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: [email protected] 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

22 part two 7 The umber of applicatios for asylum, decisios made by the Home Office ad decisios outstadig Number of applicats (000s) Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q Q Applicatios for Asylum Applicatios awaitig a Home Office decisio Decisios made by the Home Office Source: Home Office quarterly asylum statistics NOTE The decisio is that made by a Home Office official, ow the resposibility of a Case Ower withi the UK Border Agecy, prior to ay subsequet appeal, o the basis of the asylum applicatio. Stage 3 Appealig agaist the decisio 2.17 Aroud 70 per cet of asylum applicats appeal agaist the decisio by the Case Ower. The appeal is the logest elemet of the process from asylum applicatio to coclusio, which the Agecy aims to complete i six moths. For cases beig maaged through the New Asylum Model process, the Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual has a performace target to promulgate 75 per cet of its decisios at the first stage of appeal withi six weeks of receipt of a applicatio for appeal, ad 85 per cet withi 12 weeks. Figure 8 shows that performace has improved, but the six-week target had ot quite bee achieved up to May 2008 (73 per cet). There are o targets for cocludig oward rights of appeal The Tribual has 10 days from the substative hearig to make its decisio ad to pass the decisio to the Agecy. The Agecy the has up to 24 days to serve the decisio to the asylum applicat, either i perso or by post. Prior to servig a decisio, the Agecy decides whether or ot to apply for recosideratio. The Agecy ow iteds to issue the appeal decisio to the asylum applicat withi 48 hours ad has issued istructios to this effect Sice the ed of 2005, some per cet of appeals to the Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual have bee upheld (see Figure 9 o page 22). I, 23 per cet were allowed. This ca occur for reasos beyod the Case Ower s cotrol such as a chage of circumstaces i the coutry of origi sice they made their decisio. 20 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

23 part two 8 Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual performace agaist targets to promulgate appeal results withi 6 ad 12 weeks Percetage of decisios promulgated withi target time Apr-05 Apr-06 Apr-07 Apr-08 Percetage of decisios promulgated withi 12 weeks Percetage of decisios promulgated withi six weeks Source: Natioal Audit Office aalysis of Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual data Appeals may also be upheld because the Case Ower has ot preseted sufficiet evidece to support their decisio. Presetig Officers sometimes provide feedback to Case Owers o how the evidece supportig the case ca be improved, for example, by ot cocedig poits of argumet without supportig evidece or usig iformatio that was out of date. There is, however, o formal way of idetifyig where appeals may be failig because of errors i Case Owers decisio-makig Applicatios for Judicial Review i asylum cases typically come at the ed of the process, prior to removal, ad impact o the legth of time take to coclude a case. As show i Figure 10 overleaf, there are o average 230 applicatios for Judicial Review per moth, of which less tha 10 per cet are grated permissio to proceed. A very small umber of Judicial Reviews are successful (oly oe durig the period Jauary 2008 April 2008) ad the majority of substative decisios take more tha six moths. Durig the period Jauary to April 2008, the umber of applicatios for Judicial Review represeted some 20 per cet of the umber of idividuals subject to a removal directio. I April 2008, 157 escorted removals (20 per cet) were cacelled because of Judicial Review or other legal actio, 25 after the escort had collected the failed asylum applicat but prior to leavig the UK. The low level of success ad impact o removals suggests that the Judicial Review is used to block the Agecy from takig removal actio. The Agecy is workig with the Miistry of Justice to fid a solutio where a applicatio for Judicial Review o loger prevets the removal of a failed asylum applicat. Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 21

24 part two 9 Outcome of appeals determied by the Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual Number of people who appealed (000s) Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q Q Number of appeals allowed Number of appeals withdraw Number of appeals dismissed Source: Home Office quarterly asylum statistics 10 Judicial Reviews i Asylum cases Jauary April 2008 Jauary 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 Number of removal directios set by the UK Border Agecy (cout of idividuals) 1 1,270 1,134 1,234 1,000 Number of Asylum applicatios for Judicial Review Number of Asylum applicatios grated permissio to proceed with Judicial Review Number of successful Judicial Reviews at substative hearig Percetage of substative decisios made withi six moths of receipt of the applicatio for the Judicial Review Source: UK Border Agecy ad Admiistrative Court Office data NOTE 1 This data shows the umber of idividuals subject to removal directios. Removal directios ca be set agaist a idividual o more tha oe occasio due to cacellatios. Data o removal directios is based o provisioal iteral maagemet iformatio ad is subject to chage. 22 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

25 part two Stage 4 Cocludig the case Removals 2.21 The umber of removals of failed asylum applicats achieved by the Agecy has falle over the period (see Figure 11) Figure 12 overleaf shows the umber of asylum applicats betwee Jauary ad February 2008, the umber refused Asylum ad the umber ad proportio of those subsequetly removed by August The data show that the majority of removals have bee achieved by the teams maagig asylum applicatios i detetio. Of those who applied for Asylum over the period Jauary February 2008 ad the refused Asylum by the ew regioal asylum teams, oly seve to ie per cet were removed by August I cotrast, per cet of those refused Asylum i the Detaied Fast Track or No Suspesive Appeal processes were removed by August As the New Asylum Model has bee i full operatio for oly a year it is ot surprisig that removals from cases maaged through the model should be relatively low. The situatio is, however, aggravated by a lack of detetio space (see sectios ) i which to detai failed asylum applicats i the days prior to removal to reduce the risk of abscodig. A low rate of removals meas removal is ot a credible icetive for applicats to comply with the process ad is ot a sufficiet deterret for those who might make a ufouded claim. These factors will make it difficult for the Agecy to meet its targets for cocludig cases. A risig backlog of cases refused Asylum but ot removed, who oetheless remai eligible for support, will icrease the cost of providig accommodatio ad support The cost of the ed stage of the New Asylum Model process from the otificatio of a rejected appeal to departure from the UK totalled 46 millio. We estimate that this stage would have cost 72 millio for a full year of operatio. The largest elemet is accommodatio ad cash support. Better value for moey could be achieved if more removals were effected quickly ad support cost savigs achieved A sigificat barrier to removal is the availability of Emergecy Travel Documets ad, i some cases, atios which do ot recogise ad accept back their atioals. Work is beig doe by the Agecy ad the Foreig ad Commowealth Office to egotiate with embassies, High Commissios ad foreig govermets. These egotiatios take time ad agreemets have bee reached with some atios, icludig Chia. For some atios there is curretly a legal barrier to removal or o safe route for people to retur home. For example, removals to Zimbabwe are curretly deferred util the appeal process over whether it is safe to retur Zimbabweas has bee completed. 11 Removal of failed asylum applicats 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Q Q Q Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q Q Source: Home Office quarterly asylum statistics NOTE Icludes eforced ad volutary departures. Excludes depedats. Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 23

