Audit of Inland Permanent Resident Program Delivery

Audit Report
Internal Audit and Accountability Branch
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
May 2010

Table of Contents

• List of Acronyms
• Executive Summary
• 1.0 Introduction
  • 1.1 Background
  • 1.2 Audit Objectives
  • 1.3 Audit Criteria
  • 1.4 Audit Risk Assessment
  • 1.5 Audit Scope
  • 1.6 Audit Methodology
• 2.0 Conclusion
• 3.0 Best practices
• 4.0 Observations and Recommendations
  • 4.1 Compliance
  • 4.2 Oversight and Risk Management
• Appendix A: Lines of Enquiry and Criteria
• Appendix B: Applicant Requirement for Prescribed Classes
• Appendix C: Roles and Responsibilities Regarding Inland Permanent Resident Program Delivery
• Appendix D: Management Action Plan
• Appendix E: Audit Time Line

List of acronyms

Executive Summary

The objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) with respect to foreign nationals as permanent residents include:

• pursuing the maximum social, cultural and economic benefits of immigration;
• seeing that families are reunited in Canada; and
• protecting the health and safety of Canadians and maintaining the security of Canadian society.

The Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) Risk-Based Audit Plan for 2009–2012 included an audit of the Inland Permanent Resident (PR) Program delivery. The audit was identified as a priority because the program is an important component of CIC’s inland operations.

The objectives of the audit are to determine if:

• the processes associated with the Inland Permanent Resident Program delivery are designed to ensure compliance with legislation, regulations and policies, and are operating as intended; and
• there is adequate oversight and risk management of the program.

The audit covered the delivery of the Inland PR Program, including the activities at national headquarters (NHQ), inland regional offices, the Case Processing Centre (CPC) in Vegreville (CPC-V) and local CIC offices. It excluded the Immigration Policy Branch as program policy was considered to be outside the scope of this audit. The audit was conducted to be in accordance with the Government of Canada’s Policy on Internal Audit and the Institute of Internal Auditors professional practice standards.

The audit was conducted between October 2009 and January 2010. It included interviews with local, regional and NHQ staff; a review of legislation, regulations, policies and other relevant documents, site visits and application file reviews.

Based on our examination, we conclude that the CIC processes associated with the Inland PR Program delivery are designed to ensure compliance with legislation, regulations and policies and are operating as intended. With respect to the adequacy of records and files, we conclude that in general, the files that we examined contained adequate documentation and evidence to support the decision. We have outlined some best practices related to file documentation that we observed during our audit. However, while we have noted some best practices, we also noted some cases where the quality of file documentation, including FOSS documentation, required improvement. In addition, we came across some instances at a few local CIC offices where decision makers exceeded their delegated authority in making admissibility decisions.

With regard to CIC procedures for the oversight and risk management of the Inland PR Program, the fundamentals are in place. However, improvements are required to ensure a robust and mature oversight framework. These improvements include updated manuals, training needs assessment and better performance information to be complemented by a regular monitoring review and follow-up for both CPC-V and local office decisions.

1.0 Introduction

The CIC Risk-Based Audit Plan for 2009–2012 included an audit of the Inland PR Program delivery. The audit was identified as a priority because the program is an important component of CIC’s inland operations.

The objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with respect to foreign nationals as permanent residents include:

• pursuing the maximum social, cultural and economic benefits of immigration;
• seeing that families are reunited in Canada; and
• protecting the health and safety of Canadians and maintaining the security of Canadian society.

On average, approximately 7% of all applications for permanent residence (APRs) are received for processing in Canada.

All the APRs for in-Canada processing are received through CPC-V. Approximately 80% of in-Canada processed APR approval decisions are made at CPC-V. The remaining 20% are referred to local (inland) offices according to established referral criteria. The referred files normally require a more detailed follow-up or an interview with the applicant.

