Audit of the Immigration Program
Canadian Consulate General – Seattle
3.2. Planning, Reporting and Operations
Seattle’s 2000-01 IRIMP objectives were realistic and relevant, and they complied with the instructions provided in the Guide to Completing the IRIMP. In addition, the objectives reflected the trends identified by National Headquarters (NHQ) in its IRIMP (levels, client service).
One area that presents a challenge to the Mission is the IRIMP process. The process involves three different years: the work plan objectives are set by posting year (August to July), the budget is set by fiscal year (April to March) and the final disposition targets are set by calendar year (January to December). The planning cycle involves setting work plan objectives—which are to be implemented during the posting year—several months after the posting year has begun. For example, the most recent IRIMP was completed in December 2001, a delay of five months. This delay limits the utility of the work plan, the International Region may wish to re-examine this area.
The objectives set in the 2000–01 IRIMP were being met with one exception: we were unable to determine whether progress had been made against the backlog identified in rehabilitation and in Minister’s Permits and consents. However, new cases are being dealt with efficiently and are typically being processed within the timeframe specified in the work plan. The other area that requires strengthening is the integrity of cost recovery and document control systems; this will be addressed further in section 7.
Processing rehabilitation and Minister’s Permit cases requires substantial resources—both the CBOs’ time and the time of the program assistant assigned to work on them. However, NHQ may not take these cases into account when allocating resources or when reporting on the utilization of staff time, as the data are not available through the Computer-Assisted Immigration Processing System (CAIPS). Based on anecdotal evidence, the number of cases seems to be rising. This increase could undermine the productivity of staff members who must deal with the rising case numbers.
Operational productivity with regard to immigrants is monitored in monthly reports to Buffalo (these reports formerly went to NHQ). In 2001, Buffalo also requested Seattle’s input into the development of final disposition targets for 2002. This should help to ensure that the targets set will be realistic and achievable.
One operational challenge, which had been recognized by the staff and included in the 2000–01 IRIMP, is the physical infrastructure of the waiting room. This room requires substantial upgrading to provide adequate privacy for clients and to provide a secure work area for the registry clerk who prints the visas. This problem will be addressed further in section 4.2.
- Date Modified:
