Biometrics Field Trial Evaluation Report

Section 8. Organizational and Operational Impacts

This section focuses on the impact of incorporating biometric collection into operations at the field trial sites: the Seattle and Hong Kong visa offices, the Douglas and Pacific Highway land border crossings, and the Vancouver International Airport and Toronto Refugee Intake Centre.

8.1 Context

The Seattle visa office is one of CIC’s smaller offices. Its 14 employees handle both temporary resident and permanent resident applications. The Seattle visa office processed 6,955 [note 13] temporary resident applications in 2006.

The Seattle visa office receives most of its client applications in person (76% during the field trial). Same‑day visa service is offered for visitor visa applications. There are 60 seats in the waiting room, 5 interview booths and 4 counters. In 2006, weeks ahead of the field trial, the Seattle visa office moved to a commercial building in a busy office and shopping district of downtown Seattle.

Hong Kong is one of CIC’s larger visa offices. The Temporary Resident Unit alone comprises 18 employees and occupies half of an office floor in a commercial building in the business district. In 2006, 7,974 [note 14] Temporary Resident Visa applications were received.

There is same‑day visitor visa service for walk‑in clients. There are 150 seats in the waiting room, and up to18 counters, including interview booths, are available for meeting with clients.

The Douglas land border crossing is a Canada/US crossing point for many tourists in the lower mainland of British Columbia (I‑5 and Highway 99). The Pacific Highway border crossing, which is approximately 1 km from the Port of Douglas, serves primarily commercial and bus traffic. Total traveller volume for the Douglas and Pacific Highway crossings during the field trial was 68,016 for immigration secondary, where the field trial was conducted.

During the first five months of the field trial, the two ports of entry had a common complement of 35 border service officers who worked at both the Douglas and the Pacific Highway crossings. After a reorganization at the port, up to 50 CBSA officers began rotating through immigration secondary.

The Vancouver International Airport (VIA) receives many travellers from Asia. Until 2006, it was the only airport in Canada that received direct flights from Hong Kong. The VIA has 33 booths at the primary inspection line and two interpreter booths for travellers needing language assistance. For the field trial, 25 primary inspection line booths and both interpreter booths were fit‑up with equipment.

CICcreated a new work unit especially for the field trial—the Headquarters Matching Centre (HQC). A secure lab at CIC headquarters in Ottawa was chosen as the site for the HQC. Since CIC had no forensic expertise, two experienced former RCMP forensic specialists [note 15] were hired to work part‑time on reviewing the biometrics of field trial clients.

8.2 Overview

In general, all field trial sites were able to cope with the field trial with the extra resources assigned. The field trial had more impact on the Seattle and Hong Kong visa offices, because they saw more field trial clients than the Douglas, Pacific Highway and VIA offices. The Refugee Intake Centre in Toronto had no change to its processes and thus was not impacted by the field trial.

An overview of total enrolments of photos and fingerprints during the trial for visa clients is shown in Table 8-A.

Table 8-A: Summary of enrolments

A total of 1,482 field trial clients arrived at the participating ports of entry between late October 2006 and mid‑April 2007—548 at the Douglas and Pacific Highway land border crossings and 934 at the VIA. Field trial clients at the VIA who had not enrolled their 10 fingerprints in Hong Kong or Seattle were sent to immigration secondary. Immigration secondary also received field trial clients if the primary inspection line was experiencing technical difficulties with the field trial equipment.

The field trial at the ports of entry transactions are described in the flow chart below. The numbers represent the number of transactions. The visa office population is in fact the number of enrolments at that location. Note that there are more enrolments than clients because some clients applied (and therefore enrolled) multiple times.

Figure 8-A: Port of entry (POE) field trial output model

Legend
FP – Fingerprints
POE – Port of entry

Notes

1. Unknown—visa arrivals detected at the VIA primary inspection line but for whom no biometric processing took place in immigration secondary. This likely resulted from other immigration‑related processing taken place (for example, one of the 32 unknown events is a visa holder who made a subsequent refugee claim).
2. Client verified—VIA immigration secondary captured 141 verification fingerprints during the field trial. This resulted from VIA primary inspection referring the client to secondary without capturing a verification fingerprint. This situation may have been caused by technical problems or operational constraints.
3. Exempt client—During the field trial, VIA immigration secondary detected two clients who were exempt from fingerprint processing. These clients were referred to immigration secondary for reasons outside the scope of the field trial.
4. Incorrect enrolment—Officers at the Douglas and Pacific Highway ports of entry, as well as immigration secondary at VIA captured, full 10‑print fingerprints from 70 clients who were previously enrolled in Seattle or Hong Kong. These 70 clients should have been verified. As the field trial clients constituted a small proportion of travellers, border service officers were not using the biometric system regularly. Some could even go several weeks without using the system. The erroneous re-enrolment of fingerprints occurred throughout the field trial.

