ARCHIVED – Formative Evaluation of the Pre–Removal Risk Assessment Program

4.0 Evaluation Findings

This section of the report presents a summary of the evaluation findings, which are organized by the themes of relevance, design and delivery, program integrity, program results, and cost-effectiveness.

4.1 Program Relevance

The evaluation found that the objective of the PRRA Program is relevant as it provides a ‘safety net’ to a limited number of individuals who are awaiting removal from Canada yet face risk in returning to their country of origin. PRRA is consistent with Canada’s international obligations and fulfills Canada’s commitment under several conventions and agreements.

While there exists a need for a mechanism to assess the risk to individuals of return to their country of origin, the PRRA Program may not provide an efficient response to this need. In 2006, close to 80 percent of all eligible individuals submitted a PRRA application. However, 9 percent of all applications came from 89 countries for which there has been a zero rate of acceptance and over half the applications come from countries with an acceptance rate of less than 1 percent. Many individuals are submitting an application without a realistic expectation of approval. In effect, PRRA has become an additional step in the refugee status determination process and creates a further delay in the removal of individuals under a removal order. (See Section 4.3)

4.1.1 Need for the PRRA Program

PRRA is a legislated requirement for CIC, as per the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (2002). The evaluation identified a number of factors that support a need for the protection that PRRA provides. For failed refugee claimants who claim a risk of returning to their country, PRRA provides a mechanism for an assessment of risk due to a change in circumstances or country conditions while awaiting removal. For non-refugee claimants, PRRA is the first assessment of risk of return. Most interviewees believe there is a need for the PRRA program (90 percent, or 35 of 39), primarily because it offers protection to those who may face risk if removed from Canada (41 percent, or 16 of 39).

Program Acceptance Rates

Of 30,590 PRRA decisions rendered, a total of 816 individuals, or 2.7 percent, have been deemed as being at risk and have been granted protection (Table 7). Since 2003 the application rate has more than doubled, the acceptance rate has declined slightly and the actual number of individuals accepted has remained fairly constant. The low rate of acceptance is not unexpected as the vast majority of applicants are failed refugee claimants (88 percent) and the PRRA program is for these applicants, focused on changes in circumstances, particularly country conditions, since the relatively recent assessment of their claims by the IRB.

Table 6. Acceptance Rates for the PRRA Program (2002-2006)

* data for 2002 is for approximately 6 months.
** number excludes concluded cases that did not have a decision rendered i.e.: withdrawn and abandoned cases

Time Lapse Between Removal Order and PRRA Application

Twenty-six percent (10 of 39) of interviewees indicated that the PRRA program serves a need due to the time lapse between a removal order becoming effective[note 15] and the first PRRA application, in which circumstances or country conditions can change. It is important to have a mechanism in place that provides an assessment of risk just before an individual is removed.

Non-Refugee Claimants

The PRRA program fills a need because those who have not made a claim before the IRB have not had an assessment of risk (i.e., non-refugee claimants). As discussed in Section 3.0, this group is comprised mainly of the various permit holders and residents who have contravened their conditions for remaining in Canada and are due to be removed. The individuals in this group have not had their situations or country conditions previously reviewed, yet allege some form of personal risk of return and PRRA provides a mechanism for this assessment. Data from the NCMS showed that 12 percent of all applications between 2002 and 2006 came from NRCs. While the acceptance rate is low (3.1 percent), it is slightly higher than the overall program acceptance rate of 2.7 percent (Table 9).

Table 7. Acceptance Rates for Non-Refugee Claimants (2002-2006)

* 2002 data is for approximately 6 months.

4.1.2 PRRA Link to CIC Mandate and International Obligations

The evaluation confirmed that the PRRA program is consistent with the Government of Canada and CIC objectives of upholding Canada’s humanitarian tradition and offering protection to those in need. In its 2007–2008 Report on Plans and Priorities, CIC’s second strategic outcome is the “reflection of Canadian values and interests in the management of international migration, including refugee protection.”[note 16] Within this outcome, one of CIC’s activities is related to the refugee program and to “maintaining Canada’s humanitarian tradition by protecting refugees and persons in need of protection in Canada and abroad.”

Most interviewees (90 percent, 27 of 30) believe that PRRA fits well with CIC’s objectives. When asked about the program’s objectives, two-thirds of the respondents (23 of 35) first-choice answer indicated that the program was intended primarily to provide protection to people in need, while 46 percent (16 of 35) stated that PRRA was a “safety net” mechanism for ensuring country conditions were assessed before removal.[note 17] This aligns with the formal objectives of PRRA which are to adhere to the principle of non-refoulement, which holds that persons should not be removed from Canada to a country where they would be at risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. This principle is found in Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (2002), section 115(1), which reiterates that “a protected person or a person who is recognized as a Convention refugee by another country to which the person may be returned shall not be removed from Canada to a country where they would be at risk of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion or at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.”[note 18]

Eighty-two percent of interviewees (31 of 38)[note 19] also believe that PRRA is consistent with Canada’s international obligations, chiefly Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which states that “No state party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”[note 20] Similarly, PRRA is consistent with Canada’s obligations stemming from the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which states that “No contracting state shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”[note 21]

4.2 Program Design and Delivery

4.2.1 PRRA Training and Resources

Information from the evaluation showed that PRRA program staff has access to a wide range of training and resources, although it varies across regions. While the training provided and available resources are viewed as sufficient by program staff, several CIC interviewees and focus group participants felt there is an opportunity to have more centralized access to resources, particularly with respect to country-specific information.

Interview results showed that the majority (90 percent, 18 of 20) of CIC NHQ staff and PRRA coordinators and managers believe that PRRA officers have a solid understanding of the program and its objectives, although three of those respondents suggested that some PRRA officers may have different perspectives on the PRRA program (a humanitarian versus a removal orientation). Note that only one respondent did not believe that PRRA officers had sufficient understanding of the program.