26 part two 12 Asylum applicatios Jauary February 2008, the umber refused asylum, ad the umber ad proportio subsequetly removed by regio New Asylum Model Regio Total umber of asylum applicats Total umber of applicats refused asylum Applicats refused asylum ad removed by August 2008 Number Percetage No-Suspesive Appeal cases, Oakigto Detaied Fast-Track 1,025 1, Third Coutry Uit 1,955 1,741 1, North East ad Humber 5,101 2, Midlad ad East 4,161 1, Cetral Lodo 3,685 1, West Lodo North West 4,325 1, Scotlad ad Norther Irelad 2,013 1, Wales ad South West 1, Grad Total 25,529 13,869 3, Source: Natioal Audit Office aalysis of UK Border Agecy data NOTE Excludes depedats ad volutary returs The Agecy has a cetral uit resposible for applyig to embassies ad High Commissios for travel ad other idetity documets to eable asylum ad other immigratio applicats to be retured. Typically, the uit will apply for a Emergecy Travel Documet so that a applicat ca be set back home whe their claim has bee rejected. Some of these documets are paid for by the Agecy. Case Owers told us that it ca take a log time to obtai travel documets through the cetral uit ad that there is o formal way to speed up the process for applicats held i detetio. Iteral maagemet iformatio shows that the Agecy had, however, applied for ad bee offered up to 13,000 Emergecy Travel Documets by overseas govermets which it has ot used, 10,000 of them for Asylum cases. Of the 10,000 potetially available documets, over 7,000 are related to cases for which there are o remaiig barriers that should prevet the applicat from beig removed. Of the 10,000, however, 987 (10 per cet) have expired ad caot be used without revalidatio ad 1,465 (15 per cet) are i the process of beig used ad removal actio is beig take, 1,263 (13 per cet) have bee grated Asylum ad 1,338 (13 per cet) have abscoded. The remaiig 5,000 documets could potetially be used ow to support the removal of failed asylum applicats. Escorts 2.27 I iterviews, Case Owers ad staff resposible for removals idetified failures i escorted removals as a barrier to removal. Escorted removals are udertake uder cotract by G4S. Sevety per cet of escorts are beig cacelled, the majority by the Agecy due to legal actio, such as Judicial Reviews, ad flight issues (see Figure 13). Flight issues arise for a umber of reasos, for example, airlies refusig to allow the Agecy to use a particular flight ad the wait for coectig flights beig too log i a usafe locatio. To cope with this level of cacellatios, G4S double book tasks. Where cacellatios do ot arise G4S has to cacel oe of the tasks it has double-booked ad, where the task caot be carried out by alterative cotractors from a approved list, is pealised through cotract moitorig There is also a lack of coordiatio betwee escort bookig ad flight bookig. Case Owers caot reserve airlie seats for the period of time that it takes to book escorts ad caot chage the ame of a escort o a flight without cacellig ad rebookig. Cosequetly, Case Owers ad removals staff have to book escorts first, so that they have the ames of escorts before they book 24 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

27 part two flights. Frequetly, flights become fully booked or the space allowed by the airlie for immigratio removals has already bee booked by aother part of the Agecy. Staff the have to cacel the escorts ad go through the process agai. The Agecy is aware of the problem ad is coductig a pilot to book flights ad escorts at the same time, although the ature of the problem ad the measures beig take to address it have ot bee commuicated to staff. Volutary Assisted Retur ad Reitegratio Programme 2.29 The Volutary Assisted Retur ad Reitegratio Programme is desiged to help people retur home. It is ope to all applicats, those whose applicatio has bee refused, ad those who have bee give permissio to stay i the Uited Kigdom temporarily. The programme is paid for by the Agecy ad from the Europea Refugee Fud ad ru by the Iteratioal Orgaizatio for Migratio. 13 Cacellatio of escorts October Jue 2008 Number of removals completed: 1,779 Number of removals cacelled before the start: 4,286 Number of removals cacelled after the start: 532 Reaso for cacellatio before start Job tured dow by G4S: 1,047 Due to Judicial Review/legal issue: 915 Documet/bookig problem: 73 Reaso for cacellatio after start Other: 128 Detaiee issue: 595 Flight issues: 1,229 Other: 500 Detaiee disruptive: 117 Due to Judicial Review/legal issue: 214 Source: Natioal Audit Office aalysis of Agecy data NOTES 1 Jobs are tured dow by G4S because they are ot viable or because G4S does ot have the resources to carry out the task for reasos icludig double bookig. 2 Reasos for cacellatio before the start: Other icludes Agecy admiistrative issues ad ame chages o flight bookigs. 3 Reasos for cacellatio after the start: Other icludes airport ad airlie delays, traffic delays, vehicle breakdow, medical icidets ad a detaiee ot beig ready for collectio. Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 25

28 part two 2.30 Our 2005 report recommeded ecouragig more volutary returs. I 2006, the Agecy itroduced icetives where the moetary value of the beefits from the programme was icreased for a limited period of time. Returs peaked at 5,328 i 2006, early oe-third of all removals i that year, whe beefits offered icreased to 3,000. Returs have falle sice the. The Agecy cocluded that whilst there were a rage of factors ifluecig take-up of the Volutary Assisted Retur ad Reitegratio Programme, icetives had delayed volutary returs ad that each subsequet icetive period had less of a impact as applicats wait for a better package (see Figure 14) I October, the Agecy itroduced a ew package: the Idividual Retur Pla, which ca be tailored to the eeds of the idividual, icludig idividual family members. The programme provides cash grats of 500 per family member up frot ad a rage of beefits up to a maximum of 4,000 each. These beefits, icludig busiess set-up costs, traiig ad educatio, are maily provided i kid i the coutry i which the idividual or family is settlig ad are paid directly to service providers The Agecy is doig more to promote the Volutary Assisted Retur ad Reitegratio Programme. For example, the offer of assistace is a stadard part of the first reportig evet ad is icluded i iformatio give to the applicat at later stages i the process. But Case Owers told us that if a applicat takes up the optio of the Volutary Assisted Retur, they do ot get the credit for the removal which reduces the icetive for staff to promote the programme. The Agecy proposes to chage the performace maagemet regime Nearly half of returs uder the programme take place after the decisio to refuse Asylum. Aroud oe third take place after a appeal has bee dismissed. The time take to complete a Volutary Assisted Retur is o average 50 days loger tha for a eforced retur. The delay ca be for a umber of reasos icludig availability of travel documets. But a volutary retur is cheaper ad the idividuals ivolved have more choice i whe they retur, allowig them for example to complete educatio or medical treatmet, ad it is more positive for those ivolved. We foud that retur uder the programme cost less tha eforced removals by 100 3,400 for a sigle adult ad by 1,400-14,600 for a family, despite takig loger ad perhaps icurrig higher support costs. 14 Returs uder the Volutary Assisted Retur ad Reitegratio Programme, Number of returees 1,000 Value of reitegratio package 5, Idividual Retur Plas itroduced 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Jauary 2005 April 2005 July 2005 October 2005 Jauary 2006 April 2006 July 2006 October 2006 Jauary April July October Jauary Number of volutary departures (left had axis) Value of reitegratio package (right had axis) Source: Iteratioal Orgaizatio for Migratio 26 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