8.3 Impact of the field trial on volumes

The biometrics field trial took place during what is considered to be a low‑volume season for the field trial sites.

In Hong Kong, the field trial did not appear to discourage people from applying at the visa office. Total temporary resident application volume increased 16.5% from the previous year, making it the second largest increase by volume in that region. The Hong Kong visa office reported that the field trial did not change the volume of people who applied by mail.

While the Seattle visa office received fewer visa applications than in the same period the previous year, analysis shows that the decrease resulted from a large drop (10%) in visitor applications. Since Los Angeles also experienced a similar drop in visitor applications over the same period, it appears that other factors are affecting cross‑border travel.

Table 8-B: Change in volume of temporary resident visa applications from same period previous year—North America

Application site	Change in application volume from field trial period 2005-2006 to 2006-2007
Buffalo	+3%
Detroit	+6%
Los Angeles	-4%
New York	+2%
Seattle	-6%
Washington	+2%

Analysis shows that Seattle clients did not apply less in person in order to avoid having fingerprints enrolled. Analysis of the number of mail‑in versus walk‑in clients showed that more people applied in person during the field trial compared with the same period the previous year—a 10% decrease in mail‑in applications overall.

Table 8-C: Comparison of walk‑in with mail‑in visa applications in Seattle.

	Mail-in	Walk-in	Change in mail-in from same period previous year
Visitor	29.0%	71.0%	-13.3%
Student	20.8%	79.2%	-8.7%
Worker	22.7%	77.3%	-8.0%
Total-Average	24.2%	75.8%	-10.0%

Douglas/Pacific Highway. During the field trial, 109,669 [note 16] travellers went through immigration secondary, where the field trial was performed. Some were field trial clients, but most were not. No appreciable volume impact could be attributed directly to the biometrics field trial.

VIA. No overall volume impact at the primary inspection line because of the biometrics field trial was reported.

For both the land border crossings and the airport, the number of field trial client arrivals is only a small portion of the total number of travellers who pass through those ports of entry.

Table 8-D: Volume of arrivals at field trial ports of entry

Field Trial Site	Field Trial Period	Previous Year-Field Trial Period	Change from Previous
Douglas/Pacific immigration secondary	109,669	129,383	-18%
VIA primary inspection line	1,995,735	1,937,282	3%
VIA immigration secondary	85,306	86,043	-1%

However, even during peak periods, the number of field trial client arrivals at the participating ports of entry was considerably less than expected—only approximately 10% of field trial clients who enrolled at the Hong Kong and Seattle visa offices landed at VIA, not 70%. This could stem from the following factors:

• Low season
• A direct flight from Hong Kong to Toronto was added in the months before field trial launch, giving clients from Hong Kong another entry point to Canada
• Equipment problems (described further in this section)
• Deterrence (the biometrics field trial locations were publicized in advance of the trial—discussed further in Section 5)

Figure 8-B shows a number of distinct periods where the number of arrivals decline. The first decline could stem from the slow period between Christmas and the New Year. The subsequent declines may stem from system problems. However, since even the peak numbers are much lower than expected, seasonal and equipment issues seem to only partly account for overall low arrival numbers.

Figure 8-B: Field trial client arrivals by location during field trial

Source: System reports

8.4 Impact of the field trial on work processes, human resources and facilities

8.4.1 Visa offices

Impact on work processes. The biggest challenge experienced by both visa offices was the enforcement of CIC’s new visa photo standards. The Hong Kong visa office started enforcing photo standards for its clients well before the field trial (January 2006), and the Seattle visa office started enforcement a few weeks before the field trial (October 2006). Although the photo standards were published on the CIC website, many clients initially did not know about the standards. Clients’ applications were only accepted once the photos met the published standards. Walk‑in clients could easily have new photos taken by a photographer within a two‑block radius. Visa office employees and in some cases the manager, had to counsel upset clients, which they found stressful.