With respect to training, all PRRA officers are required to take the National PRRA training, which is a comprehensive nine-day course containing theoretical elements and practical exercises with sample cases, as well as the H&C training.[note 22] In addition, PRRA officers have access to seminars and instruction from DOJ on jurisprudence, legislative interpretation, decision-writing, and other topics. Other available training varies by region. Officers and coordinators attend regional DOJ seminars or conferences on specific topics such as human rights or gender issues, as available. Eighty-one percent (13 of 16) of CIC staff felt the training provided is useful and adequate for assessing cases, while the remaining 17 percent (3 of 16) had mixed views on the training provided, noting that improvements could be made.

However, additional training needs were raised by CIC interviewees. These included the desire for additional legal/litigation training (36 percent, 8 of 22) in order to update the latest policy guidance and approaches for assessing cases and some form of supplementary PRRA training, such as a ’refresher’ course for seasoned officers (23 percent, 5 of 22). Focus group participants suggested that more customized H&C training is required, as the current standard H&C training does not address the specialized nature of the dual role PRRA officers play when assessing both risk and humanitarian claims. Focus group participants also noted that not all officers had yet received the H&C training, which means that this group of officers is limited to assessing only those PRRA cases that do not have an H&C case attached.

PRRA officers have a wide range of resources at their disposal, including the PRRA policy and procedure manual (PP3) and other CIC policy documents, reference materials (e.g., UNHCR country reports, U.S. Department of State reports, IRB reports), and case law. PRRA officers also rely heavily on vast internet resources, noted as the most common tool for 57 percent (13 of 23) of CIC interviewees. Department of Justice lawyers (30 percent, 7 of 23), PRRA Coordinators (22 percent, 5 of 23), and guidance from other PRRA officers (22 percent, 5 of 23) were listed as other informal resources.

Focus group results showed that PRRA officers believe the available resources are sufficient, but suggested that they could be strengthened. Officers would like to have better access to IRB information and DOJ resources (e.g., personnel and information). In addition, officers would like to have a system in place for centralizing research (i.e., a repository) and for sharing information and best practices. Note that CIC interviewees felt there is insufficient guidance provided to regions on the types of information sources to be used for a PRRA assessment. While guidelines exist (issued in January 2005, at the PRRA Officer Conference), it may be that, since the guidelines are not yet reflected in the PRRA Manual (PP3), newly hired officers are not aware of the instructions.

4.2.2 Program Communication and Coordination

The role of NHQ is to provide policy tools and functional guidance to PRRA officers. Coordination between NHQ and the regions is meant to provide benefits with respect to consistent processing of similar case types and for uniform interpretation of legislation. The evaluation showed that NHQ has provided certain policy tools; however, several interviewees cited a need for NHQ to provide more coordination to the offices. Information gathered also suggests that, while interviewees are satisfied with the level of coordination between CIC and CBSA at the regional level, they felt there was an opportunity to strengthen the interdepartmental relationship at the NHQ level to address workload planning and priority setting.

Communication and Coordination between CIC NHQ and CIC Regions

Information from the evaluation interviews showed that there has not been sufficient communication and coordination between NHQ and the regions. Thirty-nine percent of CIC NHQ and regional interviewees (9 of 23) indicated that they sought information from NHQ only occasionally or on an as-needed basis, while 26 percent (6 of 23) indicated that they are rarely in contact with NHQ. Note that CIC interviewees suggested that if they were to contact NHQ, it would be primarily for policy and legal advice (57 percent, 12 of 17). Thirty-two percent (6 of 19) of CIC respondents also claimed there was a lack of clarity regarding who to contact for questions or information, though this initial uncertainty may have been due in part to the recent division of operational and policy responsibilities with the branches at NHQ.

Information from the evaluation showed that NHQ has provided policy tools to support the PRRA program primarily through the development of the national PRRA training and the PP3, the main tool to provide direction on the assessment of PRRA cases. Any update to this manual and additional policy guidance or interpretation is provided by NHQ.

While there was a formal PRRA coordinators network put in place, it has been inactive for approximately two years. This network, led by NHQ, was intended to be a forum for sharing information, developing consistent approaches, and addressing common issues. In the absence of the network, varying degrees of informal coordination has taken place between regional offices. NHQ hosted one PRRA coordinators conference and two coordinators working sessions,[note 23] intended to provide additional opportunities for information sharing and training.

When queried about improvements to coordination 42 percent (8 of 19) of CIC interviewees provided suggestions. These included: more regular coordinator conference calls (26 percent, 5 of 19) and more direction, leadership, communication from NHQ (16 percent, or 3 of 19), which suggests that a more proactive approach to coordination is sought by the regional offices. This is consistent with information gathered from PRRA officers through focus groups, which showed that PRRA offices would like more communications and coordination from NHQ, including access to a centralized repository of resource information and more opportunities for networking and sharing best practices and information (e.g., complex case decisions, jurisprudence/legal advice).

With respect to coordination for the program, it is important to note that OMC Branch has recently taken actions concurrent to the evaluation to improve the interaction between PRRA offices. The PRRA coordinators network has been revived, with conference calls taking place regularly to provide updates, discuss issues, and exchange information. A second PRRA working session was held in Ottawa in May 2007, bringing together coordinators to discuss program challenges and potential actions, as well as presentations by partners such as DOJ and CBSA.

