Management of Asylum Applications by the UK Border Agency

Transcription

1 THE HOME OFFICE Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL HC 124 Sessio Jauary 2009

2 The Natioal Audit Office scrutiises public spedig o behalf of Parliamet. The Comptroller ad Auditor Geeral, Tim Burr, is a Officer of the House of Commos. He is the head of the Natioal Audit Office which employs some 850 staff. He ad the Natioal Audit Office are totally idepedet of Govermet. He certifies the accouts of all Govermet departmets ad a wide rage of other public sector bodies; ad he has statutory authority to report to Parliamet o the ecoomy, efficiecy ad effectiveess with which departmets ad other bodies have used their resources. Our work saves the taxpayer millios of pouds every year: at least 9 for every 1 spet ruig the Office.

3 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

4 This report has bee prepared uder Sectio 6 of the Natioal Audit Act 1983 for presetatio to the House of Commos i accordace with Sectio 9 of the Act. Tim Burr Comptroller ad Auditor Geeral Natioal Audit Office 8 Jauary 2009 The Natioal Audit Office study team cosisted of: Mark Parrett, Vikki Keilthy, Robert Sabbarto, Stephaie Hut, Polly Basak, Gethi Davies-Kapp, Alec Morto, Paul Mills ad Matthew Wilkis, uder the directio of Ailee Murphie This report ca be foud o the Natioal Audit Office web site at For further iformatio about the Natioal Audit Office please cotact: Natioal Audit Office Press Office Buckigham Palace Road Victoria Lodo SW1W 9SP Tel: equiries@ao.gsi.gov.uk Natioal Audit Office 2009

5 cotets summary 4 Part ONE The New Asylum Model 12 Part TWO The applicatio process 16 Part THREE Performace agaist targets 29 Part four Facilities to make the process work 32 Part five Resolutio of Legacy Cases 37 Appedices 1 Study Scope ad Methodology 40 2 Previous Public Accouts 44 Committee Recommedatios 3 Glossary of terms 47 Photograph courtesy of Alamy.com

6 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 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, 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 -08 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 -08, 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

7 summary 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, 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 -08 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

8 summary 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

9 summary 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

10 summary 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, 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, 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 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 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

11 summary 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, 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 -08, 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 -08. 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 -08, 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

12 summary 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 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 -08, 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

13 summary 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

14 Part Oe The New Asylum Model Backgroud to the asylum process 1.1 The Uited Kigdom is a sigatory to the 1951 Uited Natios Covetio relatig to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Covetio). To be recogised as a refugee i the UK, a applicat must apply to the UK Border Agecy for Asylum, ad show that they meet the criteria laid dow i the Refugee Covetio (see Box 1). To qualify for humaitaria protectio, the applicat has to show that they meet the criteria laid dow i the Europea Covetio. BOX 1 What is a refugee? A refugee is someoe who has left their coutry ad is uable or uwillig to go back because they have a well-fouded fear of persecutio because of their race, religio, atioality, political opiio or membership of a particular social group. The UK also adheres to the 1950 Europea Covetio o Huma Rights (the Europea Covetio). Uder the Europea Covetio, a applicat may be give temporary permissio to stay i the UK for humaitaria reasos, where there is a real risk they would be exposed to torture, or ihuma or degradig treatmet or puishmet if they were retured to their home coutry. Criteria for a grat of Humaitaria Protectio are laid dow i the Qualificatio Directive (Coucil Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004). Uder this directive a perso may be grated Humaitaria Protectio is there is a real risk of them sufferig serious harm if retured to their coutry of origi. 1.2 The Agecy assesses asylum claims o the basis of the idividual circumstaces of each case icludig the applicat s credibility, the curret political situatio i their coutry, evidece of the coutry s huma rights record ad, if applicable, medical evidece of torture ad abuse. The umber of applicatios for Asylum has falle cosiderably from a peak of over 84,000 i 2002 to over 23,000 i (see Figure 2). 1.3 I our 2005 report o the removal of failed asylum applicats 1, we cocluded that, the applicatio, support ad eforcemet processes operated as largely separate systems, leadig to poor commuicatio ad co-ordiatio withi the Immigratio ad Natioality Directorate (ow the Agecy) thereby reducig the prospect of quick removal of ewly failed applicats. We recommeded that clearer resposibility ad owership should be assiged to caseworkers for maagig the retur of failed applicats, icludig the speed with which they are retured, ad that the Departmet should better itegrate the applicatio, support ad removal procedures. A summary of the recommedatios made by the Committee of Public Accouts together with the Departmet s resposes is at Appedix The Uited Natios High Commissioer for Refugees (UNHCR), through the Quality Iitiative Project ru joitly with the Departmet, has also made recommedatios for improvig the quality of decisio-makig to the Agecy 1 Report by the Comptroller ad Auditor Geeral, Returig failed asylum applicats (HC 76, Sessio ). 12 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