Clients who mailed in their applications were notified that their photos failed to meet the standards and their applications were returned. A paper copy of the photo standards brochure was included in the return package. Tracking these additional application returns was an extra workload for visa office employees and had a bigger impact on the Seattle visa office. The Seattle visa office reported that employees spent three hours a week mailing back applications because of non‑compliant photos.

Table 8-E: Impact of photo standards on mail-in visa applications, October 2006 to March 2007

Visa Office	Number of Returned Applications	Number due to non-compliant photo	% Photo Related
Hong Kong	150	109	73%
Seattle	749	583	78%

Source: Visa office statistics

Application photos improved over time as clients better understood the new photo standards and understood that they had to submit photos that met those standards. Before enforcement of standards, only 7% of client photos from Hong Kong and Seattle were compliant.

A manual sampling of 600 photos from applications at both offices during the field trial showed that 97% of the photos that were scanned into the field trial system met CICstandards.

Analysis shows that the longer the enforcement was in effect, the better the quality of photos and the lower the number of mail-in applications that had to be returned to clients due to non-compliant photos.

A complication for Seattle was that the US standards for photos in travel documents differ from ICAO photo standards, which is the basis of the CIC visa photo standards. This confused some photographers and clients.

Technical problems

Defective chips. Both visa offices experienced a high number of defective chips—approximately 13% in total, evenly split between Hong Kong and Seattle. This deficiency added an extra step in the visa issuance process—employees had to check whether the information relating to the field trial was written correctly to the chip and had to repeat the entire chip‑writing process if the chip was defective.

Ghosting. While reviewing the quality of fingerprints enrolled, the Headquarters Matching Centre (HQC noticed that a small percentage of fingerprints had a second fingerprint (a “ghost” fingerprint) overlaid onto the main fingerprint. This situation applied to sets of consecutive field trial clients. When the fingerprint capture process started for the first time after the biometric application had been begun, the fingerprint reader went through a one‑time initialization process. If a person’s hand was on the glass during the process, all subsequent fingerprints taken would have the ghosting effect. This lasted until the application was closed and re‑started and the fingerprint readers re-initialized. If there was nothing on the glass when the re‑initialisation occurred, no ghosting occurred with subsequent fingerprints. This problem was rectified through better instructions to the enrolling officers.

Impact on human resources. Both visa offices were given resources to temporarily hire additional employees to help implement the biometrics field trial. The Hong Kong visa office took on three locally engaged employees, and the Seattle visa office took on two. Both offices lost one trained person, and the replacements were trained on-the-job by colleagues previously trained by the CIC Project Team.

The Hong Kong visa office created a new dedicated unit of three employees to scan clients’ photos and enrol fingerprints. Employees who created client files in CIC systems and printed visas took on the additional task of writing the biometrics of successful temporary visa applicants to the chips.

In Seattle, a smaller visa office, photo and fingerprint enrolment was largely conducted by the same two or three employees, with the officers’ assistants rotating through some parts of the new field trial processes. This may have affected the officers’ workload. At both visa offices at least one Canada‑based officer was responsible for overseeing the field trial and for liaising with CIC NHQ. These officers also performed minor troubleshooting duties and consulted the training manual.

At both visa offices, impact on IT employees was greatest immediately before and during the start of the field trial because they were involved in planning, setting up and installing the biometric system. Both visa offices reported minimal IT problems during the field trial and received local IT support, with occasional CIC NHQ guidance. However, the Seattle office did report that strong local IT support was essential to the success of the field trial.

Impact on waiting room. During the field trial in Seattle, up to three intake windows were opened to clients. It was reported that there were up to 40 people in the waiting room at one time for various types of applications. Fingerprint readers were placed at two intake windows and at one interview booth. In the Hong Kong visa office waiting room, a small waiting area near the two fingerprint reader equipment booths was set aside for field trial clients—denoted as “Zone C—Biometrics”.

8.4.2 Ports of entry

Impact on workflow. The majority of the biometric processing at the ports of entry consisted in capturing a single fingerprint for verification. This constituted an extra step in the examination process.  As mentioned in section 5.2.3, 918 enrolled clients subsequently appeared at participating ports of entry and had a single fingerprint verified.