Coordination Between CIC and CBSA

Research showed that most interviewees are satisfied with the level of coordination between CIC and CBSA at the regional level regarding PRRA. Seventy percent (16 of 23) of CIC and CBSA interviewees indicated that the mechanisms in place for coordination are appropriate, while 26 percent (6 of 23) did not agree. Interviewees indicated that while there is no formal mechanism in place for coordination (41 percent, or 12 of 29), interaction is done on an ‘as-needed’ basis (24 percent, or 7 of 29), primarily through meetings (38 percent, 11 of 29) and telephone/e-mail discussions as required (21 percent, 6 of 29). Most interviewees (71 percent, or 12 of 17) did not believe that any improvements were required. However, twenty-four percent (4 of 17) of CIC NHQ staff, PRRA managers and coordinators suggested that there needs to be better coordination at the NHQ-level, particularly with respect to resourcing and workload issues and planning and priority setting (e.g., identifying priority cases, inventory control). For instance, if CBSA increases its resources for removals, a corresponding increase in PRRA resources is required.

As an example of the impact of informal coordination and planning, one regional office recently received an extremely large number of PRRA applications, which it found was directly related to a CBSA decision to increase the removals targets for that office. This resulted in a large increase in inventory levels, with delays in processing the cases. There currently is no formal agreement at the NHQ-level regarding the policies or procedures for PRRA.

4.2.3 Program Consistency

Research from the evaluation showed that the application of PRRA policies and procedures are generally consistent, with some variations across offices, mainly with respect to process-related components, such as triaging systems. Differences in the types of cases being assessed, and the source country of applicants, as well as the resources being used to assess cases, might contribute to variations in acceptance rates between regions.

Application of Policies and Procedures

Many (12 of 19) of the NHQ and regional PRRA interviewees believe that consistency, particularly with respect to application of the law, is important, but expect some variation in the process. Interviewees did not express any concerns about regional consistency, identifying several tools in place intended to ensure consistency, including: the compulsory national PRRA training for officers, the PP3[note 24], a QA process, and a PRRA coordinators network; the latter two are currently being revitalized by OMC branch.

Consistency in the application of PRRA policies and procedures was assessed using the results of the QA exercise. Several questions in the QA template were designed to assess procedure-related and administrative aspects of the PRRA decision-making process (e.g., correct completion of decision-making template, proper entry of data into information systems). As shown in Table 10, PRRA coordinators found that these components of the PRRA assessment were done as required. For example, sections 1, 2, and 8 of the PRRA decision template were correctly completed in almost all cases (100 percent, 97 percent, and 100 percent respectively). All other components were also assessed positively.

Table 8. Quality Assurance Results: Procedure and Administrative Questions

Variations in Process

While the evaluation showed that there is general consistency between offices in the application of policies and procedures, it identified two key procedural differences. The first is in the use of ‘triaging’;[note 25] varied systems for sorting, organizing and distributing cases to officers are used in each region. For example, in the BCY office, the PRRA coordinator reviews all PRRA cases received and sorts them according to various criteria such as source country, level of complexity, and age of case. The coordinator then assigns the cases to PRRA officers accordingly, ensuring that each officer receives a variety of cases. In the Niagara Falls and Quebec offices, cases are grouped according to source country and then are assigned to the PRRA officer(s) that specialize in that country/region. The Atlantic, Prairies, and Mississauga offices do not have any such systems in place. All offices ensure that cases that require urgent attention are dealt with on a priority basis, which include, for example, detained criminal cases, criminality/war crimes cases, and cases in which travel documents are about to expire.

The second procedural difference is with respect to dealing with H&C w/risk cases. There are three distinct ‘types’ of cases: PRRA cases, PRRA cases where H&C applications have also been initiated (which brings both files together and to be assessed under a single decision-maker model), and then straight H&C with risk cases. The single decision-maker model requires PRRA officers to provide decisions on H&C w/risk cases, in addition to assessing PRRA cases. Previously, PRRA officers provided risk opinions to the H&C officers. The recent introduction of this model in Ontario has added a level of complexity to the responsibilities of the PRRA officer in an environment where there existed a significant inventory of requests for risk opinions. As well, the criteria for PRRA assessments and for applications for humanitarian and compassionate consideration are quite different.

Information from the regional interviews and focus groups suggests that there have been some difficulties implementing the new model. These difficulties may stem from the fact that the current PRRA program manual, the PP3, has not been updated to reflect the new responsibilities of the PRRA officers, nor has customized H&C w/risk training been developed for PRRA officers (assessing the broader H&C criteria when a claim has been made with a PRRA case). As a result, despite the fact that functional guidance with respect to H&C applications raising issues of “risk” is found in the IP5 manual, there is not a common approach for assessing H&C w/risk cases. Focus group participants indicated that some regions will assess the PRRA case before the H&C w/risk case; others will assess the H&C w/risk case first; and one region said that it may review both quickly and determine which file to review first based on which is mostly likely to have a positive decision. Despite these differences, there does seem to be a common trend developing among all regions. Many PRRA officers, before assessing a PRRA case, will now determine if there is also an H&C application on file. If so, the officer or unit clerk will request the file and will not assess the PRRA case until the H&C w/risk file is received, which can lead to delays in processing cases. Note that the potential impact of these differences on the number of PRRA decisions being made is discussed in section 4.5.2 below.

Variations in Regional Acceptance Rates

Data from NCMS showed that there are slight variations in acceptance rates between PRRA offices. The national acceptance rate has remained fairly consistent since program inception, ranging from a low of 2.1 percent in 2006 to a high of 3.3 percent in 2003, with an overall rate of 2.7 percent (2002-2006). The acceptance rates in the Atlantic, PNT, and Quebec offices are consistently lower than the National rate, whereas the BCY office has the highest acceptance rate of 4.5 percent, followed by the Mississauga office with a rate of 3.1 percent. The Niagara Falls office acceptance rate of 2.2 percent is closest to the National rate.