15 part oe i five reports sice the project started i From the auditig of asylum iterviews ad decisios, its fidigs have highlighted a umber of areas for improvemet, icludig workload ad targets, stadards for recruitmet ad traiig, the applicatio of the refugee defiitio, the approach to establishig facts ad the coduct of iterviews. 1.5 The Agecy has developed a ew process for maagig asylum applicatios i respose to these recommedatios (see the process i detail i Figure 3 overleaf). The Agecy bega to itroduce the ew process, kow as the New Asylum Model, i All ew asylum applicatios have bee maaged usig the ew process sice March. At the same time as itroducig the ew process, the Agecy established ew teams ad recruited Case Owers at a higher grade to maage asylum applicatios located i offices i Lodo, Cardiff, Solihull, Leeds, Liverpool ad Glasgow. 1.6 We estimate that the cost of the New Asylum Model i -08 was 176 millio (see breakdow i Figure 4 o page 15). This was the first year of operatio, ad ot all parts of the process were i full operatio for the whole year. As a illustratio, we estimate that the cost i 08, had the model bee fully operatioal, would have totalled 223 millio. We were uable to compare this with the cost of the old process because the Home Office did ot hold the ecessary iformatio. 2 Applicatios for asylum Applicatios for Asylum (000s) Source: Home Office statistical bulletis NOTE Excludes depedats. Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 13