In nearly 83% of instances where a verification fingerprint could have been captured, CBSA officers successfully captured an image on the first try. Other officers were able to capture a verification fingerprint after two attempts. Over 10% of clients required two attempts to have a fingerprint captured, likely because of language barriers between the officer and the client at the primary inspection line or because the fingerprint capture device timed out while instructions were being given to the client at the interpreter’s booth.

Table 8-F: Attempts to capture verification fingerprints

Field Trial IDs by Number of Verification Attempts

Verification attempts	Clients	Percent
1	850	82.93%
2	111	10.83%
3	31	3.02%
4	13	1.27%
5	8	0.78%
6	6	0.59%
7	0	0.00%
8	0	0.00%
9	1	0.10%
Unknown	5	0.49%
Total	1025	100%

Source: System reports

Equipment problems impacting workflow

Chip‑related problems: At the Douglas and Pacific Highway border crossings, some visas contained chips that could not be read. This was likely caused by problems with the chips. When chips could not be read, field trial procedures were abandoned.

Problems also occurred with the chip readers at the VIA primary inspection line. The chip reader, temporarily affixed to the Borderguard passport reader with a plastic silver‑painted bracket, became detached owing to the adhesive becoming heated from continuous use of the readers. In mid‑January 2007, it was discovered that 7 of the 15 primary inspection line booths generally dedicated to foreign national visitors had had their chip readers detached and set aside. It is not known how long they had been detached. Because they had been set aside, many primary inspection line officers assumed that the system was not functioning and did not perform verifications. It is estimated that this continued for about five weeks. The problem was rectified once CIC’s team was informed of the situation.

PC tablets: Technical problems occurred with the PC tablets at the VIA. Some tablets crashed intermittently into March 2007. A site visit on January 30, 2007 by members of the CIC Project Team confirmed that seven primary inspection line tablets were not working. A software fix, developed by the vendor and installed approximately three weeks later by local IT staff, resolved the problem.

In addition, since the tablets were switched on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, users could see the tablets “reset themselves” periodically, which caused confusion among users and led them to believe that they could not perform the field trial procedures. A software fix later rectified the auto reset.

In addition, some of the tablets were mistakenly configured to only identify a field trial client rather than to also request their verification fingerprint. In the original concept of operations, the user was to have had the choice between identifying and verifying a field trial client. The concept of operations at the start of the field trial eliminated the identification option, but the button remained on the PC tablet. Users were instructed not to choose that option. The option was eliminated in the next release of the software at the end of January 2007.

Fingerprint reader problems at Douglas. Seven weeks before the end of the field trial, one of the fingerprint readers had software problems. Since there was a low volume of travellers, the one working fingerprint reader system was deemed sufficient to handle field trial clients, and the terminal with the problems was not used for the remainder of the field trial.

Ergonomic issues. Ergonomic problems were experienced at the VIA on both the primary inspection line and at immigration secondary. The placement of the chip reader on the Borderguard passport reader meant that an officer’s arm movement could displace the reader. This, coupled with the technical issues described earlier, led to the detachment of some of the readers. At immigration secondary, the fingerprint readers, placed on the client counters, were too high for some clients and were not bolted down.

Impact on human resources. Normal staffing levels and schedules were maintained during the field trial.

8.5 Impact of the field trial on processing times and service standards

8.5.1 Visa offices

Both visa offices enrolled their walk‑in clients using the equipment and extra human resources allocated, while maintaining their client service levels. Both visa offices had to make adjustments to the field trial workflow design shortly after the launch of the field trial to maintain their same‑day visitor visa service. The low‑season volumes during the field trial period were also a factor in maintaining service levels.

Table 8-G: Temporary resident visa applications at Hong Kong and Seattle visa offices during field trial

City	Applications Received		Applications Finalized		Backlog		% Backlog
	2005- 2006	2006- 2007	2005- 2006	2006- 2007	2005- 2006	2006- 2007	2005- 2006	2006- 2007
Hong Kong	7963	7974	7839	7845	124	129	2%	2%
Seattle	7418	6955	7335	6961	83	-6	1%	0%

Source: Visa office statistics

Biometrics processing times overview. The biometrics field trial added extra processing time to every temporary resident application. Enrolling 10 fingerprints and performing chip‑related tasks could take up the majority of processing time, especially in instances of technical glitches. Most of the added steps could be removed if the biometric system is fully incorporated into CIC’s overseas system and if chips are not used.