Table 9. PRRA Acceptance Rates by Regional Office (2002-2006)

A possible explanation for the variance in acceptance rates across PRRA offices is related to the different source countries of applicants and the fact that certain populations tend to be concentrated in particular geographic areas, which means that PRRA offices can receive disproportionate volumes of applications from the same countries. Thus, certain regions may be receiving the majority of applications from certain source countries where rates of acceptance are either very high or very low. For example, the Ontario region[note 27] has received six of the seven applications from Namibia, five of which resulted in a positive PRRA. Conversely, the Quebec region has received 95 percent (166 of 175) of the applications from Haiti, only one of which was accepted, resulting in a very low overall acceptance rate for that country (0.6 percent national acceptance rate).

There do not appear to be any large variations in the rates of acceptance by source country and by region. That is, one office is not accepting a higher proportion of applicants from one country than another office. One exception worth noting is the BCY office, which has had consistently higher rates of acceptance than the national average, related to the fact that it has higher rates of acceptance from certain countries (particularly South American and Caribbean nations) than the rest of the PRRA offices. For example, the acceptance rate of Colombian cases in the BCY office is 31 percent, which is considerably higher than the national average of 12.9 percent for Colombian cases. Table 12 illustrates the variations of several countries in terms of regional acceptance rates compared to the national average.

Table 10. Regional Acceptance Rates, by Source Country

4.3 Program Integrity

The evaluation demonstrated that PRRA decision-making is sound, as measured by the quality and fairness of decisions and the proportion of PRRA challenges that are upheld in Federal Court.

Since 2003 the volume of PRRA applications has increased 85 percent, partially attributable to the increasing uptake of eligible individuals, reaching 78 percent in 2006, and partially to an increase in removals targets by CBSA. Nine percent of the applications come from 89 countries that have a zero rate of acceptance. Over half the applications come from countries with an acceptance rate under 1 percent. The Program has shifted from providing protection to exceptional cases to creating another step in the refugee status determination process and delaying the removal of PRRA applicants.

While the resources dedicated to PRRA have increased, they have not kept up with the increased volumes and inventories have grown and processing times increased. The single decision-maker model has added complexities to the decision-making process.

4.3.1 Quality and Fairness of Decisions

Decision-Making

The quality and fairness of decision-making is of great importance to the PRRA program because of its humanitarian nature. The decisions weigh risks to human life and can confer refugee protection to those who need it; therefore, the quality of decision-making is a key component of program integrity. The results of the QA exercise demonstrated that PRRA decisions are sound and fair.

Certain questions in the QA template were designed to specifically assess the quality of the decisions by focussing on the crucial decision-making elements of risk assessment, sources consulted, weighing of evidence and the quality of written decisions.

In terms of applying the new evidence rule and giving submissions due consideration, 100 percent of cases reviewed for the QA exercise successfully met these decision-making criteria, which indicates that officers are applying PRRA legislation and procedures properly. Ninety-seven percent (31 of 32) of the cases assessed had used both an appropriate number and a sufficient variety of information sources (Table 13).

In terms of the quality, the small sample of PRRA decisions reviewed for the QA exercise were supported by objective evidence (97 percent), were considered logical and well-structured (97 percent), and used non-judgemental and respectful language (100 percent). They also presented results in a clear and concise presentation manner (91 percent).

Table 11. Quality Assurance template: Assessment of Decision-Making

These QA exercise results were reviewed and validated with a group of PRRA coordinators during the May 2007 conference, where it was confirmed that while all the decisions reviewed were sound and fair, there was some room for improvement with respect to how they were written, in terms of concision, structure or coherence. In this regard, the coordinators viewed the QA template as a valuable performance measurement tool for their staff, in addition to being a gauge of overall quality.

Information from interviews was consistent with the QA findings. Seventy-five percent of CIC interviewees (15 of 20, which included NHQ staff and PRRA coordinators) felt PRRA decisions were sound and fair. Fifteen percent of all respondents (comprised of mainly CBSA and NGOs) held the opposing opinion. The NGOs do not have confidence in the decisions being made and claim the overall acceptance rate is too low. This may stem from their fundamentally different perception that the PRRA program is another appeal mechanism for refugee claimants. They also question the training and experience of PRRA officers, claiming that many are insufficiently qualified for decision-making positions, although it is unclear/unknown on what evidence they are basing this assumption. The NGOs have presented their concerns in a briefing note to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Immigration in February 2007.

PRRA Legal Challenges

The success of the Crown in defending legal challenges against PRRA decisions is also a measure of program integrity. Data provided by DOJ shows that a total of 2,227 challenges were made against 30,590 PRRA decisions, a rate of appeal of 6.9 percent. Of the challenges made, 1,737 PRRA decisions were upheld by Federal Court, giving the Crown a success rate of 85.3 percent.[note 28]

There are some regional variations in the rates of appeal and the Crown success rate. The rate of appeal in the Quebec PRRA office is the lowest at 1.7 per cent while the rates of appeal in PNT and BCY offices are consistently higher than the national average at 10 and 12 percent, respectively. The appeal rates in the Atlantic and Ontario offices are closest to the national average at 7.6 percent and 7.8 percent, respectively.

Of particular note, the success rate in Quebec is much higher than the National average at 94.5 percent, albeit on a relatively small volume of challenges (Table 15).

Table 12. Number of PRRA Decisions, Legal Challenges and Crown Success Rate, by Regional Office (2002-2006)

4.3.2 Growing Use of the PRRA Program

Evaluation findings raise the concern that the PRRA program has evolved from its original intent of providing a ‘safety net’, to providing one more step in the refugee determination system, evolving into a de facto appeal mechanism.

