last – Transforming Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Services in Canada (May 2006). To fulfill its mission of promoting mental health in Canada, working with stakeholders to change the attitudes of Canadians toward mental health problems, and to improve services and support, the MHCC is currently engaged in five key initiatives:
1) A Mental Health Strategy for Canada to transform the mental health system.
2) An anti-stigma/anti-discrimination initiative to change people’s attitudes and behaviours toward those who suffer from mental illness.
3) A national research project on homelessness and mental illness to determine which services and systems are best to help those who are living with a mental illness and are homeless.
4) A Knowledge Exchange Centre to help improve the lives of people living with mental illness by creating ways for Canadians to access information, share knowledge, and exchange ideas about mental health.
5) Partners for Mental Health as a national social movement to position mental health on the national agenda.
In compliance with the Health Canada funding framework and Treasury Board evaluation guidelines, the MHCC has initiated a formative evaluation process. Charis Management Consulting Inc. has been selected as the Canadian evaluation firm to complete this formative evaluation of the MHCC. Completion of this questionnaire will take 15 - 20 minutes of your time. As Charis Management Consulting is an external evaluator, all of the information you provide is confidential and will be kept anonymous. Your privacy is protected! Instructions for completion of this online questionnaire:
The survey functions as an online webpage. Use the side bars to scroll up and down, use the mouse to click on the responses you choose, and click inside the textboxes before you begin to type inside.
Return to the previous page by clicking on the ‘Back’ button at the bottom of the page. Navigate to the next page by clicking on the ‘Next’ button. Should you wish to change all
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 155
your answers, the ‘Clear’ button will erase all responses on the current page and you may then start at the top of the page and select new responses.
In this survey, we have included a series of statements around the mandate and activities undertaken by the MHCC. Taking each of these statements in turn, please indicate your level of agreement to each of the statements using the following scale:
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don’t Know
Awareness of the MHCC
Awareness
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly Agree Don't Know
1. I am aware of the MHCC and its work.
2. I understand the mandate of the MHCC.
3. I know as much as I want to know about the MHCC.
4. The MHCC does a good job of sharing information.
5. I believe the MHCC has a positive reputation.
Collaboration
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly Agree Don't Know
6. I understand how my work contributes to the MHCC.
7. I understand how the MHCC contributes to my work.
8. I have adequate opportunities to provide input to the MHCC.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 156
Five Key Initiatives of the MHCC
1) A Mental Health Strategy for Canada to transform the mental health system.
2) An anti-stigma/anti-discrimination initiative to change people’s attitudes and behaviours toward those who suffer from mental illness.
3) A national research project on homelessness and mental illness to determine which services and systems are best to help those who are living with a mental illness and are homeless.
4) A Knowledge Exchange Centre to help improve the lives of people living with mental illness by creating ways for Canadians to access information, share knowledge, and exchange ideas about mental health.
5) Partners for Mental Health as a national social movement to position mental health on the national agenda.
Listed below are the five key initiatives of the MHCC. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly Agree Don't Know
9. It is important for the MHCC to develop a mental health strategy for Canada.
10. It is important for the MHCC to develop an anti-stigma initiative.
11.
It is important for the MHCC to carry out a national research project on homelessness and mental illness.
12. It is important for the MHCC to develop a Knowledge Exchange Centre.
13. It is important for the MHCC to develop Partners for Mental Health.
Please provide your overall opinion on the five key initiatives.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly Agree Don't Know
14. The five key initiatives of the MHCC are the right ones.
15. There are issues that are not being addressed in the five key initiatives.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 157
Promotion of the MHCC
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly Agree Don't Know
16. The MHCC effectively communicates its activities.
17. The MHCC effectively disseminates its resources and information.
18. How do you receive information about the MHCC, and its products and services?
Please check all that apply.
Newsletter Newspaper Brochures Press releases, media coverage Emails Project reports (including Advisory Committee reports) Annual reports Formal presentations Television MHCC website Social Media (e.g. Facebook) Word of mouth Other ____________________
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 158
Impacts of the MHCC
Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements about the MHCC.
19. To this point, the MHCC's activities, products and resources contribute to:
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly Agree Don't Know
Reducing stigma and discrimination related to mental illness.
Improving collaboration among partners.
Improving collaboration with people with lived experience and their families or caregivers.
Improving awareness of issues and evidence-informed practices to address those issues.
Enhancing integration and collaboration in the mental health system in Canada.
Increasing the use of MHCC research to impact the development of policy and service delivery.
20. Looking to the future, the MHCC is structured and resourced to contribute to:
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly Agree Don't Know
Reducing stigma and discrimination related to mental illness.
Improving collaboration among partners.
Improving collaboration with people with lived experience and their families or caregivers.