29 part two 2.34 Aroud half of those who apply for the Volutary Assisted Retur ad Reitegratio Programme curretly retur home usig those beefits. I the period 2006, of those who did ot retur usig those beefits half were cacelled by the applicat ad 23 per cet of applicatios were rejected by the Agecy as ot suitable. The Agecy is evaluatig the programme to idetify the reasos. Gratig Refugee Status 2.35 The umber of applicats grated Asylum by Case Owers has bee risig slowly (see Figure 15) Whilst Case Owers might coclude early o that a applicat should be grated Asylum, they ca leave the formal decisio util close to the six-moth poit ad still hit the target. I over 60 per cet of cases, Case Owers workig i regioal offices take more tha two moths to decide to grat Asylum (Figure 16 overleaf), while refusal decisios are quicker. This delay i decisios to grat Asylum would result i uecessary expediture o accommodatio ad support ad prolog ucertaity for the applicat At the time of our fieldwork, there was o stadard package of assistace available to which Case Owers could refer refugees for help to settle i the UK. Stakeholders told us that commo barriers to itegratio are laguage ad a lack of uderstadig of how services, such as baks ad the beefits system, operate. Followig a pilot project the Agecy has let cotracts for a Refugee Itegratio ad Employmet Service, which are ow operatig across the UK. The service provides support to refugees for a period of 12 moths, tailored accordig to their eeds, coverig three areas: a advice ad support service offerig help i addressig iitial critical eeds such as housig, educatio ad access to beefits; a employmet advice service to help the perso eter log-term employmet at the earliest opportuity; ad a metorig service offerig the perso a opportuity to be matched with a metor from the receivig commuity. Future Risks 2.38 Sice 2005, a grat of refugee status is for five years, ot idefiitely. This meas that after five years, refugee status will be re-examied ad could be revoked ad the refugee retured home, because the situatio has improved; or the refugee could apply for UK citizeship. There is curretly, however, o process i place to keep track of refugees ad the resources to coduct the reviews from 2010 have ot bee plaed. Over 23,000 applicats, excludig depedats, have bee grated refugee status sice 2005, either by the Agecy or after their appeal was upheld. Of these, early 8,000 were grated refugee status i 2005 ad will eed to be reviewed i Similarly, uaccompaied asylum seekig childre are typically grated leave to remai util 17½ years old. Case Owers are ot ecessarily aware of the process for reviewig these cases. The Agecy iteds to review each case oce they reach the age of 17½, to determie whether or ot the applicat should be grated further leave to remai i this coutry or be set home, ad has issued istructios to this effect. 15 Number of applicats grated Asylum, humaitaria protectio or discretioary leave to remai Number of people 1,200 1, Q Q Q Q Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q Q Iitial Decisio: Grated Asylum Iitial Decisio: Grated Humaitaria Protectio/Leave to Remai Source: Home Office quarterly asylum statistics Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 27

30 part two 16 Timeliess of the Case Ower s decisio to grat or refuse Asylum, discretioary leave to remai or humaitaria protectio Grat decisios Refusal decisios Decisio withi 30 days: 14 per cet Decisio withi 30 to 60 days: 24 per cet Decisio withi 30 days: 30 per cet Decisio withi 30 to 60 days: 24 per cet Decisio loger tha 60 days: 62 per cet Decisio loger tha 60 days: 46 per cet Source: Natioal Audit Office aalysis of UK Border Agecy data NOTE These charts reflect all decisios made by New Asylum Model Case Owers i regioal offices to grat or refuse Asylum, discretioary leave to remai or humaitaria protectio durig the period Jauary August Cases maaged via detaied routes are excluded. 28 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

31 Part three Performace agaist targets Coclusio target 3.1 The Public Service Agreemet states that the Govermet will esure that by 2011, withi six moths of applicatio, 90 per cet of all asylum cases will have bee cocluded, with applicats either returig to their coutry of origi or beig grated protectio i the UK. The Agecy has iterim targets betwee ow ad 2011; to coclude 60 per cet, 75 per cet ad 90 per cet of cases i six moths by December 2008, 2009 ad 2011 respectively (see Figure 17). 3.2 The Agecy moitors performace agaist cohorts of applicatios received each moth. As the six-moth coclusio targets are to be reached i December each year, applicatios received i the precedig Jue are the primary focus for the Agecy. Cases that are older tha six moths, or applicatios made i moths other tha Jue, ad which therefore do ot cotribute to the coclusio target, are evertheless beig cocluded. Whilst the Agecy does moitor these cases, there are, however, o correspodig performace targets to provide a icetive to teams to progress them. Some regios have set up teams specifically to progress older cases. 17 Trajectory to reach 90 per cet coclusio rate by 2011 Percetage of cases cocluded withi six moths Mar Ju Sep Dec Mar 2008 Ju 2008 Sep 2008 Dec 2008 Mar 2009 Ju 2009 Sep 2009 Dec 2009 Mar 2010 Ju 2010 Sep 2010 Dec 2010 Mar 2011 Ju 2011 Sep 2011 Dec 2011 Coclusio rate achieved (Adjusted) Target Source: Natioal Audit Office aalysis of UK Border Agecy data NOTE The coclusio rate achieved has bee adjusted to exclude cases where, havig progressed a case as far as possible, there is a legal barrier, outside of the Agecy s cotrol, which prevets removal. Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 29

32 part three 3.3 To date the Agecy has exceeded its iterim targets; i March to coclude 35 per cet of cases withi six moths ad i December to coclude 40 per cet of cases withi six moths. The Agecy eeds to improve performace cosiderably, however, to meet its iterim target to coclude 60 per cet of cases withi six moths by December May staff are cocered about how achievable the coclusio target is, particularly where the ability to coclude a case is outside of the Agecy s cotrol. For example, a Case Ower caot remove a claimat to Zimbabwe pedig the outcome of a appeal hearig, so caot coclude the case where Asylum is refused. I respose, the Govermet has adjusted the target to remove cases where there is a geeral legal barrier to removig idividuals. However, Case Owers must progress the case to the poit at which the barrier stops ay further actio, for example to where appeal rights have bee exhausted. 3.4 As a result of the icrease i itake, cases have bee prioritised by workig o those which are easier to coclude to meet the six-moth coclusio target. Cosequetly, more complex cases will have take more time tha ecessary, icreasig the amout spet o support. The performace targets do ot provide a icetive for teams to miimise costs. Similarly, targets to improve quality of decisio-makig are ot set ad moitored alogside coclusio targets. Tippig poit 3.5 The Agecy cotiues to work towards achievig the tippig poit objective, whereby more failed asylum seekers are removed tha make ufouded claims. Figure 18 shows that it was achieved i 2006 but ot subsequetly, as priority has bee give to the removal of foreig atioal prisoers. Case Owership 3.6 I the Public Service Agreemet, the Agecy said it would esure that a sigle Case Ower i a regioal asylum team maages each ew applicatio from the begiig to coclusio to esure that applicats receive a better service ad applicatios are cocluded more quickly. Case Owership has improved the process through which asylum applicatios are maaged. Case Owers are able to become familiar with the case ad ca build a rapport with the applicats ad their legal represetatives. May staff are also egaged i establishig ad improvig relatioships with exteral stakeholders. Legal represetatives ad stakeholders ow have someoe who they ca cotact who will kow about the case. 3.7 There is, however, cocer that the Case Ower is ot persoally ivolved throughout the whole process. I the origial cocept for the New Asylum Model, it was expected that Case Owership would mea that a Case Ower would persoally carry out all the tasks ivolved i a asylum applicatio, icludig defedig the case at appeal. I reality may Case Owers persoally coduct the substative iterview ad make the decisio whilst other tasks, such as the provisio of asylum support, are carried out by admiistrative ad support staff. Represetatio of the Agecy at the appeal is aother task that may be carried out by a Presetig Officer, rather tha the Case Ower. Whilst this chage to the model as origially evisaged may be i part because of the icrease i Case Owers workload, it is also a more efficiet use of resources. Importatly, the Case Ower still remais resposible for the case ad for esurig that each actio ad evet occurs. 30 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

33 part three 18 Performace agaist the tippig poit target Number of applicats (000s) Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Removals Aticipated Ufouded Applicatios Total Applicatios Tippig poit achieved Source: Natioal Audit Office aalysis of UK Border Agecy data Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 31