In each year of the program, the number of PRRA applications received has grown, with an increase from 5,303 applications in 2003 to 12,498 applications in 2006, which represents an 85 percent increase in volume. The largest increases have been in two regions. The applications received in the Ontario region have tripled, from 3,159 in 2003 to 9,506 in 2006. The Quebec office has also seen a large increase in the number of applications received, from 1,170 in 2003 to 2,297 in 2006 (Table 16).

Table 13. Applications Received, by PRRA Region (2002-2006)

* data for 2002 is for approximately 6 months.

This increase is partially explained by factors related to the increasing numbers of PRRA triggers, driven by an increase in removals targets by CBSA and the increasing number of FRCs from the IRB. These factors have resulted in an increased number of individuals who are due to be removed from Canada, thus increasing the number of individuals who will be eligible for a PRRA. Figure 3 shows the increases in these data sets.

Figure 3. Comparison of Failed Refugee Claimants, PRRA Applications Triggered and Removals[note 32]

However, the data also shows that there has been a substantial increase in the proportion of individuals applying for a PRRA. In 2003, of the 11,968 individuals eligible, 5,303 submitted an application, for a 44.3 percent uptake rate. By 2006, of the 16,086 individuals eligible, 12,498 applied, for a 77.7 percent uptake rate. (see Table 17).[note 33] The Niagara Falls office had the largest increase in program uptake (from 49 percent in 2003 to 91 percent in 2006), while the BCY office had a decrease in this rate (from 38 percent in 2003 to 26 percent in 2006).

Table 14. Program Uptake (2002-2006)

* data for 2002 is for approximately 6 months.

This increase in the national rate of program uptake is likely attributable to increased awareness of the PRRA program. Data obtained by country of origin show that there are some countries with  high application volumes and very low acceptance rates. Table 18 shows that a total of 2,324 applications (8.8 percent) have originated from 89 countries that have never had a positive decision rendered. Fifty-three percent of applications are from countries that have acceptance rates under 1 percent. As an example, of the 846 applications submitted from individuals originating from Portugal, none have been accepted. The large increase in the number of individuals using the PRRA program, combined with the data on acceptance rates by country of origin, raises questions as to whether the PRRA program is being used as a method of delaying an individual’s removal.

Despite the significant increase in program uptake, the number of applications accepted has not increased since program inception, providing support to the integrity of the decisions of the PRRA officers.

Table 15. Volume of Decisions, by Acceptance Rate

* The slight variance in number of decisions (Table 7) stems from the use of a different data set used to derive the acceptance rates by country.

4.3.3 Inventory Levels and Processing Times

The increase in the rate of uptake of the program has impacted PRRA inventory levels and processing times, although not equally across the PRRA offices.

Inventory Levels

Inventory levels have been trending upwards since the inception of PRRA in 2002. In 2003, the first full year of the program, the inventory at year-end was 3,775 cases and by the end of 2006, this number had increased to 9,269 (Table 19). The inventory levels have increased in three of the six PRRA offices, with the largest increase in Mississauga.

In the Mississauga office, the case inventory has almost tripled from 1,561 cases in 2004 to 4,540 cases in 2006. In consecutive years, the same office accounted for 20, 32 and 49 percent of the total for the year-end inventories. The principal contributing factor for this increase was the number of PRRA triggers from the CBSA removals unit associated with the Mississauga office, which rose 276 percent from 2003 to 2006, and the associated number of applications received, which increased from 1,459 to 6,612 during that same period (greater than a four-fold increase)[note 34]. The increase in the Quebec office is likely attributable to both the increase in PRRA and H&C w/risk cases. Note that better communication and coordination between CBSA and CIC and the NHQ-level may allow this office to manage such increases more efficiency.

Table 16. Applications in Ending Inventory by Office (2002-2006)

Figure 4 provides a comparison of the number of PRRA triggers to applications received as well as the inventory levels. As would be expected, the volume of applications received rose in conjunction with PRRA triggers, subsequently driving up inventory levels.

Figure 4 Comparison of Trends in PRRA Triggers, Applications Received and Ending Inventory (2002-2006)

Processing Times

The processing times for PRRA decisions has been increasing each year. The average processing times, including accepted and refused cases, increased from 125 days in 2003 to 202 days in 2006 (Table 20).[note 36] The increased processing times has likely been caused by the growth in PRRA applications received, which, as discussed above, is a result of both an increase in the uptake of the program and an increase in removals targets from CBSA. As more applications are received, the inventory has grown, which means that it is taking longer for an application to reach the point of assessment by a PRRA officer.

Table 17. Average Processing Times in Days

Information gathered through the evaluation shows that lengthy (and increasing) processing times and delays in rendering PRRA decisions can impact the program in a number of ways. First, it can lead to a clients’ establishment in Canada (e.g., the individual enrols in school, is working, has children). This may enable an individual to submit an H&C claim, increasing the likelihood of a positive decision. Secondly, during delays in processing a PRRA application, any change in the applicants’ country conditions may lead to the filing of additional submissions to existing PRRA applications. Finally, delays can result from the expiry of travel documents obtained from the countries of origin, requiring CBSA to renew an individual’s documents before removal from Canada.

While there has been an increase in the national average processing time, not all offices have seen similar increases. The processing times in the BCY office only increased 2.6 percent between 2003 and 2006 (180 days to 185 days). The PNT office has seen a slightly larger increase in processing time from 187 days in 2003 to 261 days in 2006 (23 percent), with a peak in its processing time in 2005, reaching 331 days. The Atlantic region has seen its processing times increase from 109 days in 2003 to 413 days in 2006 (a 74 percent increase). Figure 5 shows the variations in processing times between the PRRA regions.