16 part oe 3 The New Asylum Model Stage 1 Startig the process Days 0 2 (process) Days 0 20 (accommodatio) Cost of this stage of the process: 53.9 millio i -08 The applicat makes a claim for Asylum at oe of three etry poits to the process. Port of etry Asylum Screeig Uit: Croydo or Liverpool Local Eforcemet Office The applicat is the screeed by persoel at the locatio where the claim is made. This is a iterview where the applicat is asked basic questios about themselves how they arrived i the UK ad the basis of their claim. Based o the iformatio obtaied durig screeig, the applicat is the set, or routed, to wherever their claim will be cosidered. They will be routed to: a regioal asylum team if a applicat has owhere to stay they will be provided with accommodatio; or a detetio cetre applicats i detetio are maaged by fast-track teams so their cases ca be cosidered quickly. Resposibility of Case Ower Stage 2 Processig the claim Days 2 30 Cost of this stage of the process: 38.1 millio i -08 Applicats atted a first reportig evet at the regioal office. This iitial meetigs is iteted to allow the applicat to meet with their Case Ower ad to have the process explaied to them. Followig the first reportig evet, the Case Ower will ivite the applicat to the regioal office for a substative iterview, where they will ask questios o all aspects of the asylum claim. UKBA provides a iterpreter, but the claimat is ot usually accompaied by a Legal Represetative. The iterview ca typically last from two to six hours. Followig the substative iterview, the Case Ower will make their decisio o whether to grat or refuse Asylum, ad write the decisio letter. The decisio is the served to the applicat. The applicat is advised what will happe ext ad give ay ecessary forms. Stage 3 Appealig agaist the decisio (70 per cet of asylum decisios are appealed) Days Cost of this stage of the process: 38.0 millio i -08 If a applicat decides to appeal agaist the Case Owers decisio, they fill i the forms give to them whe the decisio was served ad sed them to the Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual. The Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual sets a date for a case maagemet review hearig, where all parties discuss ay importat issues prior to the the mai hearig. The applicat s appeal is the heard at the local tribual cetre by a Immigratio Judge at the substative hearig. The cliet s legal represetatives will argue the case agaist either the Case Ower, or a UK Border Agecy Presetig Officer. The Judge will the make their determiatio ad promulgate it, usually sedig it by post to the UK Border Agecy, which will dissemiate it to all parties. Stage 4 Cocludig the case Days Cost of this stage of the process (removals oly): 45.9 millio i -08 If a claim has bee accepted, the the applicat will be give iformatio o how they ca receive help o itegratio ito UK society. Case Owers provide the claimat with iformatio leaflets explaiig how the claimat ca apply for services ad educatio, ad also details of itegratio loas. After 28 days the UK Border Agecy stops providig beefits to the applicat who would the become etitled to maistream beefits ad housig if they eed it. If the claim for Asylum has bee rejected, the UK Border Agecy will attempt removal of the applicat to their coutry of origi. The Case Ower will had over the case to the dedicated removals team, which will coordiate escorts, flights ad receptio arragemets. Oce removal directios are set, the applicat is iformed of the arragemets, ad removal is carried out. If the applicat s appeal is dismissed, the further appeals ca take place. The usual route is via the High Court the High Court Filter assesses whether a High Court Recosideratio is warrated, ad if it is the the case proceeds to the High Court. The claimat ca also apply for a Judical Review. If the applicat is refused Asylum but caot be removed from the UK for whatever reaso, they may receive Sectio IV support from UK Border Agecy. Asylum applicats ca also withdraw their claim at ay time ad retur home volutarily. They ca make use of the Volutary Assisted Retur programme, or make their ow travel arragemets. Source: Natioal Audit Office 14 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

17 part oe 4 Cost of the New Asylum Model -08 Cost area Descriptio Estimated total cost for -08 ( m) Percetage of total cost UK Border Agecy Operatig costs (excludig eforcemet) Comprisig staff costs for the New Asylum Model, screeig ad routig teams ad Presetig Officer uits UK Border Agecy Support costs Cost icludes iitial ad dispersed accommodatio ad welfare support UK Border Agecy Eforcemet costs Cost icludes eforcemet staff, the Judicial Review uit ad the cost of Volutary Assisted Returs Detetio ad removal escort cotractor costs Comprisig detetio cetre cotractor costs ad removal escort cotractor costs Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual costs The estimated cost of New Asylum Model cases appealed through the Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual Total Source: Natioal Audit Office aalysis of UK Border Agecy data NOTE A further 12 millio per aum is paid by the UK Border Agecy to Local Authorities to cover the costs of supportig uaccompaied asylum-seekig childre who have bee grated leave to remai i the UK util aged 17½ through the New Asylum Model process. Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 15