34 Part Four Facilities to make the process work 4.1 This part of the report cosiders whether the Agecy has the facilities ecessary to make the system work for every asylum applicatio. Buildigs ad facilities 4.2 I Cardiff the Asylum Teams, Reportig Cetre ad Eforcemet staff are located i the same buildig together with iterview rooms, helpig to foster stroger liks betwee the differet teams. Coordiated workig is promoted by, for example, allowig issues to be quickly resolved through daily face-to-face cotact. Not all offices are co-located: i Cetral Lodo ad Solihull, Case Owers are i separate buildigs from iterview rooms, which are withi the Local Eforcemet Offices. 4.3 Reportig Cetres are ot always coveiet for asylum applicats. For example, the Reportig Cetre i the Midlads ad East of Eglad is located i Solihull. May of the legal represetatives are located i Birmigham, ad asylum applicats have difficulty travellig to Solihull. As some applicats have their travel paid for by the Agecy, time ad cost could be saved by locatig Reportig Cetres closer to mai trasport hubs. Detetio space 4.4 Lack of detetio space is a sigificat barrier to cocludig asylum cases. As Figure 19 demostrates, there is a close correlatio betwee the umber of detetio bedspaces available ad the umber of eforced removals achieved. Asylum applicats processed through the New Asylum Model may be detaied for the few days before removal, to prevet abscodig. Detaied Fast Track, Third Coutry ad No-Suspesive Appeal cases are held i detetio for the duratio of their applicatio. 4.5 Not all staff are clear whether there are criteria for selectig cases for the Detaied Fast-Track process. The Agecy has ow published guidace, icludig selectio criteria, for assessig whether cases are suitable for either Detaied Fast-Track or No-Suspesive Appeals processes. The key criterio for icludig a case i the Detaied Fast-Track process is whether or ot it ca be cocluded quickly. There are also a umber of reasos why a applicat should be excluded from the process, icludig a umber of medical reasos, pregacy, uaccompaied asylum-seekig childre ad those where there is idepedet evidece of torture or traffickig. The ability to correctly assess a case as beig appropriate for the Detaied Fast-Track process is depedet o sufficiet evidece beig obtaied durig screeig at the start of the process. 4.6 The Agecy s detetio strategy states that 800 bedspaces are required for asylum applicatios beig maaged through fast-track processes i detetio. Curretly there are 473 bedspaces available. The Agecy estimates that up to 150 cases per moth, which would otherwise be appropriate to be maaged i detetio, are therefore beig released ad maaged by asylum teams i the regios. As show i Figure 12, release sigificatly reduces the likelihood that a failed asylum applicat will be successfully removed from the UK. 4.7 Overall, the Agecy estimates that i the mediumterm it eeds some 4,000 bedspaces to support all of its immigratio removals activity. This umber icludes the removal of asylum cases maaged by the regioal asylum teams where detetio is ecessary to prevet idividuals from abscodig i the few days prior to their removal. The immigratio removal estate, however, curretly oly provides 2,533 bedspaces at 10 locatios (see Figure 20). This shortfall is exacerbated by the allocatio of 1,200 bedspaces for foreig atioal prisoers while they are cosidered for deportatio. 32 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

35 part four 19 UK Border Agecy detetio bedspaces available for Asylum compared to the umber of eforced Asylum removals Asylum detetio bedspaces 2,500 2,000 1,500 Eforced Asylum removals 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, , Ja 2006 Apr 2006 July 2006 Oct 2006 Ja Apr July Oct Ja 2008 Apr 2008 July 2008 Asylum Detetio Bedspaces (left had scale) Eforced Removals (right had scale) Source: Natioal Audit Office aalysis of UK Border Agecy data NOTE Records the umber of detetio bedspaces available for sigle male ad female asylum applicats. Removals are eforced ad exclude volutary returs. 4.8 The Agecy has plas to expad the detetio estate. For example, Brook House, a ew Immigratio Removal Cetre, is beig built ear Gatwick ad should be completed by February 2009, providig 426 ew bedspaces. Detaied Fast-Track sigificatly reduces elapsed time ad mitigates the risk of asylum applicats abscodig, particularly at the time whe a applicatio or appeal is rejected ad eforcemet actio is plaed. 4.9 It is Govermet policy to hold some asylum applicats, icludig families with childre, i detetio whilst their asylum applicatios are cosidered. The Agecy does ot pla to expad detetio space for families. There are cocers, however, at the legth of time childre spet i detetio. I her recet report followig a ispectio at Yarl s Wood Immigratio Removals Cetre 2, HM Chief Ispector of Prisos expressed serious cocers about the welfare of childre, icludig disabled childre who ought ot to have bee detaied, ad the detrimetal effect o their welfare ad behaviour. The average legth of stay had icreased from eight days to 15 days, although the ispectio team foud the moitorig figures were iaccurate. 20 Immigratio removal cetre capacity Immigratio Removal Cetre Capacity Colbrook, Heathrow 385 Harmodsworth, Heathrow 259 Yarl s Wood, Bedfordshire (Females ad Families) 400 Tisley House, Gatwick 145 Dover 316 Campsfield, Oxfordshire 215 Lidholme 112 Dugavel, Scotlad 189 Haslar, Portsmouth 160 Oakigto 352 Total 2,533 Source: UK Border Agecy detetio strategy 2 Report o a aouced ispectio of Yarl s Wood Immigratio Removal Cetre 4 8 February 2008 by HM Chief Ispector of Prisos, May Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 33

36 part four Techology 4.10 A large amout of busiess is trasacted usig fax machies, which poses a greater risk of error tha alterative meas of commuicatio ad is costly. The Agecy does ot record separately the cost of telephoe lies beig used by fax machies, but cheaper forms of trasmittig documets are available, for example ad iteret portals Case Owers make hadwritte otes of substative iterviews, recordig each questio ad aswer verbatim. Iterviews are ot routiely tape-recorded, except whe requested by legal represetatives. With iterviews lastig aythig betwee two to six hours, Case Owers told us that writig otes at the same time as coductig the iterview is a sigificat challege. The Agecy is testig digital recordig ad trascriptio of substative iterviews with a pilot at its Cardiff office. The Agecy estimates that digital recordig could cut iterview times by as much as half ad double the availability of iterview rooms Whe processig a case, Case Owers regularly use two separate databases. The Casework Iformatio Database is used to record iformatio for case maagemet, while the Asylum Support System database is used to record support give to applicats. The databases ru o differet operatig systems, called Idigo ad POISE, which are uable to commuicate with each other. Time is wasted ad effort duplicated i swappig betwee systems ad repeatig tasks A large volume of work, icludig otes ad forms, is prited out ad had-writte, although electroic versios of the forms are available. This places pressure o storage space, ad the resultig storig of files outside Agecy offices ca lead to delays whe Case Owers subsequetly request files Case Owers have a strog icetive to keep the Casework Iformatio Database up to date, as they eed to record progress o processig claims i order to meet idividual performace targets. A dedicated team, based i Liverpool, coducts regular data quality checks ad assesses a radom sample of cases each week to check how may database etries are completed correctly. Quality check reports idicate that the Agecy is achievig a overall accuracy rate of 96 per cet, above its ow threshold of 95 per cet. However, the accuracy i recordig key evets was below average at 84 to 92 per cet accuracy. It ca be difficult to establish the status of a case ad the actios required to complete it The Agecy plas to provide a ew IT system through its Immigratio Casework Programme. Plaed beefits iclude automatio of backgroud checks ad reducig the amout of work doe o paper. It will be implemeted icremetally, with the programme due to start i for coductig history searches ad maagig more straightforward cases, ad edig i 2013 with a fully operatig system. Traiig 4.16 All ew Case Owers, Seior Caseworkers ad some Team Leaders complete a ew 55-day traiig programme desiged specifically for the New Asylum Model. The course, which cost some 6 millio, was delivered by a exteral cosultat. UNHCR commeted o the pilot phase of the traiig ad o the accompayig writte material ad has made further recommedatios for improvemet through the Quality Iitiative Case Owers give mixed reports about the quality of traiig they received. As this was a ew process, much of the traiig was ecessarily theory-based ad staff familiar with the process, who could aswer specific questios about how it would work i practice, were ot always available. While it did give them ecessary groudig i a complex area of law, the traiig could ot adequately prepare Case Owers for the practicalities of doig the job. 34 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