The increases in processing times in the Ontario and Quebec offices seem to be consistent with the increases in application volumes and inventory levels. For example, the PRRA offices in Ontario experienced a 67 percent increase in application volumes between 2003 and 2006 and a 44 percent increase in processing times during that same time period. Similarly, Quebec saw a 49 percent increase in its application volumes and a 45 percent increase in processing times.

Figure 5. Average Processing Times, by Region (2003-2006)

Data on the age of the inventory showed that the majority (65 percent) of cases in the PRRA inventory are less than 6 months old, with 21 percent being less than one  month old. A further 24 percent of cases are 7-12 months old, while 11 percent are greater than 12 months old (Table 21).

Table 18. Number of Months in Inventory[note 37]

4.3.4Single Decision-Maker Model

Information from the evaluation showed that that the creation of the single decision-maker model has affected the program, particularly with respect to the impact on processing PRRA applications. As discussed in section 4.2.3, with the implementation of the single decision-maker model, PRRA officers are now required to assess and make decisions on H&C w/risk cases. In essence, the intent of this model was to streamline H&C with risk process by having only one officer involved in the assessment of all H&C factors; concurrent processing of the PRRA and H&C applications would have the benefit of improving efficiency further by having one decision maker for both processes (i.e., PRRA and H&C w/risk).

Eighty-two percent (18 of 22) of CIC interviewees said that the addition of H&C w/risk cases has impacted the program by causing delays with the PRRA process. The evaluation identified two key factors that have contributed to these delays.

Harmonization of H&C and PRRA Process

The addition of the H&C w/risk cases has added a new level of complexity for PRRA officers. The H&C criteria are broader and more subjective than those used in PRRA. As discussed in section 4.2.3, the current policy for regions to deal with H&C w/risk cases is not being strictly followed, particularly when a PRRA application also exists for the applicant. As a result, there is some inconsistency in how regions are dealing with these cases. Some officers indicated that the H&C w/risk is assessed first; while others reported that both are done simultaneously.

In addition, as discussed in the section on training (4.2.1), while PRRA officers receive the standard H&C w/risk training, it has been insufficient because it does not provide direction on dealing with both processes at the same time. PRRA officers indicated that because the assessment criteria are different for each of the processes, there is a level of complexity associated with the dual process and therefore, the training must be customized to provide direction to assess these cases.

Growing Levels of H&C w/risk Cases

H&C officers, when assessing a case, will determine whether there is a risk component. If so, the application will be forwarded to the appropriate PRRA office for a decision.

PRRA officers, before starting an assessment, will often determine whether the applicant has also submitted an application for H&C. If so, they request that the H&C officer review the file for risk factors and should any exist, forward the file to the PRRA office. The PRRA officer will then await receipt of the H&C file before beginning the application assessment. This means that the PRRA assessment is being delayed because of the H&C process.

According to PRRA officers, the creation of the single-decision maker model has slowed the PRRA process because H&C cases take longer to complete as they are more complex and for old cases, the PRRA officer is required to ask the applicant for an update to the information on file, which also results in further delays.

The volume of H&C w/risk cases has been rising steadily since 2002. As shown in Table 22, between 2003 and 2006, the number of H&C w/risk cases received increased by 18 percent (from 2,787 cases to 3,296 cases) while the number of these cases processed by PRRA officers increased by 81 percent (from 1,539 cases to 2,792 cases).[note 38] The Quebec and Ontario offices receive the highest number of H&C w/risk cases (86 percent), which is consistent with the high volumes of PRRA applications received.

Table 19. H&C w/risk Cases Initiated (2002-2006)

This growing volume of H&C w/risk cases is resulting in an inventory of 4,612 applications in 2006 (Table 22). This inventory and the PRRA inventory are negatively impacting processing times.

Data also shows that since 2002, the proportion of H&C w/risk cases to total cases has been increasing (Table 23). In 2002, H&C w/risk cases constituted 7.2 percent of the total applications processed by PRRA officers and by 2006 this had risen to 26 percent. Similarly, in 2002, H&C w/risk cases constituted 6.8 percent of the total decisions made by PRRA offices and by 2006, this had increased to 25 percent. This shows that PRRA officers are spending more and more time on H&C w/risk cases.

In addition to this increasing number of applications, PRRA officers cited the growing number of PRRA applicants who have also submitted an application for H&C that has a risk element.

Table 20. Proportion of H&C w/risk and PRRA Cases of the Volume of Cases (2002-2006)

4.4 Program Results

The main objectives of PRRA are to: provide protection to those in need; fulfill Canada’s international obligations and the principle of non-refoulement; and facilitate an effective removals process. Measuring success for the PRRA program is difficult because of its nature. Once a negative decision has been rendered and the person removed, there is no mechanism to monitor whether the individual encounters harm in their country of origin. Conversely, if protection is granted, there is no way of knowing whether the individual would have been harmed if removed.

When asked about measuring the success of the program, interviewees provided a variety of responses, two of which corresponded to the above-mentioned objectives: granting of protection/upholding the principle of non-refoulement (38 percent, 15 of 40)and facilitating the removals process (23 percent, 9 of 40). Interviewees provided a range of other responses, however, that were more related to operational success. For example, one-third of respondents (13 of 40) considered the successful defense of PRRA legal challenges to be the key indicator of program success. Others cited reduced inventories (5 of 40); a transparent process (2 of 40); and a positive public perception of the program (2 of 40) as measures of success.

4.4.1 Granting Protection

PRRA has been a qualified success in achieving its primary objective of granting protection to persons who would be at risk if removed, as measured by the number of positive decisions rendered. Between 2002 and 2006, there have been 816 positive PRRA decisions. From a purely humanitarian perspective, that suggests that 816 lives at risk were protected (Table 24). As noted in Section 3.0, FRCs account for the majority of accepted cases (88 percent).