Improving awareness of issues and evidence-informed practices to address those issues.
Enhancing integration and collaboration in the mental health system in Canada.
Increasing the use of MHCC research to impact the development of policy and service delivery.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 159
21.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly Agree Don't Know
I rely on the products, information, and activities provided by the MHCC.
22. In my work, I rely on the following products for sources of information:
Please check all that apply.
Newsletters Fact sheets Annual reports Brochures Speeches Interviews News reports Reports and articles (including Advisory Committee reports) MHCC website Other ____________________
23. Based on the progress made to date, the MHCC is having a positive impact on the following groups:
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly Agree Don't Know
People with lived experience of mental illness
Families and caregivers
Mental health professionals
Service providers Non-governmental organizations Researchers Educators Government decision and policy makers Health Canada Media Employers Members of the general public
24.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly Agree Don't Know
The MHCC is making a difference in the mental health sector.
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 160
25. If you wanted to influence changes to the mental health system, with whom would you be most likely to talk?
Mental Health Commission of Canada Canadian Mental Health Association My general practitioner/family physician Mental health professional Elected government official Health Canada Provincial/territorial health department Local health authority Other ____________________
Overall Observations
Please answer the following questions:
26. Overall, what aspects of the MHCC are working well?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
27. Overall, what aspects of the MHCC are not working well?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
28. Do you have any recommendations to strengthen the MHCC going forward?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
29. As per its funding agreement with Health Canada, the mandate of the MHCC ends in 2017. If the MHCCwere
to pursue activities beyond that time, which of the five key initiatives should be sustained? Please check all that apply.
Mental health strategy for Canada Anti-stigma/Anti-discrimination initiative Research on homelessness and mental illness Knowledge Exchange Centre Partners for Mental Health
Please indicate any
comments you have in regards to the question above.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 161
Background Information
Not at All A Little Fairly Very Not
Applicable
30. How knowledgeable do you feel about mental health and mental health improvement?
31. How involved are you with the MHCC?
32.
If you interact with persons with lived experience, family or caregivers, how often do you hear about the MHCC from them?
33. Check the box that describes your role in relation to the MHCC.
If you fulfill more than one role, please check all that apply.
Person with lived experience of mental illness or mental health problem Family member of a person with lived experience Caregiver of a person with lived experience Mental health service provider Health service provider Non-governmental organization Researcher Educator Government official/staff MHCC staff MHCC volunteer Advisory Committee chair or member Media International partner Recipient of At Home/Chez Soi homelessness research demonstration project Other ____________________
Please describe your work, or your organization's work if applicable.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 162
Optional Information
Demographic Information
34. Please indicate your gender.
Male
Female
35. Please indicate your age group. 15-24
25-44 45-64 65-74 75+
Enter a Draw!
If you are interested in entering your name into the draw for one of two $100.00 Amazon gift cards, please provide your first name and email address in the field below. This will be separated from your responses to the survey and your responses will not be identifiable. If your name is drawn as a prize winner, the electronic gift card will be sent to your email address.
First name and email address: __________________________________________________
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Thank you for your participation in this survey!
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 163
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 164
Appendix D: Organizational Chart
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 165
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 166
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 167
Charis Management Consulting Inc 168
Appendix E: Formative Evaluation Summary and Observations for Consideration
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 169
Charis Management Consulting Inc 170
Formative evaluation summary and observations for consideration
MHCC Business plan: 2010/2011 – 2014/2015 Formative evaluation findings
Critical Success
Factor Description Summary and observations for consideration
Providing
leadership
The Commission must provide
leadership on a national level and act
as a catalyst for change in the mental
health field. . . .
Fulfill the national mandate by extending coverage and providing focused engagement with regions that are less actively involved.
Be ground-breaking in leadership by actioning the assessment of the MHCC by people with lived experience. Ask the question: will this MHCC activity/product make a difference to people who experience mental illness? This will increase organizational alignment with the mandate and build relevance with the grassroots service providers.
Promoting shift
in attitudes
and behaviors
The ability of the Commission to shift
attitudes and behaviors about
mental health and mental illness is
one of the cornerstones of success. .
. .
Strong relationships with media and increasing their positive coverage are a sign that awareness is occurring. For instance, Opening Minds has increased awareness about mental health and mental illness, but it is early in the mandate to assess any shifts in attitudes and behaviors. The MHCC will want to track changes in this over the time frame of the mandate.
KEC and Partners are innovative and cutting edge. Move forward with intention and creativity as this will fulfill the mandate and result in a multiplier effect with other MHCC activities (e.g., AC products).
There is increasing government attention on mental health; many opportunities to develop synergy across governments build sector capacity for national evaluation/data collection and move forward with transforming policy.
