Promoción de la ciudad

In October 2007 New Brunswick was the first province to be visited by members of RCMP Headquarters Evaluation, to conduct interviews on the Canadian Firearms Program. The team consisted of five (5) Evaluators including, the Director of Program Evaluation. There were five (5) groups identified. The interview questionnaires had slight differences, depending on the interviewees ability to respond to the questions ie. Opt-in funding question. Most questions were open ended to promote dialogue. Some questions were also scaled (1-10) with 1 being poor and 10 excellent. The interview format changed slightly after New Brunswick, by moving the Success questions to the beginning of the interview to allow more dialogue. Further interviews were conducted in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Nunavut and Alberta. Final interviews were conducted in Ottawa with the Canadian Firearms Program and a number of other key stakeholders. Legend: A Senior Managers (i.e.: OIC, CFO, Senior Partners)

B Managers (i.e.: Processing Center): Processing Centre; CFO’s office

C Government Agencies (Police Justice): Police; Government Agencies; Advisory Committee; Safety Instructors; Firearms Officers; Conservation/ Game Officers; Crown; NWEST; Guns & Gangs

D Special Interest: Gun Clubs/ Ranges, Owners; Businesses; Aboriginal; Health; Victims Groups; Education

E Frontline Staff

Introduction: Group “A”- includes all of the questions – and the first page is the same for all interviewees

You have been asked to participate today in an evaluation of the Canadian Firearms Program. The evaluation of this program commenced in response to a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Tenth Report, Dec 2006) and in accordance with the Treasury Board policy on Transfer Payments. Criteria included in the evaluation include: relevance, success, cost-effectiveness and implementation of the Canadian Firearms Program.

The evaluation scope is limited to direct costs incurred by the Canadian Firearms Center and RCMP partners in the administration of the Canadian Firearms Program. The administrative side of the Canadian Firearms Program relates primarily to firearm*(1): licensing, registration, safety courses and interfaces with the law enforcement community.

It should be noted that the criminal enforcement component is separate from the Canadian Firearms Program and is not a direct subject of this evaluation.

This evaluation is being conducted by personnel from RCMP Evaluation, located at Ottawa Headquarters.

Your assistance in participating in the evaluative interview is very much appreciated. Note: (1) ‘firearms’ refer to both long-guns and handguns.

Interviewee Details:

Name: Function/Role; Location; Other:

Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) Interview Questions, Group “A”

Relevance

During this interview we will be asked you a number of questions and we would like you to respond to them candidly. Following a number of these questions, will also ask you to provide a general performance rating for that issue. We will be using a ten point scale, with 1 representing poor and 10 representing excellent.

1. 79_{(all) (skipped after NB) Is the CFP improving the capacity of government and non-government}

partners to address firearm crime and safety issues?

Using a ten point scale, with 1 representing poor and 10 representing excellent, how would you rate the CFPs performance in improving the capacity of government and non-government partners to address (1) firearm crime and (2) safety issues?

(1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(all) 2. Is there an ongoing need for the CFP?

(A, only) 3.Are CFP priorities, consistent with the RCMP and government-wide priorities?

(A) 4. Is there a need for the Opt-in Firearms Funding Program?

Success

1. (all) Has the CFP contributed to increased public safety?

Using a ten point scale, with 1 representing poor and 10 representing excellent, how would you rate the CFPs contribution to increased public safety?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(all) 2. Are CFP screening processes effective in restricting access to firearms, from ineligible businesses and individuals?

Using a ten point scale, with 1 representing poor and 10 representing excellent, how would you rate the CFPs screening processes as being effective in restricting access to firearms, from ineligible businesses and individuals?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

       79 _{Applicable groups given the question.}

(all) 3. Does CFP safety training, contribute to the safe handling, use and storage of firearms?

Using a ten point scale, with 1 representing poor and 10 representing excellent, how would you rate the CFPs safety training, for contributing to the safe handling, use and storage of firearms?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(all) 4. Is the CFP registration process for long-guns and handguns effective in restricting access to firearms from ineligible businesses and individuals?

Using a ten point scale, with 1 representing poor and 10 representing excellent, how would you rate the effectiveness of the CFPs registration process for (1) long-guns and (2) handguns in restricting access to firearms from ineligible businesses and individuals?

(1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(all) 5. Are the CFP outreach and communication strategies, with government clients and the public, effective? In what way? (website, info bulletins, advertising)

Using a ten point scale, with 1 representing poor and 10 representing excellent, how would you rate the effectiveness of the CFPs outreach and communication strategies, with government clients and the public?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(all) 6. Has the CFP improved the capacity of government and non-government partners to address firearm crime and safety issues?

Using a ten point scale, with 1 representing poor and 10 representing excellent, how would you rate CFPs performance in improving the capacity of government and non-government partners to address firearm crime and safety issues?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (all) 7. Has there been increased use of CFP information by judicial and law enforcement partners? (all) 8. Is the CFP providing timely accurate and useful information?

Using a ten point scale, with 1 representing poor and 10 representing excellent, how would you rate CFPs performance in providing (1) timely (2) accurate and (3) useful information?

(1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(all/exceptE) 9. Have CFP partnerships been developed? Please explain (with whom/ to what extent)? Are these partnerships effective?

(all/except E) 10. Has the CAFC enabled Canada to meet its international obligations?

Cost-effectiveness

(all) 1. Is the CFP cost effective?

Using a ten point scale, with 1 representing poor and 10 representing excellent, how would you rate CFPs cost effectiveness?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (all) 2. Has the CAFC/ CFP leveraged other resources to achieve the desired results?

(A) 3. Is the Opt-In Firearms Funding Program cost-effective?

(A) 4.How do the planned costs compare with the actual costs of the Opt-In Firearms Funding Program?

Design and Delivery

(all) 1. Are firearm owners and businesses satisfied with CFP service delivery?

Using a ten point scale, with 1 representing poor and 10 representing excellent, how would you rate firearm owners and businesses satisfaction with the CFP service delivery?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (all) 2. Are existing resources reasonable for delivery of the CFP?

(all) 3. Is the CFP being delivered consistently across the provinces?

(A) 4. Are opt-in provinces satisfied with the CAFC’s provision of federal components to support CFO service delivery?

Other Service Delivery Options

(all) 1. Are there more cost-effective alternatives to the CFP?

(all) 2. Is the federal role appropriate? Is there duplication or overlap with provincial services? (all) 3. Is the role of the opt-in provinces appropriate?

Concluding remarks:

(all) 1. Are there barriers to CFP effectiveness? If so, what are they? How can they be addressed? (all) 2. Could you possiblyrecap, on the 2or 3 issues you feel strongly about?