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Inland Permanent Resident Program Delivery

To apply for permanent residency from within Canada, a person must meet all the requirements of one of the prescribed classes outlined in IRPA (see Appendix B for the requirements by class). IRPA prescribes four specific classes (Live-in Caregiver Program, Temporary Resident Permit Holders, Protected Persons, and Spouses and Common-Law Partners) for in-Canada processing. Provided that the applicant meets all the requirements and is admissible, the applicant is considered a member of that class and will be processed for permanent residency. The following table provides an overview of the volume of applications processed within Canada in each of the prescribed classes.

Any foreign national in Canada who does not meet the criteria to be eligible for any of the four PR classes, or who is inadmissible, may request an exemption from any legislative or regulatory requirement based on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) or public policy considerations.

In general, to apply for permanent resident status from within Canada, applicants can obtain an application package and the related instructions by downloading them from the Internet or by requesting the package by mail from CIC. If they have questions, applicants can contact CIC’s Call Centre. Applicants must complete the application, attach the relevant supporting documents and pay the appropriate fees to CIC through a financial institution or online. The proof of payment form is included with the completed application.

1.1.2 Roles and responsibilities: Program delivery

The responsibilities associated with the Inland PR Program delivery are described in Appendix C.

1.1.3 Resources

For the most part, the resources dedicated to the PR Program delivery in local CIC offices have not been specifically identified in all the domestic regions. Many of the local CIC offices are arranged so that citizenship and immigration (C&I) officers process applications for both permanent and temporary residence. Consequently, there is one budget for the immigration program, with no allocation for the PR Program level.

1.1.4 Environmental context

The Inland PR Program is commitment-driven but at times can be demand-driven depending on changing world conditions. The same resource pool is used for processing both inland permanent resident applications and temporary resident applications (demand-driven). Over the years, the inland permanent resident inventory increased significantly, although there has been no corresponding increase in resources.

Program managers continue to manage the large inventories by directing resources to on-demand files and applications that are legislated for priority processing. Complex cases involving fraud or criminality are forwarded to inland local offices for processing. The regulatory agenda will continue to create pressure at the division level, as will the considerable investment needed to support the Canada Border Services Agency in its role of delivering CIC’s mandate.

1.2 Audit Objectives

The objectives of the audit are to determine if:

• the processes associated with the Inland Permanent Resident Program delivery are designed to ensure compliance with legislation, regulations and policies, and are operating as intended; and
• there is adequate oversight and risk management of the program.

1.3 Audit Criteria

Criteria are the benchmarks against which the subject matter of the audit engagement is assessed. The criteria that were used in the audit are based on Treasury Board and CIC applicable legislation, policies and directives. The detailed criteria for the audit are presented in Appendix A and were provided to management at the outset of this engagement.

1.4 Audit Risk Assessment

The audit risk assessment, based on reviews and analysis during the planning phase and taking into account applicable elements of the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Management Accountability Framework and the CIC Core Management Controls Framework, identified the following key risks:

• People who apply for PR status in Canada must meet the eligibility criteria for one of four prescribed classes. The eligibility criteria that apply under one of the prescribed classes are clearly set out in IRPA and its related regulations. A well-defined framework reduces the inherent risk with regard to consistency in program delivery at multiple points of service (e.g., CPC-V and local CIC offices).
• All in-Canada PR applicants undergo a medical examination (by designated medical practitioners) and standard admissibility screening for security (through the Canadian Security Intelligence Service) and criminality screening (through an RCMP police record check). Standard screening practices reduce the inherent risk with regard to consistency in program delivery at multiple points of service.
• All applications for permanent resident status are received by CPC-V and approximately 80% of them are processed there, thus reducing the risk of inconsistency in program delivery at multiple points of service.
• There is an element of judgment associated with the assessment process, particularly with applications for H&C consideration, to determine whether an applicant should be granted permanent resident status in Canada. This element of judgment, together with distributed processing for applications that are referred by CPC-V to local offices, increases the inherent risk associated with consistency in decision making for applications for H&C consideration and applications processed at the local CIC office level.

1.5 Audit Scope

The audit covered the Inland Permanent Resident Program delivery, including the activities at NHQ, inland regional offices, CPC-Vegreville and CIC local offices.