Engaging
Canadians
The ability of the Commission to put
mental health on the national
agenda depends on its ability to
engage Canadians on the issue. . . .
Build linkages with the groups most perceived by respondents (internal and external) as poorly represented: people with lived experience, families and caregivers, First Nations Inuit and Métis, and, Québec.
Use the map of Canada to track activities and disseminate widely.
Ensuring that
people living
with mental
health
Changes to the mental health system
will only be successful if they meet
the needs of people living with
mental health problems and mental
Continue to integrate people with lived experience into the Commission:
Build on the MHCC’s capacity to integrate people with lived experience, Aboriginals and others into the “MHCC Family” as a core component of creating a model workplace.
Develop a clear communication plan to inform stakeholders of the MHCC’s approach to actively
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 171
problems and
mental illness
and their
families are
central to the
Commission
illness and their families. . . . include people with lived experience and other diverse groups, within their staff.
Take the Commission out to where people with lived experience are:
Build strong linkages with grassroots service providers and create meaningful networks with them; validate their work and give it presence. Strengthen their capacity to track and evaluate their results and utilize this information to shift policy; be their national catalyst.
Communicating Excellence in communication
continues to be fundamental to the
Commission’s success. . . .
Continue to increase communication and promotion about the MHFA, to build awareness across the sector and mitigate concerns about its transfer to the Commission.
Create processes that will increase the transparency of the decision-making methods utilized by the Commission and build a sense among staff and other stakeholders that they are able to influence the work of the MHCC.
Building
relationships
and
partnerships
The Commission will fulfill its mission
largely through relationships and
partnerships. . . .
Respondents identified the Provincial/Territorial Reference Group as an important committee that results in real wins for MHCC. It will be important to continue to build on this success and leverage its potential for increasing MHCC sustainability.
Build on the existing strengths of MHCC stakeholder relations with governments and other partners.
Strengthen alliances with grassroots organizations, build partnerships and capitalize on their existing work in the sector. Utilizing the Opening Minds model, address the substantive concerns that have been expressed concerning lack of collaboration with these groups.
Similarly, facilitate connections with national Aboriginal organizations that work in the health and mental health sector, for the purposes of forming partnerships and building alliances.
Managing
expectations
The positive response to the creation
of the Commission has resulted in
high expectations among
stakeholders. . . .
There is, among respondents, a perceived expectation that MHCC is to advocate for the sector. This perception needs to be addressed and brought into alignment with the MHCC mandate and then clearly communicated to stakeholders. Continue to further develop the MHCC role as a trusted advisor to federal, provincial and territorial governments, as well as to other stakeholders.
Use the website to show visually what the MHCC is achieving and what is around the corner, and include easy access to information about fiscal decisions.
Promoting the
creation of
evidence-
informed
The importance of research, science,
and evaluation to build evidence-
informed knowledge has been
identified as a critical success factor.
While all of the five key initiatives have been strongly affirmed by the data as relevant, there has equally been substantive observation that the Knowledge Exchange Centre and the Partners initiatives have not been implemented satisfactorily. It is important that these two initiatives receive focused attention that ensures they develop to the same standard.
An important finding from this evaluation is that there is real interest among stakeholders for
Charis Management Consulting Inc. 172
knowledge and
translating this
knowledge into
action
. . . MHCC products/services; capitalize on this energy by nurturing “pull” for MHCC results. This will balance the current emphasis on “push.”
Building an
effective
organization
. . . Ongoing efforts to make the
commission’s structure work
efficiently and effectively continue to
be critical to success.
Concerning the Advisory Committees, it is traditional for these kinds of committees to report directly to the CEO. Suggest that the MHCC review evidence based models for Advisory Committees used by other national organizations. If ACs will not report to the CEO, it is recommended that the ACs’ terms of reference identify the differences. This would assist with mitigating perceived reporting and access to decision-makers issues that emerged in the lines of evidence.
Consider implementing processes that allow for open participation in decision-making at the MHCC and a simplification of internal processes and the organizational structure, to mitigate the perceived increase in both hierarchy and bureaucracy. Additionally, develop processes that will assist staff with understanding how their work contributes to the MHCC.
Address concerns that the boundaries between the board and the staff are too close and that the board is too involved in the day-to-day operations of the Commission.
Concerning the goal of building a model workplace:
Fully assess staff skill sets and fully utilize their skills in their work with the MHCC;
Provide opportunities for collaboration and encourage cross-cutting discussions to mitigate the perception that staff work in “silos;”
Undertake processes that will increase perceived organizational stability;
Build the capacity of the Committee of Champions;
Facilitate the annual staff workplace satisfaction survey; and,
Build organizational capacity to work with people with lived experience who are employed by the MHCC or volunteer for the Commission, in alignment with the values of a “recovery orientation.”