Management of Asylum Applications by the UK Border Agency

Transcription

1 THE HOME OFFICE Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy LONDON: The Statioery Office Ordered by the House of Commos to be prited o 19 Jauary 2009 REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL HC 124 Sessio Jauary 2009

2 SuMMARy Backgroud 1 The Home Office (the Departmet) is resposible for maagig ad assessig claims for Asylum through its shadow agecy, the UK Border Agecy (the Agecy). I 2007 the Agecy received over 23,000 applicatios for Asylum, cotiuig a decliig tred sice a peak of over 84,000 applicatios i I respose to recommedatios by the Natioal Audit Office ad the House of Commos Committee for Public Accouts, i 2006, the Agecy itroduced a ew busiess process, the New Asylum Model, to maage asylum claims more effectively. A Case Ower maages each asylum case from applicatio to coclusio, at which poit the applicat is either allowed to stay i the UK as a refugee or for humaitaria protectio reasos, or returs to their coutry of origi. If refused Asylum, a applicat ca appeal to the Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual, which is idepedet of the Agecy. 3 By March 2007, all ew cases were beig maaged i this way ad, by the ed of 2011, the Agecy aims to coclude 90 per cet of ew asylum claims withi six moths from applicatio. We estimate that the cost of the New Asylum Model i was 176 millio, of which 80 millio (45 per cet) was accouted for by accommodatio ad welfare support. A separate process has bee established to clear, by 2011, a backlog of some 400, ,000 cases that were uresolved before the itroductio of the New Asylum Model. We estimate that this backlog cost early 600 millio i , of which 430 millio (72 per cet) was accouted for by accommodatio ad welfare support. 4 MANAGEMENT OF ASyLuM APPLICATIONS By THE uk BORDER AGENCy

3 4 Through the New Asylum Model (see Figure 1 overleaf), i practice, after applicatio ad iitial iterview, a Case Ower takes charge of the case from start to fiish. The Case Ower is resposible for all stages of the process ad for maitaiig cotact with the claimat throughout. For those grated Asylum, this resposibility exteds to coectig the claimat with agecies to help them settle i the UK. For those refused Asylum, it exteds to securig the claimat s volutary retur or eforced removal to their coutry of origi. While their claim is beig cosidered, asylum applicats who would otherwise be homeless ad destitute, are provided with accommodatio ad welfare support fuded by the Agecy. The legth of the applicatio process, therefore, has a direct impact o costs. 5 This report examies whether the Agecy: is maagig its workload more effectively through the ew Model (parts 1 ad 2); is achievig performace targets (part 3); has eablers i place to make the system work for all applicatios (part 4); has a realistic pla for maagig ad cocludig legacy cases (part 5). Key Fidigs 6 Asylum is a global ad itractable issue. I particular, it is ot easy to maage the chagig volume of Asylum applicatios, which is dictated by world evets. The Agecy ow has a improved grip o the problem sice our previous examiatio. The Agecy is better orgaised tha before ad has improved both the maagemet of idividual applicatios ad the leadership of the process as a whole. Nevertheless, there are areas for improvemet ad our key fidigs are set out below. O the Agecy s maagemet of its workload a) I our 2005 report o the removal of failed asylum applicats we recommeded that the Departmet should assig clearer resposibility ad owership to caseworkers for maagig the retur of ewly failed applicats ad should better itegrate the applicatio, support ad removal procedures. The Agecy has respoded by itroducig a ew busiess process (the New Asylum Model). b) The itroductio of the New Asylum Model etailed the recruitmet ad traiig of large umbers of staff, the creatio of ew processes ad procedures ad the creatio of a ew structure of regioal offices. The New Asylum Model was i place by March 2007, oe moth ahead of schedule. c) Case Owership has improved the process for maagig asylum applicatios. By givig resposibility for cocludig a applicatio to oe perso without the eed to pass it from office to office, ad by givig clear targets for them to work to, the Agecy has created a strog icetive for cases to be progressed ad cocluded. d) Not all parts of the process, however, are workig for every case. We foud that the full screeig iterview, carried out at the poit where Asylum is applied for, is ot happeig i over oe quarter of cases, ruig a risk that key iformatio about a asylum applicat s claim is missed. Oe cosequece, exacerbated by a lack of detetio space, is that people who could be held i detetio ad have their cases resolved quickly may ot be detaied. Those who should be excluded from detetio, because their cases are too complex to be resolved quickly or should otherwise be excluded (for example o medical grouds), may evertheless be put i detetio ad have to be released at a later date. e) Expediture o the iitial stage accouts for 30 per cet of the cost of the etire process. Applicats are housed for a average of 20 days i short-term iitial accommodatio whilst their etitlemet to support ad accommodatio is decided. I this short-term accommodatio cost o average 60 per ight, which icludes the provisio of meals ad support services. Where etitled, applicats are the provided with loger-term dispersed accommodatio, at a cost of 13 per ight for accommodatio oly, ad cash support. f) The first reportig evet is a short meetig where it is iteded that the applicat meets their Case Ower. This meetig, which ca ivolve participats travellig log distaces, is usually delegated to more juior staff ad is of little beefit. g) The Agecy has established a ew Quality Assurace Team to assess decisio-makig by Case Owers. Their reports show that quality has bee improvig. Lessos from their audits, however, are ot beig shared with all Case Owers. We also foud that, whilst audits may show the eed for improvemets i some areas of decisio makig, the Agecy does ot follow up these fidigs to idetify ad reverse icorrect decisios. The oly route available to correct a decisio is the Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual. Over 70 per cet of applicats appeal agaist the decisio to refuse Asylum ad some per cet of appeals are upheld. There is o meas of idetifyig decisios to grat Asylum that were icorrect. Review by maagemet is ot beig applied systematically, or results formally recorded. Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 5