Table 8-H: Hong Kong additional per‑client processing times due to field trial (in seconds)

Task	Minimum	Maximum	Median
10‑Fingerprint enrolment	18	See note* below	62
Affix photo onto photo card	4	6	5
Scan and crop photo	8	10	9
Other biometric file creation related	15	30	22.5
Write and QA chip	30	50	40
Affix chip to passport	5	10	7.5
Total	77s (1 min 17s)	See note* below	152s (2 min 30s)

Source: System reports and on-site observations

By mid-trial, it was observed the Hong Kong visa office biometrics enrolment unit had become extremely efficient at enrolling photos and multi‑tasking field trial processes.

Table 8-I: Seattle additional per‑client processing times due to field trial (in seconds)

Task	Minimum	Maximum	Median
10‑Fingerprint enrolment	14	See note* below	37
Affix photo onto photo card	4	6	5
Scan and crop photo	8	10	9
Other biometric file creation related	20	30	25
Write and QA chip	40	70	50
Affix chip to passport	5	10	7.5
Total	94 (1 min 34s)	See note* below	156 (2 min 36s)

Source: System reports and on-site observations

*These times reflect the total time required to fingerprint a client, including multiple capture attempts. Fingerprint enrolment time starts when the system user clicked “Print Capture” and ended with the completion of the last fingerprint (the right thumb). This means that the time shown in Table 8‑J likely includes time spent speaking with the client in addition to time spent actually enrolling the fingerprints. Maximum times are not presented since most operators initialized the enrolment devices at the start of the day and well prior to the arrival of the first client — thereby exaggerating maximum values.

Extra time had to be devoted to cases where photos were non‑compliant. For walk‑in clients, this meant explaining the standards to them and requesting compliant photos. For mail‑in clients, this meant extra time (3 hours/week) to log and return the application.

Fingerprint enrolment. The visa offices enrolled the 10—fingerprint set of most of the field trial clients and had lower median times for enrolment than the ports of entry.

Figure 8-C: Summary of 10‑fingerprint enrolment times (in seconds)*

Source: System reports

At both visa offices, 90% of the 10‑fingerprint enrolments took place under 120 seconds. Even the lengthiest enrolments took less than five minutes. The Seattle visa office staff, who enrolled the most clients out of all the field trial sites, performed 80% of the 10‑fingerprint enrolments in less than 90 seconds. See Figure 8‑C for all data points.

Employees at the Hong Kong visa office took longer to enrol fingerprints  In wishing to obtain the recommended score of 60, they took advantage of the flexibility of trying multiple capture attempts rather than simply taking the first enrolment that the biometric system would accept (less than 60).

Figure 8-D: Seattle cumulative 10‑fingerprint enrolment times (in seconds)

Figure 8-E: Hong Kong cumulative 10-fingerprint enrolment times (in seconds)

Figure 8-F: Douglas/Pacific Highway cumulative 10-fingerprint enrolment times (in seconds)

8.5.2 Ports of entry

During the field trial, primary inspection line officers at the VIA maintained client service standards. The typical one‑fingerprint verification at the primary inspection line took 20 seconds.There were no overall delays—if there were equipment problems, officers reported that they either “swapped clients” or sent the clients to immigration secondary. The greatest operational impact reported was at the interpreter’s booth where, according to those officers interviewed, the field trial added about one to two minutes per client. That finding confirms feedback from other officers at ports of entry that fingerprint verification was easier when there was no language barrier and when clients could understand the officer’s instructions.

No operational impact was reported during the field trial at VIA immigration secondary. While more clients were sent to immigration secondary because of the field trial, the low volumes (20 field trial clients per day at most and, as per figure 8-A, a total of 548 during the Trial) made it manageable.

Some employees at secondary reported that the field trial added up to five minutes to their examination process.  This time included the time to wait for an available counter equipped for the field trial, but excluded client queuing time, and the time it took to walk the client to a fingerprint reader. Immigration secondary had three readers installed over 14 counters.