Table 21. PRRA Program Acceptance Rates (2002-2006)

Of the 816 individuals who received a positive PRRA decision, the largest proportion was accepted because of their social group (40 percent, 281 of 816)[note 40]. As illustrated in Figure 7, a high proportion of individuals have also been accepted because of the risk of torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment (27 percent, or 186); their political opinion (15 percent, 170 of 816); or their religion (13 percent, 100 of 816).

Figure 6. Reasons for a Positive PRRA Decision

Once a positive decision has been rendered and protection conferred, many of these individuals have progressed along the refugee process: 70 percent (568) have become permanent residents and an additional 19 percent (153) have applied for landing. Five percent (27) of those permanent residents have become Canadian citizens, with an additional 6 percent (32) having applied for citizenship.

4.4.2 PRRA and the Removals Process

The PRRA program has negatively impacted the removals process by increasing the time it takes to remove an individual. As cited in the logic model for PRRA, one of the primary outcomes of the program is to facilitate the removals process. However, data shows that the length of time from an effective removal order to confirmed departure, of which PRRA accounts for one part, has increased from approximately 437 days prior to 2002 to 611 days post 2002. The time required to remove individuals who do not submit a PRRA application is about 200 days.

This data is consistent with information provided by CIC, DOJ and CBSA interviewees. Almost half (47 percent, 9 of 19) of those queried felt that PRRA was having a negative impact on the removals process, and of those, all five CBSA respondents unanimously felt that it contributes to delays.

There are several reasons why the time between an effective removal order and confirmed departure has increased. A person may seek a judicial review of the Refugee Protection Division decision and therefore, the number of appeals being launched and the time it takes to settle them could be impacting on the process. Also, a person may not be removed immediately following a negative PRRA decision because the decision has been appealed before the Federal Court, the applicant may have criminal charges pending, the applicant may have medical problems, or the applicant did not appear at the removal interview (in which case a warrant would be issued). Although PRRA is not the only factor impacting delays in removals, given the increases in application volumes, inventory levels, and processing times, it is likely that PRRA is one of the contributing factors to the delays.

4.5 Cost-Effectiveness

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the PRRA program is challenging as it would require an examination of the cost per positive decision (i.e., person protected), which is the outcome of the program. It is impractical to begin assessing the costs of saving a life. The evaluation was able to examine program efficiency from two perspectives: allocation of resources in the context of application volumes; and whether processes being used by offices are contributing to decision-making efficiencies (such as a greater volume of decisions).

The PRRA program receives A-base funding of $5.6 million dollars each year and 74.7 FTEs (Table 26). Not surprisingly, the Quebec and Ontario offices receive the highest proportion of the funding and the largest number of FTEs. In addition to this A-base funding, the PRRA offices in Ontario, Quebec and BCY received additional B-base funding: $600,000 in fiscal year 2005-06; $2.4 million in 2006-07; and 2.6 million in 2007-08. The majority of this funding was allocated to the Ontario and Quebec offices and was primarily for additional FTEs. Note that these resources are for both PRRA and H&C w/risk cases.

Table 22. PRRA A-Base Funding, by Region

The actual number of FTEs in the PRRA offices had remained fairly stable since program inception until the last two years, when notable increases were seen in the Mississauga (+8), Niagara Falls (+4), and Quebec (+7) offices (Table 27).

Table 23. Number of FTEs, by Region (2002-2006)

4.5.1 PRRA Resource Allocations and Application Volumes

The evaluation examined program efficiency in the context of the allocation of resources and the volume of applications received by each PRRA office. Information showed that there is a wide range in the ratio of applications received per FTEs across PRRA offices.

Four of the six PRRA offices (BCY, PNT, Quebec, and Atlantic) have minimal overall change in the ratio of applications received to FTEs (Table 28). In the Atlantic and Prairies offices the FTE levels have been constant and the volume of applications received has decreased. The Quebec office experienced a decrease in its ratio of applications received per FTEs between 2005 and 2006 as the office received four additional FTEs in 2005 and seven in 2006. This increase was sufficient to offset the increasing volume of applications received in this region.

Table 24. Applications Received Per FTE (2002–2006)

While the Mississauga and NiagaraFalls offices received the largest proportion of additional FTEs, these offices still have the highest ratio of applications received to FTEs. In the Mississauga office, eight additional resources were provided in 2005 to address the growing volumes of applications. However, this office has continued to see increases in its application volumes and received just over 3,700 applications in 2006. Similarly, the NiagaraFalls office saw its FTEs double in 2006, and while the ratio of application volumes to FTEs decreased between 2005 and 2006, this office still had the highest volume of applications received per FTE in 2006 (205.6).

4.5.2 Efficiency of the PRRA Process

Efficiency of the PRRA program was also assessed by calculating the number of PRRA decisions made per officer in each year of the program and examining whether there were variations in the PRRA process in each office that may impact on the efficiency of the decision-making. Note that there currently is on-going discussion concerning the establishment of national targets/expectations for the number of PRRA decisions per officer per year (i.e., 175). However, there is also much discussion on whether this is a realistic target given the wide range of cases received (simple versus complex, various source countries). Therefore, the evaluation did not compare the number of decisions made per FTE to this target number, but rather attempted to identify what influenced this ratio in each of the offices. While a number of variations in process were identified, it was difficult to assess the exact effect of those processes on decision-making because of the impact that H&C w/risk cases are having on PRRA decisions.

The evaluation found that there is a wide range in the ratio of decisions made per FTE between offices. In 2006, the Niagara and Mississauga offices had the highest ratios of PRRA decisions made per FTE, at 139.9 and 130.5 decisions per officer, respectively (Table 29). While Quebec had the lowest, at 61 decisions per officer, it should be noted that this office adopted the single decision maker model from the program’s inception, earlier than other offices. The low ratio is offset Quebec’s high percentage of H&C with risk decisions, which has risen to 49 percent of all decisions in 2006, highest of all regional offices (see Table 30 below).