The audit examined the oversight functions provided by OMC and the regions, but excluded the Immigration Policy Branch as program policy was considered to be outside the scope of this audit.

1.6 Audit Methodology

The audit planning phase was conducted in October 2009. The planning phase included interviews with regional and NHQ staff; a review of legislation, regulations, policies and other relevant documents; a risk assessment; and the development of audit criteria. The audit plan, including the audit criteria, was distributed to the regional directors general and relevant directors and directors general at NHQ.

The examination phase occurred between November 2009 and January 2010 and included site visits, file review and interviews with local, regional and NHQ staff. It was conducted in three steps:

Sample case files were selected from all inland APR files where a final decision had been made between January 1 and June 30, 2009. The sample size was calculated according to a statistical sampling formula. Site visit locations were determined on a judgmental basis based on relative processing volumes, ensuring that sample files were selected from all CIC regions.

Prior to the selection of sample files, the population of files was stratified by the prescribed APR class (Spouses and Common-Law Partners, Live-in Caregiver Program, Protected Persons and Temporary Resident Permit Holders) along with Humanitarian and Compassionate applications to ensure that a representative sample of each application type would be selected.

A total of 132 sample files were examined (55 files from CPC-V and 77 local CIC office files). In reviewing the files, the audit team assessed whether the applications on file were processed in accordance with CIC policies and procedures.

The audit was conducted to be in accordance with the Government of Canada’s Policy on Internal Audit and the Institute of Internal Auditors professional practice standards.

2.0 Conclusion

Based on our examination, we conclude that the CIC processes associated with the Inland Permanent Resident Program delivery are designed to ensure compliance with legislation, regulations and policies, and are operating as intended. With respect to the adequacy of records and files, we conclude that in general, the files that we examined contained adequate documentation and evidence to support the decision. However, we noted some cases where the quality of file documentation, including FOSS documentation, required improvement. In addition, we came across some instances at a few local CIC offices where decision makers exceeded their delegated authority in making admissibility decisions.

With regard to CIC procedures for the oversight and risk management of the Inland PR Program, the fundamentals are in place. They include a functional guidance model with a definition of roles and responsibilities, and regular direction and guidance to staff at all levels supported by program manuals. However, improvements are required to ensure a robust and mature oversight framework. These improvements include strengthening the oversight through updated manuals, training needs assessment and better performance information, to be complemented by a regular monitoring review and follow-up for both CPC-V and local office decisions. More structure is needed with respect to risk oversight on the PR Program.

3.0 Best practices

During the audit, we noted some practices that were noteworthy. They are mentioned for acknowledgment and information purposes only and it is not to be implied that they be adopted in other offices without due consideration for the local environment. Such best practices, if utilized in the right context, can assure management that the program is operating efficiently and effectively. The following practices are included to promote sharing and discussion of useful ideas among program staff.

• In some offices, excellent documentation practices were noted for FOSS and case files. At these offices, the officers clearly documented in the files the evidence examined to arrive at the decision and the rationale for the decision. Good documentation practices demonstrate transparency and accountability for decisions. More specifically, some local offices use standard forms or templates for recording decisions, conducting interviews and processing files that add structure to the decision-making process. This structure contributes to clearly documented decisions that outline the evidence and the factors considered in arriving at a decision.
• In a number of local offices and at CPC-V, program managers or supervisors provide explanatory comments by e-mail or in staff meetings when new guidelines such as operational bulletins from NHQ are distributed. Such comments generate additional support to ensure that changes are taken into consideration.

4.0 Observations and recommendations

The audit observations are based on the audit criteria detailed in Appendix A.

4.1 Compliance with Legislation, Regulations and Policies

4.1.1 Compliance

In assessing compliance, we expected to find that processes and standard operating procedures were designed to comply with departmental legislation, regulations and policies, that they were in line with departmental guidance, and that they were operating as intended. We also expected to find that records and information were adequately maintained.