4 1 The New Asylum Model Stage 1 Startig the process Stage 2 Processig the claim Time UK Border Agecy Day 1-2: Oce a applicat has claimed Asylum, they are iterviewed or screeed. This allows staff to decide the most appropriate method for processig the applicatio. Withi 30 days: A Agecy Case Ower iterviews the applicat to judge the basis of their asylum applicatio. The Applicat Day 1: The applicat claims Asylum at either their port of etry, a Asylum Screeig Uit, or a Local Eforcemet Office. Day 1-2: Based o iformatio give durig the iitial screeig iterview, the applicat is accommodated depedig o their circumstaces. Applicats who are homeless are provided with accommodatio. The applicat either: is provided with shortterm accommodatio ad welfare support aywhere i the UK; or moves ito their ow accommodatio, or with family or frieds. They stay there util their applicatio is decided (grated or refused); or is trasferred to oe of the Agecy s detetio cetres. They stay there util their applicatio is decided. Accommodatio ad support fuded by UK Border Agecy Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual resposible for hadlig appeals process Source: Natioal Audit Office 6 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

5 Stage 3 Appealig the decisio Stage 4 Cocludig the case Withi 30 days: The Case Ower decides whether to grat leave to remai or refuse the applicatio. The applicat ca appeal agaist the Case Ower s decisio to the Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual. Withi 6 moths: If the applicat is grated Asylum or aother form of leave to remai, the Agecy refers the refugee to local agecies to help them settle ito UK society. Withi 6 moths: If the applicatio is refused, the the Agecy will attempt removal of the applicat to their coutry of origi. After 30 days: The applicat moves to loger-term accommodatio aywhere i the UK. They stay there util their applicatio is decided. Welfare support cotiues. If the applicat is refused, the the Agecy ca trasfer the applicat to oe of its detetio cetres to esure the applicat does ot abscod before removal. Withi 6 moths: If the applicat is refused, the the Agecy will attempt removal of the applicat to their coutry of origi if they do ot retur volutarily. Withi 6 moths: If the applicat is refused but caot be removed, the the applicat ca apply to the Agecy for Sectio IV support. Withi 6 moths: If the claimat is grated Asylum or aother form of leave to remai, they have 28 days to leave accommodatio provided by the Agecy. A refugee may the become eligible for maistream housig ad beefits. Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 7