18 Part two The applicatio process 2.1 This part of the report cosiders whether the Agecy is improvig the effectiveess with which it maages asylum applicatios. Stage 1 Startig the process Makig the applicatio 2.2 A applicatio for Asylum i the UK must be made i perso as soo as possible after arrival ad ca be made at the port of etry. I most cases, applicatios are made after arrival i the UK at oe of two Asylum Screeig Uits i Croydo or Liverpool. Applicatios are also made at Local Eforcemet Offices (local UK Border Agecy offices where immigratio staff resposible for eforcemet are located), typically followig a immigratio eforcemet operatio or after cotact with the police. At the place where they make their claim, which might be the port of etry, Asylum Screeig Uit or Local Eforcemet Office, the asylum applicat is the iterviewed as part of a process kow as screeig, to establish their backgroud, reasos for applyig for asylum ad their route ito the UK, ad is the allocated to a Case Ower i oe of the regioal offices or at a detetio cetre, a process kow as routig. Whilst o decisio is made at the screeig ad routig stage about whether or ot the applicatio should be accepted or ot, it is importat as claims may be suitable for differet processes, icludig the fast-track processes maaged whilst the applicat is i a detetio cetre (see Box 2 for differet processes ivolvig detetio). Screeig 2.3 We foud that of the 49,834 asylum applicats over the period Jauary August 2008, 13,684 (27.5 per cet) had ot had a full screeig iterview withi two days of their applicatio. I their ow review of screeig, the Agecy foud that 76 per cet of cases where the screeig iterview was ot complete were claims made at Local Eforcemet Offices. Staff told us that the mai reasos that screeig did ot take place were pressure to refer applicats to Case Owers (without havig bee screeed i advace) withi two days ad a lack of uderstadig of the process. O some occasios, there were ot eough immigratio officers o duty out of hours to process applicatios arisig from operatios or police actio. The Agecy is coductig a trial at Oakigto to coduct screeig iterviews for asylum applicatios arisig from out-of-hours operatios i the Midlads ad East of Eglad. 2.4 Without establishig the applicat s backgroud, reasos for claimig Asylum ad route ito the UK there is potetial to miss cases that should be maaged through the much quicker third-coutry or No-Suspesive Appeal processes. There is also a risk that applicats are put i detetio iappropriately. The Agecy told us that from Jauary -August 2008, 842 cases had to be take out of the Detaied Fast-Track process to be maaged by oe of the regioal asylum teams, because the case became more complex. A total of 384 were take out at Yarl s Wood, a drop-out rate of early 50 per cet, ad 458 from Harmodsworth, a drop-out rate of some 30 per cet. If the Agecy gathered more iformatio about the potetial complexity ad appropriateess of cases for detetio at the start of the process, these reallocatios could be avoided. 2.5 The screeig iterview is also a good time to start assessmet of the potetial for harm posed by a applicat, for example, if they have a history of offedig. From our file review, we foud 34 out of 145 cases (24 per cet) had a risk assessmet carried out at some stage. From 1 April 2008, the Agecy has itroduced a tool to assess the risk of harm posed by each asylum applicat. 16 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