Overall, we found that the CIC processes and standard operating procedures were designed to comply with departmental policies and guidelines and were operating as intended. The processes and procedures are documented in manuals and operational bulletins, and guidelines are available on the Department’s intranet site. These processes and procedures are consistent with applicable legislation and regulations and are used by staff in the decision-making process.

CPC-Vegreville Processes

At CPC-V, the authority to make decisions on APRs has been delegated to service delivery agents and service delivery specialists. Service delivery specialists also provide guidance to service delivery agents on more complex cases. Service delivery agents and service delivery specialists have access to relevant policies and manuals and tools such as WebCART. CPC-V uses an internal training and mentoring process for the service delivery agents to help ensure that employees processing PR applications have an adequate knowledge of applicable CIC legislation, policies and procedures as well as up-to-date guidelines. In addition to supervisory assistance, the staff members have access to service delivery specialists and to the Strategic Analysis Unit for the more complex cases. Applications are referred to local offices where further information or clarification is required.

CIC Local Office Processes

Our review found that files referred to CIC local offices were in line with established criteria.

For processing referred files, all local offices have access to and use the departmental manuals, operational bulletins and other tools such as WebCART. Newly appointed officers participate in a set of standard training courses relevant to the position to help ensure that employees processing PR applications have an adequate knowledge of applicable CIC legislation, policies and procedures as well as up-to-date guidelines.

With respect to the adequacy of records and files, we conclude that in general, the files that we examined contained adequate documentation and evidence to support the decision. However, while we have noted some best practices, there are opportunities to improve the quality of file documentation, as further explained below. In the large majority of files reviewed (88%), we found that there was sufficient information, either on the file or in FOSS, to indicate that the decision complied with departmental policies and authorities. However, we noted cases (12% of the files that we reviewed) where the decision was not clearly documented or the decision had been detailed in the file but not in FOSS. FOSS is CIC’s permanent record of decisions once the paper file is destroyed in accordance with departmental file retention policies. Departmental staff may need to refer back to a decision made on an APR after the retention period has passed for several reasons, including potential future legal challenges to the decision and subsequent applications made to the Department (e.g., spousal sponsorships and citizenship applications). A physical file may no longer be available or easily accessible and the officer will have to rely on the notes in FOSS.

We found very little guidance in the policy manuals regarding standards for the documentation of rationales for decisions, or information on the final decision to be recorded in FOSS. Some offices have developed their own templates for recording decisions. However, the local office templates are often kept in the physical file only.

Recommendation 1

The PR Program Delivery Division of OMC should improve guidelines for CIC offices, including CPC-V, to address file documentation. The guidelines should address areas such as the standards for documentation in FOSS and case files with respect to both positive and negative PR decisions.

Management Response

Management agrees with the recommendation. The PR Program Delivery Division of OMC will provide guidance to CIC offices, reviewing the operations manuals annually and provide documentation standards in the manual. The review will be completed by March 31, 2011.

4.1.2 Admissibility Processing at Local CIC Offices

According to IRPA and the related Designation of Officers and Delegation of Authority, the authority to make a decision on whether an applicant meets the requirements of the Act and Regulations for becoming a permanent resident has been delegated to C&I officers inland and service delivery agents at CPC-V for in-Canada processing.

In order to grant permanent residence to in-Canada applicants, the officer must be satisfied that applicants and their dependants are both eligible (they meet the requirements for a prescribed class) and not inadmissible (for security, criminality or medical reasons). The processing and decision making on an APR is generally done in two stages, the first stage being a decision on the eligibility of the applicant and the second stage, a decision on admissibility.

During our field work, we noted instances at three of the eight local CIC offices that we visited where immigration counsellor assistants (ICAs) were making determinations on admissibility without the authority to do so.

In general, ICAs are not provided with the same level of training as C&I officers. However, we noted that ICAs in these local offices had been provided the same, or similar, training that an officer would have received for processing these types of cases. In addition, supervisors in these offices indicated that if an applicant was potentially inadmissible, ICAs referred the case back to an officer for further review.