6 h) Whilst decisios are begiig to be made more quickly, with some 40 per cet of cases cocluded withi six moths, implemetatio of the decisio remais a problem. The New Asylum Model has ot yet resulted i a icrease i the removal of failed asylum applicats. Most removals are achieved by teams maagig cases i detetio, but there is a shortage of detetio space i which to detai people to prevet them from abscodig prior to removal. As a cosequece, ad because of the priority beig give to remove foreig atioal prisoers, the Agecy is ot meetig its tippig poit target, which is to remove more failed asylum applicats tha the umber who make ew ufouded applicatios. Through the secod half of 2007, the gap betwee ufouded applicatios ad removals has icreased ad for the year as a whole the target was missed by over 20 per cet. i) There are other sigificat barriers to removig failed asylum applicats. Obtaiig Emergecy Travel Documets is a major challege for the agecy, particularly from atios that are ot readily prepared to recogise their atioals. We also foud, however, that the Agecy have applied for ad bee offered some 13,000 Emergecy Travel Documets which have ot bee used, some of which it has paid for. A umber of these caot be executed because they are time-expired, are for idividuals who have abscoded, or there are other issues to address before a removal ca be effected. There are, however, up to 5,000 documets which could potetially be used to remove people ow. j) Sevety per cet of escorted removals are cacelled, resultig i additioal work ad costs. A large umber of these are outside of the Agecy s cotrol, such as legal actio, but we foud that a lack of coordiatio betwee bookig escorts ad flights is addig to the problem. k) Although the asylum applicat appeals directly to the Tribual, the outcome is set to the Agecy first. There is the a uecessary delay of up to 24 days i issuig the result to the asylum applicat while the Agecy cosiders whether or ot it wishes to appeal agaist the decisio. The Agecy ow iteds to issue the appeal decisio to the asylum applicat withi 48 hours ad has issued istructios to this effect. l) Sice 2005, refugee status is grated for a period of five years ad for childre util they reach the age of 17½. Over 23,000 applicats have bee grated Asylum sice 2005 ad, of these, early 8,000 refugees will eed to have their status reviewed i At this poit, there are a umber of optios icludig returig someoe home because the situatio has improved i their home coutry or applyig for UK citizeship. However, the Agecy has o process to keep track of refugees after they have bee grated Asylum ad o plas i place to review these cases. m) The Agecy has a clear, well-uderstood target to coclude asylum applicatios withi six moths. It exceeded its target to coclude 35 per cet of cases withi six moths by April 2007, ad to coclude 40 per cet of cases withi six moths by December ) Followig a 39 per cet icrease i applicatios from 4,960 i the secod quarter of 2007 to 6,870 i the fourth quarter, the backlog of decisios to be made by Case Owers has more tha doubled sice the secod quarter of 2007 to 8,700 i the secod quarter of The Agecy will therefore fid it challegig to coclude 60 per cet of cases withi six moths by December Icreasig the umber of Case Owers takes time. The New Asylum Model is ot able to cope with sudde chages i demad ad there is a risk of a ew backlog. o) The loger a case takes to coclude the more expesive it becomes, because of the cost of the accommodatio ad welfare support provided by the Agecy. For example, with accommodatio ad support, the cost of a family goig through the process from applicatio to removal after appeal ca rage from 26,000 to 60,000 depedig o the legth ad complexity of the case. The Agecy s coclusio target does ot, however, icetivise staff to progress cases that have missed the target, to improve quality of decisio-makig or miimise costs. O facilities to make the process work p) The estate is ot ideally suited for the ew process. The process is workig better where both asylum teams, ad immigratio teams resposible for eforcemet, are located i the same buildig with easy access to iterview rooms ad other facilities. The Agecy is also short of detetio space, so caot detai all the applicats it should, but plas to expad it. It curretly has 2,533 detetio bedspaces (half allocated to foreig atioal prisoers) agaist its idetified medium-term requiremet of 4,000. q) I settig up the New Asylum Model, the Agecy has recruited ew Case Owers at a higher grade ad level of qualificatio ad is puttig staff through a 55 day traiig programme. The Agecy is developig traiig to eable Case Owers to receive more practical experiece i additio to the 55 days traiig programme to better prepare them for the job. 8 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