Client service at Douglas and Pacific Highway immigration secondary was largely unaffected, since visa holders at these border crossings were routinely sent to immigration secondary even before the field trial. Furthermore, the period of the field trial was considered a low‑volume season. The additional processing time per client depended on the officer’s experience with immigration secondary and with the biometric system. While one officer reported that it took an additional two to five minutes per client, another reported that the entire process, including the secondary examination process took four minutes. Immigration secondary examination timings are greatly influenced by individual travellers’ circumstances.

When there were no equipment problems, one‑fingerprint verification was quite fast. Fingerprint verification was done using different equipment at the land border and at the airport. Verification time started as soon as the chip in the visa was detected. In other words, it included the officer interview time if the client was not fingerprinted right away. Figure 8‑G shows one‑finger verification times by location.

Figure 8-G: One-fingerprint verification times at ports of entry (in seconds)

*Maximum times are not presented since most Secondary operators initialized the fingerprint devices at the start of the day and well prior to the arrival of the first client – thereby causing inflated maximum values.

8.6 Employee feedback

8.6.1 Experience with the biometrics system

Visa offices

• Seattle users rated the biometrics system from fairly user‑friendly to very user‑friendly. In Hong Kong, the biometric enrolment unit staff found the biometrics system very user‑friendly. Of all the user groups interviewed, Hong Kong users seemed to be the most comfortable with the system, likely because they used the system daily.
• The fingerprint feedback screen was deemed fairly to very useful in Seattle and extremely useful in Hong Kong, particularly the score feature. Concern was raised at both visa offices that the screen gave no explanation for a low score and what could be done to get a better score (more pressure, moisten hands, etc).
• System users in Hong Kong reported that at times the system was fast, at times too slow, and that it occasionally froze.
• The time it took to save fingerprints on the system was deemed fairly acceptable to not very acceptable. The Seattle intake clerk who did most of the fingerprint enrolment expressed concern about the speed.
• The time it took to save the information to the chip was deemed fairly acceptable.
• Both visa office users found that fingerprint reader glass became dirty and could affect results (seen as black flecks in the user feedback screen). They thought that there was a need to clean and disinfect it regularly. (Evaluator’s note: CIC wanted to see the effect of dirt on the glass. From what was reported during the field trial, the glass did not need to be cleaned after every client, but only as required.)
• Users wanted the fingerprint reader to be more sensitive so that clients did not have to press their fingers so hard.
• Users wanted to be able to select the best fingerprint set if multiple sets were captured (retries). In some cases, the quality of the retake was worse than that of the original set.

Ports of entry

• Douglas/Pacific Highway users found the system fairly to very user‑friendly. User opinions at VIA were divided on whether the biometrics system was user‑friendly.
• Fingerprint verification was not always done if no fingerprint reader was attached to the terminal where the officer was working. Because there were only two readers (and four counters) at both the Douglas and the Pacific Highway ports of entry, an officer at a terminal not equipped with a fingerprint reader would not disrupt an officer working on a case at a terminal that was equipped with a fingerprint reader, particularly if it was a busy period.
• The amount of time the system took to save the biometric information was found to be fairly to very acceptable.
• New users were added during the field trial, but each user did not necessarily have their own user ID to sign in. Several users used one generic user ID.
• Everyone found the fingerprint feedback screen for operators very useful.

8.6.2 Training for the field trial

Visa offices

• Staff interviewed felt that the CIC Project Team had spent enough time training them and that the training was useful. In Seattle, only the assistant to the Immigration Program Manager consulted the training manual for trouble‑shooting purposes. In Hong Kong, staff only referred to the training manual once or twice; they directed their questions to their manager, to the project contact officer or to the CIC Project Team in Ottawa.
• Everyone appreciated having the Ottawa Project Team members on site when going live. One person mentioned that they would have liked a follow‑up visit shortly after going live.

Ports of entry

• Staff found the training fairly useful and felt that enough time had been devoted to it but pointed out that not everyone received training for the following reasons:
  • Some officers were absent the day of the training.
  • Officers could only train when the primary inspection line booths and immigration counters were not busy.
• Employees interviewed reported that they never used the training manual during the field trial. In March 2007, new employees started working in immigration secondary at the Douglas and Pacific Highway border crossings as part of a customs and immigration cross‑training exercise.
• Almost all primary inspection line officers at the VIA who were interviewed received their training from on‑site CIC Project Team members. Some commented that they would have expected to receive classroom training away from their daily work, as is usually done for major projects. No officer reported consulting the training manual, but many referred to an instruction sheet posted at many of the booths on the officer side.