37 part four 4.18 I respose, the Agecy has chaged the traiig programme, ad some is ow delivered i-house. This traiig is ow takig place i asylum offices, ad icludes more practical experiece of workig alogside Case Owers from the start. Foudatio traiig was previously delivered i oe cotiuous period of 55 days, followed by a assessmet prior to a Case Ower takig o live cases. Traiig is ow delivered i two stages, with a formal assessmet of competece at the ed of stage two. This gap allows the Case Ower to gai practical experiece. The Case Ower ca, however, work o asylum applicatios betwee stages oe ad two without havig udertake a assessmet of competece, which the UNHCR has recommeded should be addressed through a competecy assessmet ad close supervisio. Traiig for the later stages of the asylum process appeals ad removals ad i use of the Casework Iformatio Database is ot yet see as adequate by all staff. Staff supportig the asylum process 4.19 Support staff who closely support the asylum process, icludig coductig first reportig evet iterviews, servig decisios ad providig admiistratio for accommodatio ad cash support for asylum applicats, see their traiig as geerally good. However, it is maily ad hoc, delivered i-house by lie maagers or other experieced staff. They are experiecig icreased workloads, with some reportig that they work at weekeds to catch up. I Cardiff, support staff have bee pooled to provide support to all teams ad Case Owers receive good support. There are also plas to merge teams of support staff i Cetral Lodo. Process costig 4.21 I costig the asylum process, we had difficulty gettig performace iformatio o some aspects of the asylum process, i particular o the later stages There is o routie aalysis of the cost of differet parts of the process or cost per case ad the Agecy does ot collate the costs associated with the New Asylum Model. Estimatig a sigle average cost for a asylum applicatio would be misleadig, as the cost of differet asylum applicatios varies sigificatly depedig o the characteristics of each case. Therefore, we selected 12 differet applicat profiles coverig sigle adults, families ad uaccompaied childre, comprisig differig processig routes ad outcomes. Cost estimates were the developed for each applicat profile (see Figure 21 overleaf). This type of iformatio would eable the Agecy to better uderstad, pla ad prioritise workload. For example, this demostrates the sigificatly higher cost of cases provided with accommodatio ad support, a cost which icreases as cases take loger to coclude. With further aalysis it would permit compariso of the efficiecy of regioal offices, achieve savigs from good practice, ad idetify where reallocatio of resources could achieve greater savigs, for example to reduce the umber of supported cases The morale of support staff ad eforcemet staff has bee affected by the itroductio of the New Asylum Model. A large umber of additioal staff were recruited for Asylum, whereas there had bee a freeze o recruitig for other areas ad grades. Support staff had uderstood that Case Owers were appoited at a higher grade, i a role traditioally set at Executive Officer level, because of the Case Ower s resposibility for leadig appeals at the Tribual. As they are ot doig so i most cases, staff questio the eed for the higher grade. Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 35

38 part four 21 Cost of typical Asylum cases -08 Cost of typical Asylum cases -08 Lower ed Upper ed Lower ed Upper ed estimate estimate estimate estimate Excludig accommodatio Icludig accommodatio ad support costs ad support costs Profile 1 Sigle adult, udetaied Grated Asylum by Case Ower 600 1,200 2,500 5,000 Profile 2 Sigle adult, udetaied Grated Asylum after 1,900 3,500 4,800 9,500 successful appeal Profile 3 Sigle adult, udetaied Volutary Assisted Retur after 7,100 13,600 11,900 23,700 secod appeal Profile 4 Sigle adult, udetaied Eforced removal 7,900 17,000 12,000 25,600 after appeal rights exhausted Profile 5 Family, udetaied Grated Asylum by Case Ower 900 1,700 6,200 12,600 Profile 6 Family, udetaied Grated Asylum after successful appeal 2,100 3,900 10,800 22,400 Profile 7 Family, udetaied Volutary Assisted Retur 9,400 19,900 24,400 52,600 after secod appeal Profile 8 Family, udetaied Eforced removal after 14,000 34,500 25,800 60,100 appeal rights exhausted Profile 9 Uaccompaied child Grated Asylum by Case Ower ,100 18,700 Profile 10 Uaccompaied child Iitial refusal followed by a 1,600 3,100 13,000 28,600 appeal ad leave to remai i the UK Profile 11 Sigle adult, Detaied Fast-Track Grated Asylum N/A N/A 2,100 4,100 by Case Ower Profile 12 Sigle adult, Detaied Fast-Track Removal after appeal N/A N/A 11,400 23,200 Source: Natioal Audit Office NOTES 1 The typical profiles represet commo paths take through the asylum process ad together represet over 80 per cet of all cases. 2 There are a rage of factors that ca affect the cost of a case, icludig complexity. We have therefore preseted a rage of costs for each profile (a lower ad upper estimate) both with ad without accommodatio ad support. 3 It is ot possible to coclude from this table that the higher ed of the rages ecessarily represet poor value for moey or that all cases should be cocluded at the cost equivalet to the lower ed estimates. 36 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

39 Part five Resolutio of Legacy Cases The size ad cost of the legacy 5.1 I its 2006 report o the removal of failed asylum applicats 3, the House of Commos Committee for Public Accouts recommeded that the Departmet should tackle the backlog. I 2006, the Agecy estimated that there was a legacy of 400, ,000 asylum applicatios, uresolved prior to the itroductio of the New Asylum Model. The Departmet s Public Service Agreemet states that the Agecy will clear the legacy of 400,000 to 450,000 uresolved case records by July It also states that every case would be allocated to a dedicated Case Ower by December, with a target to coclude cases at a rate of 10,000 a moth from Jue The total cost of legacy cases i -08 was some 600 millio (Figure 22). How the legacy is beig tackled 5.2 Work started i November Of the 400, ,000 records, the Agecy estimated some 60,000 70,000 depedats were icluded. I December, the remaiig 335,000 cases were allocated to 61 ew teams of caseworkers ad support staff led by a Case Ower, aroud 5,500 cases for each team to coclude by July Each Case Ower had bee recruited ad traied over autum. 22 Cost of Legacy Cases -08 Cost area Descriptio Estimated total cost for -08 ( m) Percetage of total legacy cost UK Border Agecy Operatig costs (excludig eforcemet) Largely made up of staffig costs for Case Resolutio Directorate teams UK Border Agecy Support costs Largely made up from the cost of dispersed accommodatio, uaccompaied child support, cash support ad Sectio IV support UK Border Agecy Eforcemet costs Largely made up from the cost of the regioal 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 the legacy case related Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual costs Total Source: Natioal Audit Office aalysis of UK Border Agecy data 3 Report of the House of Commos Committee for Public Accouts, Returig failed asylum applicats (HC 620, Sessio ). Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 37