7 r) A large amout of the work is based o maual records, with iformatio about the cases the re etered ito a database. Fax machies are routiely used by the Agecy to sed large documets both iterally ad exterally to third parties. Staff use two differet computer systems which do ot commuicate, leadig to duplicatio. The Agecy is developig a ew IT system i support of a Itegrated Caseworkig Programme. O cocludig legacy cases s) I its 2006 report o the removal of failed asylum applicats, the House of Commos Committee for Public Accouts recommeded that the Departmet should tackle the backlog. I Jue 2006, the Departmet estimated that there was a backlog of 400, ,000 cases that had ot bee cocluded ad udertook to clear the backlog by To meet this challege, the Agecy has established the Case Resolutio Directorate to hadle all the cases ot cocluded prior to the itroductio of the New Asylum Model, kow as legacy cases. The Directorate is focused clearly o the task of reducig the backlog. t) Sice the scale of the problem was idetified i Jue 2006, the Agecy has estimated that some 60,000-70,000 depedats were icluded withi the 400, ,000. They are also fidig a cosiderable umber of errors, where there are discrepacies betwee its database ad the paper based records, icludig a large umber of cases that had actually bee completed. I December 2007, therefore, some 335,000 legacy cases were allocated to 61 ew teams of caseworkers to coclude. u) The Agecy is prioritisig the legacy cases by those who potetially pose risk to the public, those who have the highest support costs, ad cases that ca be cocluded more easily. It has cocluded 90,000 cases to date. Of these, just over 40 per cet have bee grated Asylum ad over 20 per cet removed. The remaiig 40 per cet are mostly cases where it was foud that o actio was required, for example, because the applicat s coutry had joied the EU or because they had already bee grated Asylum or had bee removed but the Agecy s database had ot recorded the fact. Of the cases yet to be cocluded, the Agecy estimates that a fifth of the remaiig cases caot curretly be resolved as there are exteral factors which prevet the Agecy from either removig the applicats or allowig them to stay i the UK. The Agecy is explorig optios to coclude these cases. v) We estimate that the cost of the legacy cases totalled early 600 millio i , of which 430 millio (72 per cet) is for the accommodatio ad support provided by the Agecy to destitute applicats whilst their applicatios are beig cosidered. The remaider is for the cost of the ew directorate, detetio, ad eforced ad volutary returs ad appeals. For asylum cases as a whole, support costs have reduced from over 1 billio i to some 500 millio i Value for Moey Coclusio 7 The aim of the New Asylum Model is to achieve faster coclusios to cases, to recogise geuie refugees more quickly ad to repatriate applicats refused asylum effectively. Realisig this aim should reduce the cost of supportig applicats ad deter others from makig false claims. The model also aims to achieve better quality decisios that stad up to scrutiy, thereby reducig the umber ad cost of appeals. 8 Aspects of the model are workig well: case owership has created a strog icetive to coclude cases ad has reduced the risk of cases gettig lost ad applicatios are beig cocluded more quickly. The ew process is ot, however, yet workig to its optimum efficiecy ad effectiveess. Few removals are beig achieved, hampered by a lack of detetio space ad problem obtaiig Emergecy Travel Documets. There is some evidece that the quality of decisio-makig is risig, but there is o meas, as part of the process, to idetify ad reverse icorrect decisios. The oly route ope to reverse a decisio is for the applicat to appeal to the Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual. Aroud 70 per cet of asylum claims that result i refusal pursue a appeal ad of these some per cet are upheld. 9 The Agecy plas to coclude by 2011 the 400, ,000 legacy cases that were outstadig prior to the itroductio of the New Asylum Model. 10,000 cases per moth would eed to be cocluded to meet this task, compared with 4,000 per moth to date. There are also exteral factors, such as o safe route home, which prevet the Agecy from cocludig 20 per cet of the remaiig cases, so the target looks challegig o the basis of curret plas. The support costs of legacy cases, which totalled some 430 millio i , mea that value for moey is impaired by the time it is takig to coclude them. May cases will ot be cocluded for at least aother three years, whether or ot the target for 2011 is met. Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 9

8 Recommedatios 10 The Agecy eeds to develop the process so that it works for each asylum applicatio. To help make this happe we recommed as follows: i) Review of decisios by maagemet is ot cosistet or documeted, the same problems keep reoccurrig ad the asylum applicatio process does ot idetify ad reverse icorrect decisios. Some 70 per cet of applicats refused Asylum appeal to the Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual ad some per cet of appeals are upheld. ii) iii) The Agecy should put i place a commo process for review by lie maagemet or seior caseworkers. They should review a sample of all Case Ower decisios, icludig grats ad refusals, ad should check whether the Case Ower has made the correct decisio based o the evidece. All reviews should be recorded, together with actios take. The Agecy should develop quality assurace further so that quality assessors assess whether or ot a soud decisio, to grat or refuse asylum, has bee made. Where a assessmet has bee made that the decisio is usoud, the Agecy should coduct a review of the decisio ad revoke if ecessary. The Agecy should dissemiate lessos from Quality Audits to all Case Owers. Over a quarter of Asylum applicats are ot receivig a full screeig iterview whe they make their claims, leadig to loss of valuable iformatio ad the risk that applicatios are maaged i the wrog way. For example, some applicats are put ito detetio whe their applicatios are too complex to be maaged through the fast-track process ad so they are the released to be maaged i the commuity by oe of the Agecy s regioal offices. The Agecy should carry out a full screeig iterview o all Asylum applicats at poit of applicatio. At this iterview, the Agecy should gather sufficiet iformatio o the applicat s backgroud, reasos for their claim ad route ito the UK to eable it to assess whether or ot it is appropriate to hold the applicat i detetio, or whether they have come through aother safe coutry where they should have applied for asylum. The Agecy s processes are ot sufficietly robust to cope with fluctuatios i the volume of ew asylum applicatios, such as the 39 per cet icrease from 4,960 asylum applicatios i the secod quarter iv) of 2007 to 6,870 i the fourth quarter of Delays i cocludig cases directly add to the cost of maagig them through accommodatio ad welfare support. Separately, the Agecy will also fid it challegig to coclude all 400, ,000 legacy cases by The Agecy should: develop our work further to model the relatioship betwee the umber of case workers, their allocatio to cocludig ew ad legacy cases ad the cosequet impact o accommodatio ad support costs; revise its plas for resolvig legacy cases i the light of the size of the challege, progress made to date ad the umber of cases that caot curretly be resolved; i the light of that work, redeploy case workers as appropriate to coclude both ew ad legacy asylum cases more quickly ad reduce the associated cost of accommodatio ad welfare support; ad i the move to itegrated caseworkig, develop its staff so that they are able to work o more that oe type of case to icrease flexibility to deal with fluctuatios i applicatios for asylum ad other immigratio cases. Sice 2005, a grat of refugee status is for five years, ad a child is grated status util age 17½. There is, however, o process to keep track of refugees after they have bee grated Asylum, o plas i place to review some 8,000 cases per aum from 2010 owards ad o clarity aroud how the cases of childre should be reviewed. The Agecy should defie what its process will be to review the status of refugees after five years ad, through performace reportig, moitor the implemetatio of its ew istructio to review the status of uaccompaied asylum seekig childre at age 17½. v) Allocatio to a regio ad Case Ower is ow plaed to be achieved i two days but a decisio o etitlemet to accommodatio ad support takes aroud 20 days o average. The Agecy spet 26 millio o short-term iitial accommodatio i , whilst it decided whether or ot asylum applicats were etitled to accommodatio ad support. The Agecy should reduce its reliace o iitial accommodatio by reducig the amout of time it takes to decide whether or ot a applicat is etitled to accommodatio ad support. 10 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