Table 25. Number of Decisions* Made Per FTE (2002-2006)

* H&C with risk  decisions are  presented in Table 30 below.

The process mapping exercise held with PRRA officers in the focus groups identified the key steps in assessing a PRRA application. Variations in the process may be impacting the number of decisions made by PRRA officers. Several processes that contribute to efficient case assessment were noted: the BCY office, in addition to sorting files by source country, sorts them according to simple versus complex, and no new evidence cases. The files are then evenly distributed to PRRA officers. The Quebec office has two processes in place that are unique. First the PRRA clerks will ensure that the PRRA file is complete and will request additional information from the applicant before assigning it to the PRRA officer. Secondly, the office has two research clerks that are responsible for conducting research on country conditions, which saves PRRA officers time and effort, allowing them to focus on the decisions.

A factor that may influence the number of PRRA decisions made per officer is the type of case received. The offices receive a wide range of cases, from simple (e.g., no new evidence) to complex (e.g., older case with large volume of submissions) and depending on the case, it can range from one half day or to several weeks or more to complete.

Another factor affecting the number of decisions per FTE, is the complexity of the H&C w/risk cases, which have been increasing each year. For example, of all of the H&C w/risk decisions made across Canada, the Quebec office has made the highest proportion of those decisions (47 percent). Information on H&C w/risk cases for the Quebec office showed that the proportion of H&C w/risk decisions to total decisions increased from 26.6 in 2003 to 49.1 percent in 2006 (Table 30).

This also appears to be the case in the PNT and Atlantic offices. In PNT, in 2003, H&C w/risk cases accounted for 17.6 percent of the total decisions and by 2006, this proportion had reached 30 percent.

Table 26. Proportion of H&C w/risk Decisions to Total Decisions, PRRA Offices (2002-2006)

A similar trend can be seen in the Niagara Falls office, which had increases in the proportion of H&C w/risk decisions to total decisions in each year since 2003. This upward trend is consistent with a downward trend in the number of PRRA decisions per FTE made in this office.

The BCY and Mississauga PRRA offices do not appear to have been impacted as greatly by the volume of H&C w/risk cases. In the Mississauga office the volume reached a peak in 2005, with H&C w/risk cases comprising 39.9 percent of all decisions. This corresponds to a large decrease in the number of PRRA decisions made in that same year. Similarly, the Mississauga office has had a general decline in the number of H&C w/risk decisions between 2003 and 2006 (from 17.4 percent to 11.0 percent), which corresponds to an increasing number of PRRA decisions during that same time period.

Therefore, while some offices have implemented processes to assist with the assessment of PRRA cases (e.g., triaging, pre-screening), it isn’t possible to untangle the impact of these processes on the efficiency of decision-making. Any efficiencies that may result from these processes have been offset by the growing number of H&C w/risk cases.

______________

15. A removal order becomes effective once the IRB has rendered a negative decision (or once an appeal of the IRB decision has been completed and denied). Time may pass between this decision and the time the individual is called for their removal interview. The notification/removal interview is the point when clients are informed of the option to apply for a PRRA.

16. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Report on Plans and Priorities, 2007-2008.

17. Interview questions were open-ended and permitted multiple responses.

18. Government of Canada. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, section 115(1).

19. Note the remaining interviews were unsure or did not provide a relevant response.

20. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 3. June 1986.

21. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 33(1). April 1954.

22. Note that this is the same training package that is delivered to H&C officers.

23. The conference was held in January 2005 and the working sessions in April 2006 and May 2007.

24. The PP3 has been re-drafted, with extensive input from the Regions, soon to be published.

25. ‘Triaging’ is the term commonly used by all PRRA offices to describe the process of reviewing and distributing cases to officers based on common characteristics such as source country or complexity. In essence, it is more of a sorting process than triaging.

26. The national figures include cases in the Ontario region that have not been attributed (in statistical systems) to either PRRA office, thus the discrepancy in totals.

27. Note the data for the Ontario region was not available at the office level (i.e., Mississauga and Niagara Falls).

28. Note that legal data was not available on a year by year basis because the year in which the decision was made is not necessarily the year the challenge or the Federal ruling was made.

29. This represents the total number of challenges, which includes null cases, which are largely still active, and non-applicable cases, which have been transferred or not proceeded.

30. Rate of appeal is defined as the total number of legal challenges (successful application for leave) over the number of PRRA decisions made.

31. The Crown success rate is measured by decisions upheld over the number of ‘real’ challenges, which removes null and non-applicable results from the total number of challenges.

32. Data on failed refugee claimants and removals provided by Refugees Branch.

33. The rate of uptake is defined as the proportion of people that apply for a PRRA of those that are eligible to apply (i.e., receive a PRRA notification).

34. Note that the Mississauga office has been trying to address the increase by sending files to the BCY office.

35. The total includes cases in Ontario that are not attributed to the Mississauga or Niagara Falls PRRA offices.

36. Note that the processing times have been weighted according to the volume of applications received.

37. Numbers as of March 2007. Includes cases at the stage of Determining Type of Applicant, Pending PRRA Decision,, and Pending Risk Assessment.

38. Note that H&C w/risk cases are tracked separately in NCMS. Therefore these volumes and inventories for H&C w/risk cases are in addition to PRRA volumes and inventories.

39. Applications processed includes all files closed (i.e. total of concluded cases, includes all opinions, decisions, withdrawals and others).

40. Social group includes: gender, minors, sexual orientation.

• Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6 (current)
• 7
• 8
• Next