40 part five 5.3 The Case Resolutio Directorate is tacklig the caseload accordig to four priorities: where the idividuals may pose a risk to the public, from iformatio held o file ad regular Police Natioal Computer checks; idividuals i receipt of public support; where it is likely that leave to eter or remai will be grated; ad where idividuals ca be removed easily. Progress so far 5.4 The Agecy has reported that early 90,000 cases have bee cocluded betwee Jue 2006 ad May 2008 (see breakdow at Figure 23), which equates to early 4,000 cases cocluded per moth. The Case Resolutio Directorate saved 48 millio i support costs i -08, largely by tacklig families i receipt\of public support. This savig equates to 117 millio over a full year i , i additio to which the Agecy plas to save a further 25 millio i EU Natioal 6,248 Data errors 11,704 Source: Natioal Audit Office aalysis of UK Border Agecy data NOTES Legacy cases cocluded Jue 2006 May 2008 Other 12,931 Removals 19,563 Grats of Asylum 37,918 1 Data Errors are cases where it was foud that the applicats had either bee removed from the UK or had bee grated Asylum or other leave to remai i the UK but the Casework Iformatio Database had ot bee updated. 2 EU Natioals comprise applicats for Asylum who origiate from coutries which have become part of the EU sice their claim was made ad therefore have the right to live ad work i the UK. 3 Other comprises applicats who are ow deceased, cases where o further actio is ecessary, duplicate files ad cases that had bee completed but where the file had ot bee closed ad placed i the archives. 5.5 The Case Resolutio Directorate has strog leadership i place with a clear ad simple visio of No Backlog. There is good commuicatio withi the Case Resolutio Directorate, with opportuities for staff at all levels to raise issues with maagemet, share good practice ad put iovatios ito practice. As with the New Asylum Model, a Case Ower is resposible for each case ad Case Owers are clear about their resposibility. With the legacy cases, much of the work associated with the applicatio has already bee doe at some poit i the past ad the focus is, therefore, o cocludig cases. 5.6 The Case Resolutio Directorate has put i place useful maagemet tools. The Directorate has a workflow tool that helps Case Owers decide which cases to select ad work required to coclude cases withi target. It also has a performace maagemet tool to record ad report ot oly coclusios but also team productivity, icludig time spet doig casework ad other activities. These tools should eable the Directorate to maage performace closely ad idetify where productivity could be icreased. Remaiig issues 5.7 I prioritisig its caseload, the Agecy is depedet o iformatio o the Casework Iformatio Database. The quality of data iherited by the ew Case Owers is poor, ad whe files are received staff frequetly fid that evets have occurred that had ot bee recorded o the database. For example, a idividual may have already bee grated Asylum, or bee refused ad retured home. At the time of our fieldwork staff did ot have criteria for the miimum amout ad quality of data to be etered ito the database, but these have ow bee put i place. 5.8 From the 335,000 cases allocated to Case Owers i December, the Agecy has forecast the rate at which it expects to coclude cases betwee ow ad July It estimates, however, that 20 per cet of the remaiig cases caot curretly be resolved due to exteral factors which mea that the Agecy ca either grat Asylum or remove the idividuals. The Agecy is explorig optios to coclude these cases. The level of data errors has also bee much higher tha expected, ad forecast coclusios will be revised with experiece of casework. Because of these factors ad prioritisatio of cases, the Agecy will coclude fewer tha the 10,000 cases per moth idicated i the Public Service Agreemet. Based o its curret plas, the Agecy will coclude o average some 6,700 legacy cases per moth betwee ow ad Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

41 part five 5.9 We foud that some 87 per cet of the cost of legacy cases directly relates to the legth of time take to make a decisio, primarily the cost of accommodatio ad cash support. It is, therefore, beeficial to give priority to cases receivig support, as the Agecy is doig I commecig to resolve legacy cases, the Agecy did ot take ito accout kock-o costs for other parts of the public sector. For example, the Agecy did ot give advace otice to Local Authorities of their potetial liability to cotiue to house ad support families grated refugee status or leave to remai o huma rights grouds. The Agecy did, however, respod positively to stakeholders cocers, ad egotiatios have resulted i Local Authorities beig able to claim additioal costs. The Agecy is payig some 3.2 millio to Local Authorities for additioal expediture icurred i Early i the programme, questioaires were set to Asylum applicats whose cases were beig cosidered. These duplicated iformatio that the Agecy should already hold ad were ope to abuse. The Agecy ow oly issues a questioaire whe the iformatio is ot already available. Oce a case has bee selected, letters go to both applicats ad their legal represetatives to otify them that their case is beig cosidered ad ivitig them to otify the Agecy of ay chages. Notificatios are ot set to some cases where there is a risk of harm or abscodig. Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 39

42 Appedix oe Study Scope ad Methodology Study scope 1 This study set out to examie whether the Agecy is improvig the maagemet of asylum applicatios. Withi this scope we cosidered: whether the New Asylum Model is efficiet ad effective; whether the Agecy has a realistic pla for maagig ad cocludig the 400, ,000 legacy cases; whether the Agecy s asylum processes are able to cope with demad; ad where Asylum or leave to remai is refused, whether removal is implemeted effectively. It was ot withi the scope of this examiatio to assess the outcome of asylum applicatios. The report does ot therefore commet o whether or ot the decisios made by the Agecy i idividual cases are appropriate. The removal of Foreig Natioal Prisoers was also outside the scope of this study as was the fudig ad availability of legal advice ad represetatio. Methodology Visits ad iterviews 2 We visited three of the six regioal offices across the UK (see Figure 24). These Areas were selected to cover variatios i performace. Results from our three regioal visits are ot statistically represetative of the atioal picture, but they are idicative of what might be foud atioally ad they demostrate the extet of regioal variatio i practice. We also visited Immigratio Removal Cetres at Harmodsworth, ear Heathrow ad Oakigto, ear Cambridge. Fially, we iterviewed a umber of cetral fiace ad policy staff ad seior UK Border Agecy staff i Croydo ad Lodo. 3 Durig our visits coducted i sprig 2008, we held semi-structured iterviews with seior maagemet, team leaders, Seior Caseworkers, Case Owers, workflow maagers, support staff ad immigratio staff resposible for eforcemet ad removals. These visits improved our uderstadig of how the asylum process works i practice ad helped us idetify delivery challeges ad areas of good practice. The visits have allowed us to reflect both local ad cetral views o the maagemet of asylum applicatios i our report. Aalysis of asylum case files 4 We coducted a purposive review of 145 asylum case files (out of 151 requested) across the three regios visited ad Harmodsworth Immigratio Removal Cetre to idetify the impact o the applicat, activities udertake as part of cosiderig the asylum applicatio ad challeges to delivery. We did ot extrapolate our fidigs to the atioal populatio o the basis of our sample. Of the 151 case files requested, six could ot be foud by the Agecy. 5 We selected files from the cohorts of asylum applicatios made i Jue ad September. The Jue cohort was ecessary to meet the target to coclude 40 per cet of cases withi six moths. The September cohort was the latest where a substatial proportio should have bee completed withi six moths at the time of our review. We selected 151 files (10 per cet of the populatio) weighted accordig to the volume of applicatios hadled at each office. We selected 75 per cet of the files from cases which had a coclusio date as we primarily wated to assess the New Asylum Model from start to fiish. 40 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