9 vi) For the first year operatig the New Asylum Model the Agecy has used a arrow but well-uderstood target to coclude 90 per cet of asylum applicatios withi six moths by The target does ot iclude older cases, drive dow cost or promote improved decisio-makig. I additio to its key target to coclude a proportio of cases withi six moths, the Agecy should set targets to coclude a higher proportio of cases withi 12 moths ad to coclude all cases withi two years. It should set ad publish targets to improve the quality of decisios, based o its quality assurace scores. It should also provide icetives to teams to prioritise the coclusio of cases icurrig higher accommodatio ad support costs. The Agecy should develop ad routiely aalyse cost per case across a rage of types of applicats ad use this iformatio i decisiomakig, alogside the iformatio it is usig to moitor productivity of staff. vii) Sevety per cet of requests placed by the Agecy for escorted removals are cacelled, mostly because of legal actio, which is beyod the Agecy s cotrol. Te per cet are cacelled, however, as a result of admiistrative problems, icludig a lack of coordiatio betwee bookig of escorts ad flights. I relettig cotracts for trasport ad escort, ad i arragig flights, the Agecy should improve coordiatio of bookigs to reduce time spet by Case Owers ad removals staff rearragig bookigs ad to reduce cacellatios. ix) We foud that the Agecy s estate i some locatios is ot ideally suited to the ew process. As it reviews its estate strategy the Agecy should: where possible, affordable ad good value for moey, co-locate those teams which are ivolved i the process icludig asylum ad eforcemet staff; provide iterview rooms i the same buildig as Case Owers to save time travellig ad waitig, or allow Case Owers easy access to buildigs where iterview rooms are located usig existig passes; ad locate reportig cetres at mai trasport hubs. x) A cosiderable volume of work is still hadwritte, ad effort is duplicated as iformatio has to be put ito the Caseworkig Iformatio Database. Much busiess is coducted via fax whe other, faster, less expesive, more secure ad less errorproe methods are available. The Agecy should: icrease electroic storage ad trasmissio of iformatio where data security allows, savig i telephoe charges ad staff time; amed its processes so that Case Owers ad support staff oly have to record iformatio oce electroically; ad i developig the Itegrated Caseworkig Programme, eable Case Owers to access all of the iformatio they eed, ad the software that they eed to do their work, through a sigle IT system. viii) Through Case Owership the Agecy has cut the umber of times that cases are passed from perso to perso ad reduced the opportuity for delay ad error. There are, however, still poits i the process which are of little beefit or are slowig thigs dow. I particular the Agecy should: scrap the first reportig evet i its curret form, as it icoveieces all those ivolved for little beefit; work with the Appellate Authority to promulgate the results of the appeal more quickly, directly to the applicat, ad moitor the implemetatio of its ew istructio to issue appeal results withi 48 hours; ad icrease the use of Emergecy Travel Documets ad itroduce a fast-track process for obtaiig documets for those i detetio. Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 11