19 part two The cost of stage oe 2.6 Screeig ad routig, where it is decided how ad where the case will be maaged, takes up to two days. It takes loger, however, to assess whether or ot a asylum applicat is etitled to accommodatio provided by the Agecy. For a average of 20 days, applicats are therefore provided with short-term accommodatio (iitial accommodatio) whilst their etitlemet is assessed before the beig moved to loger-term accommodatio (dispersed accommodatio). 2.7 This iitial stage of the process accouted for some 54 millio, some 30 per cet of the cost of the process i -08, primarily because of the time that is still spet i iitial accommodatio, which accouted for 26 millio. I -08, with aroud 1,200 applicats i iitial accommodatio each week, iitial accommodatio cost a average of aroud 60 per perso per ight. This icludes the cost of meals ad support services. The loger-term dispersed accommodatio cost o average 13 per perso per ight for the accommodatio oly ad, if etitled, cash support is provided i additio. BOX 2 Differet Asylum processes ivolvig detetio Detaied Fast-Track: A Fast-Track process for cosiderig a asylum applicatio. While the applicatio is cosidered, the applicat is held at a Immigratio ad Removal Cetre, either at Harmodsworth ear Heathrow (males) or Yarl s Wood i Bedfordshire (females ad families with childre). Ay asylum claim may be cosidered suitable for the Detaied Fast-Track process where it appears, after screeig, to be oe where a quick decisio could be made. Cases may be excluded from this process for a umber of reasos icludig medical reasos, pregacy, victims of traffickig or torture ad uaccompaied asylum seekig childre. Third Coutry Cases: Uder the Dubli II regulatios 1 if a applicat has arrived i the UK by travellig through aother coutry withi the Europea Uio, or aother coutry cosidered safe, the Agecy may require the applicat to pursue their claim with the coutry that they travelled through. The applicat will be set back to that coutry. While i the UK, applicats are put i a detetio cetre. No-Suspesive or out-of-coutry Appeal Cases: Asylum applicats whose claims are certified to be clearly ufouded by the Agecy may oly appeal agaist that decisio after removal. The Agecy has a list of coutries cosidered to be safe ad from where applicatios for Asylum are likely to be clearly ufouded. Such claims are maaged by a team at Oakigto Immigratio Removal Cetre, ear Cambridge, where applicats are also held i detetio. Stage 2 Processig the claim First Reportig Evet 2.8 The first reportig evet is a short meetig where it was iteded that the applicat would meet their Case Ower for the first time. Case Owers told us that this meetig is usually delegated to more juior staff because of time pressure. The meetig is very short, ca ivolve participats travellig log distaces, ad applicats typically do ot meet their Case Ower. The Agecy has give more flexibility to regioal asylum teams as to who coducts the meetig ad what actios are carried out. Nevertheless, the first reportig evet icurs a cost, which it has ot bee possible to quatify from the available iformatio, ad creates icoveiece to those ivolved for little beefit. Quality of decisio-makig review by maagemet 2.9 Legal represetatives ad staff resposible for represetig the Agecy i court told us that decisio letters writte by Case Owers are i geeral of better quality tha i the past. There is o documeted systematic process for a review by seior team members or lie maagemet of the decisios made by Case Owers. Out of the 145 files reviewed, we foud evidece o oly seve files that maagemet review had take place. We did ot fid evidece of advice give by maagemet, ad foud oly oe example where a decisio had bee chaged For ew Case Owers, all decisios are reviewed by a Seior Caseworker, but the review of decisios by experieced Case Owers is icosistet. I Cardiff ad Harmodsworth all decisios are reviewed, while i Solihull ad Cetral Lodo the approach is uclear. From iterviews with staff, some Seior Caseworkers do review a selectio of grats ad refusals, but maagers ted to advise o more complex cases o request, rather tha coduct a systematic review of a sample where each case has a equal chace of beig checked. I Cetral Lodo, staff told us that they rely more o the cetral Quality Assurace Team. NOTE 1 The Dubli II Regulatio (Europea Coucil Regulatio No 343/2003) established a set of hierarchical criteria for determiig the EU member state resposible for examiig a asylum applicatio lodged i oe of the member states by a third-coutry atioal. Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 17

20 part two Quality Assurace Team 2.11 The Agecy has had a asylum Quality Assurace Team i place sice September, idepedet of the regioal Asylum teams. The UNHCR has bee ivolved with capacity-buildig exercises with the Quality Assurace Team sice its creatio, to help esure cosistecy i its fidigs, ad is helpig to develop quality assessmet tools. The results of the quality audits sice March are show i Figure 5. Scores are defied as follows: a decisio that is excellet scores 97 per cet; fully effective scores 87 per cet; ot fully effective scores uder 87 per cet; ad poor scores uder 75 per cet. There was a uderstadable drop i rated performace i September as the ew Quality Assurace Team took over, but thereafter quality scores improved through to March 2008, followed by a slight reductio We foud that Case Owers value the direct feedback that they receive from quality assessors. The Agecy does ot, however, systematically dissemiate lessos to all Case Owers. The audit report for April 2008 reported that the same problems are recurrig each moth. For example, reports have cosistetly stated that over 20 per cet of Case Owers fail to idetify i the decisio letter the asylum applicat s future fear as part of the basis of claim. The May 2008 report stated that ofte Case Owers have ot see guidace cotaied i the quality audit report Whilst the Quality Assurace process examies the decisio-makig process, ad the extet to which it has bee followed by the Case Ower i iterviews ad decisio letters, it is ot followed up with a assessmet of whether or ot the decisio that has bee made is robust. The Agecy s quality assessors foud that out of 1,085 cases sampled, 136 applicats (13 per cet) were refused Asylum based o decisio letters that were rated as poor or ot fully 5 Quality Assurace scores March May 2008 Percetage of criteria assessed as correct Mar-07 May-07 Jul-07 Sep-07 Nov-07 Ja-08 Mar-08 May-08 Quality of iterviews coducted Quality of decisio casework completed Source: Natioal Audit Office aalysis of UK Border Agecy data NOTE The Quality Auditor rates the Case Ower s decisio accordig to 52 distict, weighted criteria. Not all criteria will be applicable i all cases. 18 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