43 appedix oe 6 I selectig the files for review, they were first sorted by atioality ad medical coditios ad the by geder ad whether the idividual was a mior or ot. Havig doe this, cases were selected at radom ad couted through the list o a pro rata basis to achieve a eve selectio of cases. The list was the adjusted to esure we had files that would iclude cases that were grated ad refused, cases that had bee to appeal ad those which had ot, cases with a medical coditio ad those without, cases from coutries that are hard/easy to remove, family groups, adults ad miors. This did ot ecessitate may chages. Costig work 7 Followig a competitive biddig process, we commissioed a team of cosultats from Acceture to geerate estimates of the costs associated with the maagemet of asylum applicatios. Our cosultats geerated two sets of cost data for maagig asylum applicatios. 24 UK Border Agecy locatios visited Office Locatio Liverpool Fleet Street, Lodo Cardiff Solihull Harmodsworth Oakigto Croydo Croydo Croydo Croydo Croydo Croydo Lodo Regio/Team North West Lodo ad South East Wales ad South West Midlads ad East of Eglad Detaied Fast-Track No-Suspesive Appeal Third Coutry Uit Case Resolutio Directorate Asylum Screeig Uit Directorate of Fiace ad Busiess Strategy Directorate of Cetral Operatios ad Performace Cetral Operatios Immigratio Casework Programme Reasos Prelimiary fieldwork ad discussios with the Agecy s Performace Maagemet ad Iformatio Team. Top performer of the regios at the time of selectio i terms of coclusio rates. Comprises four Asylum teams. We were told that Lodo had adopted a umber of iovative approaches. Middle-rakig performace at the time of selectio i terms of coclusio rates. Comprises two Asylum teams collocated with the reportig cetre, eforcemet staff ad presetig officers. We were told that Cardiff had adopted a umber of iovative approaches. Lowest performig regio at time of selectio i terms of coclusio rates. Comprises four Asylum teams. Detetio cetre for male immigratio detaiees, icludig asylum applicats maaged by the Detaied Fast-Track team. Detetio cetre for immigratio detaiees, icludig asylum applicats with o right of appeal i the UK, maaged by the No-Suspesive Appeal Team. The team resposible for maagig cases of asylum applicats who have arrived i the UK by travellig through aother coutry withi the Europea Uio, or aother coutry cosidered to be safe. Directorate resposible for cocludig the 400, ,000 legacy asylum applicatios that had ot bee cocluded prior to the itroductio of the New Asylum Model. Oe of two screeig uits resposible for recordig applicatios for Asylum ad for coductig the iitial screeig iterview with the applicat. Staff resposible for fiacial maagemet ad strategy. Staff resposible for appeals ad litigatio, policy ad guidace, quality assurace ad performace maagemet. Staff resposible for the Volutary Assisted Returs ad Reitegratio Programme, travel documets, cotracts (icludig for accommodatio, escorts ad flights) ad arragemets for the settlemet of refugees i the UK. Staff resposible for deliverig the ew casework programme, icludig a ew IT system. Source: Natioal Audit Office Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 41

44 appedix oe 8 Total cost of asylum applicatios by stage of the process: Top-dow average asylum staff costs were geerated by estimatig the percetage of staff time spet o activities ivolved i processig asylum claims, ad applyig this proportio to total spedig. Workshops were held with Agecy staff, icludig Case Owers, Immigratio Officers, supportig staff ad middle maagers, i the three regios we visited ad at Harmodsworth Immigratio Removals Cetre. Discussios were also held with cetral staff. The key reasos for these meetigs was to idetify: the staff groups ivolved i processig asylum applicatios, both frot lie ad support/cetral staff; the time take for the delivery of idividual tasks required to process asylum applicatios; ad the proportio of staff time spet o processig asylum applicatios, versus other tasks. 9 These estimates of the proportio of staff time spet maagig asylum applicatios were multiplied by total staff costs, usig a costig model that icorporated Agecy performace iformatio of the volume of work carried out, overall processig times ad cetral budget data for -08, to derive a idicative total cost to the Agecy of maagig asylum applicatios. 10 Costs for asylum applicat profiles: Give the fact that asylum applicatios ca vary depedig o the characteristics of each applicat, a simple average cost to the Agecy of maagig a asylum applicatio would be misleadig. For example, the cost of processig a asylum applicatio that is grated at iitial decisio would be very differet from the cost of processig a asylum applicatio that was refused, appealed ad evetually decided i the High Court. 11 Therefore 12 differet asylum applicat profiles were developed with the assistace of the UK Border Agecy to illustrate commo pathways through the applicatio process. These profiles covered sigle adults, families ad uaccompaied childre ad examied differet fial outcomes such as beig grated Asylum or beig forcibly removed. Two of the profiles looked at the cost of maagig asylum applicatios i detetio. 12 The bottom up costs were developed through workshops held with a rage of staff from differet parts of the process icludig iitial accommodatio, Case Owers, Seior Case Owers, work flow maagers, support staff, removals staff ad eforcemet officers. A further workshop was held with team leaders ad maagers. The workshops were used to estimate staff time spet dealig with differet applicat profiles ad multiplyig these time estimates by the staff cost per miute. 13 These cost estimates have bee made available to the offices we visited ad are available, i additio to a more detailed methodology, i the Acceture report Fial Report: Costig Work stream NAO Asylum Study which is available o our website: 14 The estimated cost figures from both processes (top dow ad bottom up) differ because of the approximate ature of the methods, ad issues (commo i this sort of exercise) to do with gatherig time data from staff which relies o subjective judgemets ad assumptios. Cosultatio with third party orgaisatios 15 Over the course of our fieldwork, we iterviewed or received submissios from the stakeholders listed i Figure 25. Aalysis of Casework Iformatio Database ad other Agecy performace data 16 I additio to reviewig caseload ad performace data produced by the Agecy, we performed our ow aalysis to draw out treds ad relatioships relevat to our study. Data aalysed icluded: 49,834 idividual asylum case records stored o the Casework Iformatio Database, for applicats who applied for Asylum i the UK from Jauary to August 2008; Agecy performace reports. Weekly ad mothly performace reports issued to all levels of Agecy staff were examied for their cotet ad usefuless; data quality reports showig the results of weekly samplig tests of the accuracy of data stored o the Casework Iformatio Database; quality audit reports from March to May 2008 that cotaied the results of the Agecy s iteral testig of the quality of iterviews ad decisios carried out by asylum Case Owers; data provided by staff resposible for moitorig the escort cotractor G4S o the reasos for cacellatio of removals; Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual data o the umbers of appeals hadled; ad data from the Iterpreter Bookig Uit o the umber of cacellatios. 42 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

45 appedix oe 17 Data Quality: We aalysed a sample of the Agecy s weekly data quality reports across all regios, completed betwee December 2006 ad July 2008, coverig 1,738 idividual cases. Of these, early four i every five cases (1,328) cotaied at least oe data error. Of a potetial 105 differet errors, the percetage of accurate etries averaged 96 per cet i those cases we sampled, above the Agecy s threshold of 95 per cet. For fields critical to performace moitorig (Caledar ad Stadard Evets where the dates of key evets are recorded) quality was lower tha average, at 92 per cet ad 84 per cet respectively. We have ot completed a idepedet validatio of quality but the quality reports are cosistet with our case file review where we sometimes foud it difficult to establish the status of a case ad the actios required to complete it. Where possible we have relied o published atioal statistics. We judge that the quality of data was sufficiet for the purposes of this audit. 25 Orgaisatios cosulted throughout fieldwork Stakeholder Uited Natios High Commissioer for Refugees (UNHCR) Iteratioal Orgaizatio for Migratio Departmet for Work ad Pesios Departmet for Commuities ad Local Govermet Asylum Aid Foreig ad Commowealth Office The Lodo Borough of Croydo Citizes Advice Bureau Implemet Cosultig Immigratio Law Practitioer s Associatio Local Govermet Associatio Refugee Coucil Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual Asylum Support Appeals Project Childre s Society Lodo Detaiee Support Group Bail for Immigratio Detaiees Refugee Actio Role i the Asylum system UN Refugee Agecy that safeguards the rights ad well-beig of refugees. Rus the Quality Iitiative Project i the UK joitly with the Home Office, which has to date produced five reports assessig the Govermet s system for processig asylum applicatios. I the UK, the Iteratioal Orgaizatio for Migratio has several programmes which are geared towards assistig migrats to retur home. The Volutary Assisted Retur ad Reitegratio Programme is targeted at asylum applicats. Helps Refugees itegrate ito UK society through employmet (Jobcetre Plus). Also provides itegratio loas o behalf of the Agecy. Resposible for commuity cohesio ad housig. Is also the sposor Departmet for Local Authorities, which ca support Refugees. Charity providig advice ad legal represetatio to asylum applicats ad refugees. Negotiates with other coutries, liaises with High Commissio ad Embassies aroud the world. Processes applicatios ad supports uaccompaied asylum-seekig childre. Provides geeral advice to asylum applicats ad refugees. Cosultacy carryig out projects for the UK Border Agecy. A professioal associatio of lawyers ad academics practisig i or cocered about immigratio, asylum ad atioality law. A volutary lobbyig orgaisatio represetig the iterests of Local Authorities i Eglad ad Wales. Provides direct help ad support to asylum applicats, icludig traiig ad educatio, as well as workig with asylum applicats ad refugees to esure their eeds ad cocers are addressed. Resposible for hearig asylum appeals. Provides legal represetatio ad advice ad iformatio about etitlemet to asylum support, icludig the right to appeal whe this support is refused or withdraw. Charity cocered with the welfare of asylum-seekig childre. Charity providig support ad practical assistace to immigratio detaiees held at Harmodsworth ad Colbrook Immigratio Removal Cetres. Charity that challeges immigratio detetio i the UK. Charity workig to eable refugees to build ew lives i the UK ad providig practical advice ad assistace for ewly arrived asylum applicats. Source: Natioal Audit Office Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 43

