Vienna Mission
Final Audit Report

4.2 CASE LOAD MANAGEMENT

The review of case load management focused on the workflow process for each business line with a view to identifying opportunities for improving efficiencies in such areas as workload distribution, routing of documentation and grouping of tasks, “non-core” versus “core” activities, and bottlenecks or duplication in the process.

Another aspect of the review was an attempt to compare the Vienna Mission’s current CBO and LES resource levels with levels required to manage the projected annual paper screening, selection and final decision volumes and targets. This analysis is based on the assessment, within each business line, of the actual time expended by officers and program assistants on processing tasks from reception or inquiry to final decision.

Overall, case processing is handled efficiently and expeditiously. Reducing officers’ involvement in refugee category paper screening responsibilities to an exceptional basis will further add to an already efficient operation. Preliminary analysis suggests that the Vienna Mission has sufficient resources to manage the anticipated immigrant class workload, including year 2001 targets. In the non-immigrant category, the Vienna Mission will likely need to rely on temporary duty support because of peak summer volumes.

By December 1, 2000, the Vienna Mission had met its year 2000 refugee target of 1,750 and final disposition target of 2,200 and had also made substantial progress in clearing outstanding backlogs. At the time of the audit, the Vienna Mission was processing cases that were six to nine months old.

Table 1 illustrates the status of backlogs and the reduction in processing.

Table 1
Vienna — Immigrant Program Case Backlog as at December 1, 2000
(excludes business categories)

Case Processing Efficiency

Subject to the comments below, the audit found that the individual processing tasks are conducted efficiently. CBOs, LEPs and LES members are logically grouped in teams handling individual business lines, paper flow is handled expeditiously, there is no evidence of staff spending time on non-core activities and there are no obvious bottlenecks. There is extensive use of form letters for routine client communication, further contributing to efficient processing. Considerable competency and knowledge among LEPs and LES members contributes to overall efficiency as well.

One area that warrants management’s attention is the practice of involving officers in the refugee category paper screening process before program assistants have identified real reasons for refusal or continued processing. The almost total absence of officers’ notes on cases going forward to interview suggests that there has been no real value added except to weed out patently unfounded cases—and the very capable program assistants are able to do that with minimal guidance.

Recommendation 3

Review the current paper screening process with a view to limiting officer involvement to exceptional cases.

Management Response

The management agrees in principle that officer involvement in paper screening should be limited to the extent possible, provided that delegating more responsibility to LES is legally defensible and does not detract from the overall efficiency of the office. More refugee paper screening is being done now by LES than at the time of the audit and we will continue in that direction. All negative paper screening decisions must, however, be made by an officer. When it is known that most applications from a prescribed area will be refused, it may be more efficient to have the decision making officer look at the file right away.

Vienna Mission’s Resources

The audit team conducted preliminary analysis and comparison of the Vienna Mission’s resource levels to those needed to meet the anticipated year 2001 workload and targets. The resource requirements were based on officer and non-officer staff assessment, within each business line, of the actual time expended on processing tasks from reception or inquiry to final decision. These assessments were further refined and are subject to the IPM’s confirmation of their accuracy.

According to these preliminary results, the Vienna Mission has adequate core resources to manage the anticipated immigrant class workload, including year 2001 targets. These results are also consistent with the Vienna Mission’s plan to carry out approximately 2,500 area trip interviews.

In the non-immigrant category, however, the Vienna Mission will likely need to rely on temporary duty support because of peak summer volumes.

Processing of Yugoslavian Applications by Vienna

A potential future issue is the high LES cost in Vienna incurred to process independent and refugee applications from Yugoslavia. For example, the current LE 5 rate ranges between $44,000 and $66,000 Canadian. In this context, area travel to Belgrade is also an issue, but the IPM intends to have the second CBO at the Belgrade Mission conduct interviews.

If the situation in Yugoslavia returns to normal, a continuing need to process the workload through the Vienna Mission may be called into question. Currently, Yugoslavia represents over 40 percent of the Vienna Mission’s current case load (this is expected to decline as the backlog is further reduced). Accordingly, on purely economic grounds, a case could be made for returning the program to the Belgrade Mission. The linguistic ability of the staff, as well as their knowledge of the culture, should not be an issue, since most staff members in Vienna processing applications from Yugoslavia are in fact nationals of the former Yugoslavia. Recognizing that other regional considerations would weigh heavily in such a decision, the audit team is raising the issue for future consideration only and will not propose any recommendations at this time.

The distribution of workloads has been somewhat skewed in the past, generated as much by the officers concerned as by management decision. This situation will bear monitoring.

<< Contents| Previous | Next >>