While we note that steps have been taken to minimize the risk of having ICAs review admissibility in local offices instead of officers, the D&D instrument only allows for C&I officers to determine admissibility.

Recommendation 2

The PR Program Delivery Division of OMC, in consultation with the regions, should ensure that all local CIC offices are aware of the delegated authority for making decisions to grant permanent residence in Canada and that decisions are made in accordance with the D&D instrument.

Management Response

Management agrees with the recommendation. The PR Program Delivery Division of OMC will consult with the regions to ensure that the person making decisions has the authority to make those decisions. Final follow-up action based on the results of consultation will be completed by March 31, 2011.

4.2 Oversight and Risk Management

4.2.1 Functional Authority

In assessing functional authority, we expected to find that it would be clearly established, implemented and understood. We also expected to find that operational guidelines were comprehensive and up to date.

The responsibility for delivering the Inland PR Program is divided between the PR Program Division, OMC, and the CIC regions, including the Central Processing Region. The PR Program Division is responsible for providing tools, such as processing manuals, and functional advice and guidance. The CIC regions are responsible for delivering the results (i.e., decisions on the APRs).

Operational guidelines are received through the departmental manuals and operational bulletins developed by the PR Program Division, OMC. The manuals are available on the intranet and all offices rely on them for main guidance. The PR Program Division, OMC, holds monthly conference calls on PR matters through the PR Working Group consisting of regional program advisors (RPAs) and other regional colleagues. WebCART is an intranet tool that enables staff to easily navigate through the most up-to-date information on CIC programs, procedures and services in a way that is well organized, user friendly and efficient.

RPAs report through existing regional management structures. They provide advice to the field within the Region, but they do not have the authority to impose the implementation of recommendations. Where necessary, RPAs seek guidance from OMC at NHQ and communicate it back to local offices.

In the field, local officers receive instructions from supervisors and they contact the RPAs through the supervisor for guidance and clarity. Some local offices maintain operational procedures on a shared drive for access by all staff. For local offices in particular, time is of the essence in obtaining responses from NHQ through their RPA. Some offices outlined issues with the timeliness of responses from NHQ. However, most stated that the situation had improved somewhat in the past year. This is reflected in the statistics gathered from the OMC mailbox which show that the average response time for inquiries to OMC regarding the PR program had decreased from 27 days in 2008 to 6 days in 2009.

The local offices and CPC-V appear to be satisfied with the guidelines being received with respect to program changes, although some find the level of change a bit overwhelming. Several interviewees indicated that, because the manuals were not being updated in a systematic manner, it was more difficult to obtain relevant information. While operational guidelines are available, the current process could be made more efficient if staff members were able to go to a single source on the intranet, such as a portal, to identify resources specific to the PR Program.

Recommendation 3

The PR Program Delivery Division of OMC must strengthen the Division’s functional guidance role by updating the manuals, further improving the timeliness of responses to program inquiries, and facilitating access to program changes on the intranet, through improved features, such as a portal.

Management Response

Management agrees with the recommendation. The PR Program Delivery Division of OMC will review the manuals annually as well as the existing service standards for responding to program inquiries. The first annual review is to be completed by March 31, 2011.

OMC will also remind program advisors of the service standards and monitor overall performance.

OMC will consult with areas that have responsibility over the intranet/Internet products to relay user requirements.

4.2.2 Staff Training

In assessing staff training, we expected to find the staff sufficiently trained and adequately informed of their roles and responsibilities.

During our interviews with CPC-V and local office staff, staff members demonstrated a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities. They also displayed a good awareness of their delegated authorities. However, as noted in section 4.1 above regarding compliance, improvements are required with regard to the quality of documentation on both the files and FOSS.