21 part two effective (Figure 6). A similar proportio of iterviews i cases that were refused Asylum were also rated as poor or ot fully effective. Without a documeted process which ca be demostrated to take corrective or prevetative actio, there is a risk that poor decisios will be missed. The oly route available to idetify where a asylum applicatio has bee icorrectly refused ad to reverse it is the Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual. However, the process should be effective i itself, aim to make a robust decisio first time ad miimise recourse to appeals. The Tribual will ot pick up decisios to grat Asylum which were icorrect ad which should have bee refused. A appeal ca also double the cost of a asylum claim. Speed ad Volume of Decisios 2.14 Iitially, to operate the New Asylum Model, the Agecy set up 25 ew asylum teams each with 12 Case Owers. Whe some cases started to be progressed through the model i late 2006, the umber of decisios made by Case Owers rose to the extet that i early, decisios exceeded the umber of applicatios for asylum (see Figure 7 overleaf). Sice March, 6 Quality assurace scores by ratig category ad case outcome September May 2008 Quality audit ratig Excellet Fully effective Not fully effective Poor Case ot completed Total sampled Source: Natioal Audit Office aalysis of UK Border Agecy data NOTES Decisio letters achievig each ratig Number Percetage , Percetage does ot add up to 100 due to roudig. Number where the decisio was to refuse Asylum 2 This table summarises the quality audit ratig for 1,085 decisio letters sampled by the Quality Audit Team over the period September May whe all ew asylum applicatios were maaged through the ew process, the umber of applicatios rose from 4,960 i the secod quarter peakig at 6,870 i the fourth quarter before fallig back to 5,720 applicatios i the secod quarter of This icrease was largely accouted for by a doublig of applicatios for Asylum from Iraq ad Eritrea, to 1,255 ad 1,205 respectively, ad a 50 per cet icrease i applicatios from Zimbabwe to 1,055. The umber of decisios made by Case Owers fell over the same period, ad the backlog of decisios more tha doubled from 4,200 i the secod quarter of to 8,700 i the secod quarter of The umber of decisios made by Case Owers rose slightly i the secod quarter of There is therefore a risk posed by chages i itake, ad the system may ot be sufficietly robust to react to sustaied icreases i applicatios. The New Asylum Model had oly bee i full operatio for three moths, however, whe the umber of applicatios started to rise. The New Asylum Model ca i theory be easily adjusted to match demad. I respose to a icrease i workload, ad turover of staff, the Agecy has icreased the umber of Case Owers o each team ad is curretly recruitig to fill those posts. The ability to react quickly to icreases i applicatios is limited by the period of recruitmet ad traiig. The majority of the cost of a asylum applicatio is directly related to the legth of time it takes to coclude, because of the cost of accommodatio ad welfare support. For example, a family that is provided with accommodatio, goes all the way through the process ad is the refused ad removed ca cost betwee 26,000 ad 60, The Agecy aims to give half of all asylum applicats a decisio withi oe moth of applicatio ad to give 80 per cet a decisio withi two moths. From our aalysis of the Agecy s data we foud that i August 2008, of 27,702 asylum decisios made betwee Jauary ad Jue 2008 i cases maaged by regioal asylum teams, oe third of applicats had received decisios withi two moths. The Case Ower had made a decisio withi 30 days i oly 16 per cet of cases, with a further 17 per cet decided withi 30 to 60 days. Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 19