8.6.3 Possible full biometrics implementation

Visa offices

• Managers and staff noted that any full biometrics implementation, particularly a requirement to see every client in person, could have significant infrastructure, human resource and client service impacts. Managers at both visa offices stressed that service levels would need to be reviewed.
• Other specific suggestions for any future biometric system are covered in Section 10: Lessons Learned.

Ports of entry

• At VIA, primary inspection line officers’ biggest concerns with regard to implementation of biometrics were the time to complete the process and the placement and maintenance of equipment, with slightly more officers citing the latter as their primary concern. Many officers commented that it would be worth the “extra time” if there were real‑time matching feedback available. However, they did note that service standards would need to be reviewed.
• Most officers who provided feedback (all but one) thought that the photo on the visa chip was a very useful tool.
• Immigration secondary officers commented that just getting a picture of the visa applicant during the field trial was a major step forward. At the moment, in cases of doubt as to client identity, they contact the visa office and ask for a photo of the client to be faxed. The quality of faxed photos is inferior to that of photos on the visa chip.
• One officer summarized the value of biometrics as follows: “Matching the person to the documents presented, checking against known watch lists. This thing is the basis of our whole job”.

8.6.4 Other employee feedback

• Visa office employees found the barcode sticker provided for input of data into the biometric system very useful and thought it should be used for all visitor applications.
• Chip‑collision problem: Visa office employees reported one instance of an e-passport (with a chip). Putting the CIC visa chip resulted in an inability to read our chip. The example cited was a Thai passport. (Training instructions were not to put the CIC visa chip in e‑passports).
• The superintendent of Passenger Operations, Immigration, had the following comment on the field trial:

“Although there were some minor issues surrounding ergonomics and durability, the system did not add significant time to passenger processing. The system has the potential to be a valuable tool in providing officers with quick and accurate traveller information to assist with their decision-making. Overall, the field trial was a positive experience with a system that was relatively easy to use.”

8.7 Toronto Refugee Intake Centre

Refugee protection claimants at the Centre have been photographed and fingerprinted using LiveScan units for about five years. The photos and fingerprint records of those who made refugee claims there during the field trial were delivered by the RCMP; holders of all in‑Canada refugee protection claimant photos and fingerprints, were delivered to the CIC Project Team on a CD. [note 17]

8.8 Headquarters Matching Centre (HQC)

Two forensic specialists assessed the quality and made suggestions for improvement. The forensic specialists were required to confirm the matches (faces and fingerprints) suggested by the biometric system.

8.8.1 Match performance forensic specialist review effort (one‑to‑one)

On average, it took 30 to 40 seconds to review a verification probe. Verifying the fingerprint match could take anywhere from seconds to several minutes, depending on the quality of the fingerprint impressions. This is consistent with observations of other systems such as US-IDENT.

Generally, with a high‑scoring fingerprint (70 to 95) it would take seconds, as long as the fingerprints had no distorted areas.

For fingerprints scoring from 40 to 60, where they are usually of poor quality, verification could take from one to several minutes, depending on the quality. After several minutes, if the fingerprints was not identified it was usually deemed to be unsuitable.

8.9 Conclusions

The field trial had an impact on operations, adding some stress to visa office waiting room capacity and requiring additional staff to manage the increase in processing. These issues were manageable within the context of the limited scope field trial but would be more challenging if CIC moved to regular biometric collection as part of visa processing.

The use of chips in the visas introduced additional technical and operational complexity. Many of the equipment and ergonomic issues of the field trial would be avoided with full implementation of an integrated biometric system.

Employee support exists for the use of biometrics provided that resource and integration issues are addressed.

---

Footnotes:

13. CIC Overseas IT System (CAIPS) Statistics

14. Ibid.

15. Each specialist had over 35 years’ experience with the RCMP, 30 of them in crime scene forensics, which included formal training in the RCMP’s main fingerprint bureau and in photo recognition. Both were certified for presenting fingerprint evidence in court.

16. Source: Local POE statistics

17. In NIST format

---

<< Previous | Contents | Next >>