Operational bulletins (OBs) are issued to supplement processing manuals when further guidance is needed regarding a specific section of the manual or because of special events or crises where special processing provisions are deemed necessary (e.g., the 2010 Winter Olympics). In 2009, over 75 OBs were issued for the PR and the temporary resident programs. Many C&I officers and service delivery agents (SDAs) make decisions on both PR and temporary resident visa applications. C&I officers and SDAs are informed of new OBs by e-mail and the OBs are subsequently made available online on CIC’s intranet site. At our interviews at CPC-V and at local inland offices, we were told that the large volume of new OBs along with updates to inland processing manuals are at times overwhelming to C&I officers and SDAs. During these interviews, the need for an annual update or a training seminar was expressed by a number of interviewees. An annual update would give the officers a chance to step back and see the overall changes to the program processes that have taken place within the year as a result of the individual OBs and inland processing manual updates that are stacked upon one another throughout the year.

CIC immigration officers and ICAs receive a standard group of training courses when they are initially appointed to their position. The training schedule includes courses relating to CIC operations, inland examinations and interviewing techniques. Currently, there is no formal FOSS training. FOSS training for new appointees is delivered through on-the-job coaching. Several interviewees had received this training quite a while back. Beyond the initial training, there was no national course available specifically for the PR Program, until recently. As a result of the recent quality assurance exercise on Quality of Decision Making for H&C applications without risk, a new course called “Humanitarian and Compassionate Decision Making” has been developed. The roll-out of this course to the regions began in December 2009.

A number of interviewees with whom we discussed functional guidance and operational tools noted that, considering the absence of refresher training for officers, it is very useful to have access to a summary of Federal Court rulings on APR appeals, especially for H&C cases, to see where decisions are holding up to judicial scrutiny and where they are failing. We were told that this information had been available in the past. However, summaries are no longer being produced for the regions.

While training courses and officer learning plans are developed by NHQ, the delivery of training is the responsibility of the regions. It is recognized that national training can improve consistency at both local offices and at CPC-V. It is particularly significant for local CIC staff members who work on multiple business lines. At the same time, we acknowledge that a training solution is one of several elements of the performance management spectrum.

Recommendation 4

The PR Program Delivery Division of OMC, in consultation with the CIC Learning and Development Division, should conduct a national training needs analysis, including the need for an annual program update, for the staff engaged in the Inland PR Program delivery and take appropriate action based on the needs assessment.

Management Response

Management agrees with the recommendation. The PR Program Delivery Division of OMC and Learning and Development will conduct a national training needs analysis and take appropriate action based on the results. The needs analysis will be completed by October 31, 2010, and the follow-up action by March 31, 2011.

4.2.3 Program Monitoring

In assessing program monitoring, we expected to find that it existed to ensure the integrity of decisions and consistency of program delivery across the regions.

CIC has a Quality Assurance (QA) Unit that is part of the Fraud Deterrence and Verifications Division of OMC. In conjunction with the Inland PR Program division, CPC-V, and the regions or local CIC offices, the QA Unit managed a quality assurance exercise related to the Inland PR Program in 2009. This exercise focused on the quality of decision making on H&C decisions without risk. The results of this QA exercise were reported, and recommendations were made to the Inland PR Program management to be incorporated into work plans and to identify changes to manuals and training programs, as appropriate. The QA Unit does not conduct follow-up exercises on the recommendations in their reports.

Another QA exercise for the Inland PR Program on the same business line as above is scheduled for the spring of 2010. As per discussions with the QA Unit, each of these QA exercises for the Inland PR Program is a one-off exercise as opposed to being part of an ongoing QA plan for the Inland PR Program.

Discussions with CPC-V and local CIC office staff indicated that there was a spectrum of responses regarding QA activities, ranging from no formal quality assurance process to regular random review of APR files performed by the supervisor. In offices that stated that they performed no formal QA review of files, management noted that QA was built into their processes through training, periodic file consultations, case conferencing and other informal methods.

With the large volume of decisions, an adequate QA program is critical to monitoring the integrity of decisions and ensuring consistency in the decision process.

Recommendation 5

To strengthen program monitoring, the Fraud Deterrence and Verification Division of OMC in consultation with the PR Program Delivery Division of OMC, should consider establishing an annual plan for ongoing QA monitoring of the Inland PR Program.  The quality assurance monitoring should include follow-up on recommendations and reporting the results throughout CIC.

Management Response

Management agrees with the recommendation. The Fraud Deterrence and Verification Division of OMC will establish a plan for QA monitoring of the Inland PR Program, within existing resources, follow up on recommendations with the PR Program Delivery Division of OMC and report on the results. This will be completed by March 31, 2011.

Dedicated resourcing would require funding.


Recommendation 6

The PR Program Delivery Division of OMC, in consultation with the Fraud Deterrence and Verification Division of OMC, should consider developing tools or training to help formalize the QA activities at the regional or local CIC office level.

Management Response

Management agrees with the recommendation. By March 31, 2011, the PR Program Delivery Division of OMC will develop tools or training to help formalize the QA activities at the regional or local CIC office level, in consultation with the Fraud Deterrence and Verification Division of OMC.

4.2.4 Risk Management

In assessing risk management, we expected to find that program management actively identified and managed risk.

With regard to the Inland PR Program processing, operational managers in the regional and local offices as well as at NHQ provided us with their own understanding of key risks. In general, the understanding of PR Program risks varied among program managers depending on local challenges. Program managers and RPAs bring forward key identified risks for discussion at the monthly PR working group teleconferences. In addition, the PR Program manages certain identified risks with specific elements of the PR Program by developing and executing formal action plans. Recent action plans have been developed for H&C processing, marriages of convenience and Bill C-3 implementation (the government’s revised security certificate legislation).

While several fundamental elements are in place in connection with Inland PR Program delivery risk identification and mitigation, the risk management process has not been formalized at the PR Program level. First of all, no single risk assessment or risk register has been prepared for the PR Program. In a mature risk management environment, we would have expected to find a risk register that identifies the key risks relative to the PR Program and includes an assessment of those key risks in terms of likelihood and impact. Program managers are sensitive to risk considerations. However, in the absence of a common identification and understanding of risks for the PR Program, there is a concern that program-specific risks may not be understood and addressed in a coordinated and consistent manner across the country. Secondly, it was not clear where the risk oversight responsibility for the PR Program lies.

In response to a previous review, the Department committed to developing a risk register for all business lines incorporating risks specific to each program.

4.2.5 Performance Management

In assessing performance management, we expected to find that relevant information on results was gathered and used to make decisions. In particular, we expected clear linkages between resources and results.

For the actual delivery of the Inland PR Program, local offices have flexibility in how they organize and utilize resources. Workloads vary widely among regions and local priorities can be different. Our examination indicates that practices in the processing of applications vary among the offices. For example, some local offices organize their staff into separate units that process different types of applications. Some offices perform a triage of files as they are received from CPC-V while others simply record the receipt of the file and place the files in the queue for processing according to priorities.

At local offices, operational statistics on the PR Program are reported regularly to regional headquarters, usually monthly. In most cases, these statistics do not provide any indication of the actual level of resources dedicated to the PR Program. Some regions do prepare performance reports at the local level that provide productivity information. Most offices use regional systems for statistical reporting. Data are compiled and used for workload, inventory and production (WIP) reports. WIP reports are also compiled at the regional and national level and are used to prepare performance reports that are discussed at the monthly meeting of the Director General Steering Committee on Production Management and Processing Capacity. Based on interviews with NHQ and regional and local staff, the main focus for performance reporting related to the PR Program appears to be on landings as opposed to the number of decisions being made.

The process for drawing statistical reports from FOSS (e.g., APR ageing inventory reports) often requires significant manual reconciliation and follow-up in order to generate an accurate report. The difficulties with the data entered in FOSS include timing differences (some files are recorded in FOSS by CPC-V, others are recorded when received by the local offices that triage the files, and other files are not recorded in FOSS until assigned to a C&I officer for processing up to a couple of years after the application is received); the sharing of certain responsibility centre codes with the Canada Border Services Agency; and data entered in FOSS text data fields (e.g., WIP history) where the information cannot be extracted for statistical reporting purposes.

We believe there needs to be more focus on performance reporting and performance management of the PR Program. Local offices report that it is difficult to adequately plan for and obtain resources to properly administer the PR Program. There is a lack of detailed performance information on the PR Program, including monitoring information (especially for trends throughout the year), resource information, processing times and CPC-V referral volumes.

Recommendation 7

OMC should develop a process for the systematic reporting and analysis of performance, linked to resources, with respect to the Inland PR Program.

Management Response

Management agrees with the recommendation. The Operational Performance Management and Support Branch of OMC will continue to improve and develop performance monitoring tools and review methodologies used by other groups to capture resource information. A performance monitoring tool will be implemented by March 31, 2011.

Appendix A: Lines of Enquiry and Criteria

Compliance

1. Processes and standard operating procedures are designed to comply with departmental legislation, and regulations and policies are in line with departmental guidance and are operating as intended.
2. Records and information are adequately maintained.

Oversight and Risk Management

1. Functional authority is clearly established, implemented and understood.
2. Operational guidance is comprehensive and up to date.
3. Staff are sufficiently trained and adequately informed of their roles and responsibilities.
4. Program monitoring exists to ensure the integrity of decisions.
5. The program is monitored to ensure consistency of program delivery across the regions. (Where applicable, quality assurance processes are properly designed and are functioning.)
6. Program management actively identifies and manages risk.
7. Relevant information on results (internal, service and program) is gathered and used to make decisions.

Appendix B: Applicant Requirements for Prescribed Classes

Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class: Applicants must have temporary status in Canada and cohabit with the sponsor (spouse or common-law partner), and the sponsor must be eligible to sponsor. Spouses and their dependants must meet admissibility requirements, except for health reasons due to excessive demands.

The Live-in Caregiver Program: Applicants must have worked in Canada under the program for 24 months or a total of 3,900 hours within four years of their arrival in Canada. Applicants must maintain their temporary resident status. Applicants and their dependants must not be inadmissible and must meet all the standard processing requirements.

Temporary Permit Holders Class: Applicants must be on a temporary resident permit for three years, if inadmissible for health reasons, and for five years if inadmissible for any other reason, with a few exceptions. Applicants must have been continuously in Canada and have not become inadmissible for any other reason since being on the permit, and must meet all the standard processing requirements.

Protected Persons Class: Applicants must be deemed to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection by the Immigration and Refugee Board or deemed to be persons in need of protection after a pre-removal risk assessment. Applications must be submitted within 180 days after the determination. Applicants and their dependants must not be inadmissible and must meet all the standard processing requirements, with the exception of the medical requirements and identity documents.

Appendix C: Roles and Responsibilities Regarding Inland Permanent Resident Program Delivery

The main roles and responsibilities with respect to the delivery of the Inland Permanent Resident Program are outlined below.

Immigration Branch

• To design and develop policies for the Inland Permanent Resident Program.

Operational Management and Coordination Branch

• To develop operational guidelines, manuals, training material and publications for the Inland Permanent Resident Program.
• To provide national oversight and functional advice and guidance to Inland Permanent Resident Program staff through regional program advisers.
• To develop and implement a quality assurance program for the permanent resident business line.

Regions (including Central Processing Region)

• To monitor and manage processing volumes and results (particularly landings) relating to the Inland Permanent Resident Program.

Regional Program Advisers

• To provide day-to-day functional advice to field officers or managers in their region.
• To participate in Permanent Resident Working Group teleconferences and face‑to‑face meetings organized by OMC.
• To help coordinate and conduct QA exercises for the Inland Permanent Resident Program.

CPC-Vegreville

• To receive all applications from in-Canada foreign nationals applying for permanent resident status.
• To process permanent resident applications in accordance with legislation, regulations and policies.
• To refer permanent resident applications to local CIC offices in accordance with established referral criteria.

Local CIC offices

• To process permanent resident applications referred by CPC- Vegreville.

Appendix D: Management Action Plan

Appendix E: Audit Time Line