46 Appedix two Previous Public Accouts Committee Recommedatios Summary of Public Accouts Committee coclusios ad recommedatios Summary of Departmet s respose i the Treasury Miutes Returig Failed Asylum Applicats Report of the House of Commos Committee for Public Accouts, Returig failed asylum applicats (HC 620, Sessio ) Treasury Miutes o the Thirty-fourth ad Thirty-sixth to Thirty-ith Reports from the Committee of Public Accouts (Cm 686, 28 Jue 2006). Asylum applicatios, support ad eforcemet treated separately ad ucoordiated. Itroductio of the New Asylum Model for all ew cases by the ed of The Departmet does ot kow how may failed Asylum seekers there are, or where they are. Use of ew cotact maagemet techologies. Reportig at police statios. Likig requiremet to report with paymet of support. e-borders will improve data. Workig closely with other Departmets. The gap betwee usuccessful applicatios ad removals has reduced due to fallig applicatios rather tha efforts to remove. The umber of removals cotiues to rise ad will exceed ufouded applicatios i Little attetio has bee give to the backlog where removals are becomig icreasigly difficult. Not accepted. As removals exceed ufouded applicatios the umber of older cases will reduce. A fudametal review of removals is required as follows: A removals strategy with itegrated fuctios, targets ad IT. Tailor approach to differet segmets of the populatio, makig appropriate use of detetio, moitorig ad taggig ad good practice from the US. Itroductio of New Asylum Model, to which volutary returs is itegral. Arrests have icreased ad they are moitorig reasos for failed removal. Improve effectiveess ad awareess of volutary removals. Speed up eforcemet through better use of arrests ad learig lessos. There is a programme to reduce overheads ad staff umbers i support fuctios. Operatioal effectiveess is beig moitored. Reduce overhead costs. 44 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

47 appedix two Summary of Public Accouts Committee coclusios ad recommedatios Summary of Departmet s respose i the Treasury Miutes Improvig the Speed ad Quality of Asylum Decisios Report of the House of Commos Committee for Public Accouts, Improvig the speed ad quality of asylum decisios (HC 238, Sessio ) Treasury Miutes o the First, Secod ad Fourth Reports from the Committee of Public Accouts (Cm 6496, 6 April 2005) Compare costs of meetig surges i demad compared with backlogs. 500 millio might have bee saved if there had bee sufficiet resources i place to meet the sigificat rise i asylum applicatios i 1999 ad Cosider the impact o delivery chais of tacklig major shifts i demad for services. Some 50 millio was saved by icreasig removals but the backlog of applicatios may have cost some 200 millio of the overall 500 millio potetial savigs. Savigs calculatios theoretical ad could ot have bee achieved i practice. Resources were put ito removals to discourage further ufouded applicatios, which would add to the cost of asylum support. the backlog [of iitial decisios] i 1997 stood at some 50,000, rose to 100,000 but ow stads at uder 10,000 cases. Sigificat ivestmet has bee made to reduce itake ad it is easier to see the fiacial beefits. Expad the use of fast-track procedures. It was beig implemeted prior to the NAO report. Also adoptig some of the Detaied Fast-Track case maagemet approaches withi the o-detaied settig. More demadig targets should be set to improve the speed of appeals. The Asylum ad Immigratio (Treatmet of Claimats, etc.) Act received Royal Asset o 22 July Sectio 26 of the Act itroduces the ew Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual, i place of the curret two-tier tribual structure. It also itroduces a ew system of higher court oversight ad powers eablig ew legal aid arragemets. The ew system is to be implemeted i April 2005 reducig DCA s appeal process times for ew cases to a expected maximum of 18 weeks. I o-fast track there is a target of 61 days for a decisio eve though o average a caseworker speds oly some ie hours o the case to reach a decisio. Need to shorte elapsed time. The Departmet has already itroduced projects to speed up the asylum decisio makig process i o-detaied cases. Over the last five years, the proportio of appeals allowed has cosistetly exceeded the Directorate s target of 15 per cet, ad has frequetly exceeded 20 per cet. The Departmet should look at reasos for this. Accepted, but there has bee a improvemet i the proportio of appeals allowed. There is a system of assessmet feedback o decisio quality ad we will icrease the frequecy of that feedback startig i April Moitorig treds ad reasos for appeals. Pla to icrease the level of Presetig Officer represetatio at hearigs. The Home Office should expad the umber of caseworkers with expertise o particular coutries or regios of the world to improve the quality ad cosistecy of its decisio-makig. For each coutry there is a Seior Case Worker who is a expert. Also, caseworkers ca tur to specialist coutry iformatio officers ad make use of the relevat coutry reports ad supportig materials. The mix chages ad caseworkers must be flexible eough to hadle claims from a wide rage of coutries. The Departmet believes it has maitaied a reasoable balace betwee flexibility ad specialism, but will keep uder close review. Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 45

48 appedix two Summary of Public Accouts Committee coclusios ad recommedatios Summary of Departmet s respose i the Treasury Miutes Improvig the Speed ad Quality of Asylum Decisios cotiued Departmet should compare legal aid costs with other coutries. Accepted. Aimig to complete compariso work by July The Departmet has ot always acted promptly to ivestigate cocers raised by third parties about potetially fraudulet claims. There should be a clear cotact poit withi the Directorate for whistleblowers ad for followig up iformatio received. Accepted. 46 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

49 Appedix three Glossary of terms Assisted Volutary Retur Asylum ad Immigratio Tribual Case Ower Detaied Fast-Track First Reportig Evet Foreig Natioal Prisoer Itegratio Judicial Review Legacy cases Local Eforcemet Office New Asylum Model The Volutary Assisted Retur ad Reitegratio Programme, ru by the Iteratioal Orgaizatio for Migratio, is desiged to help people retur home by providig a package of beefits to help them travel ad reitegrate ito their coutry of origi. The Tribual that hears appeals agaist the Agecy s decisios o asylum applicatios. A Agecy official resposible for processig a applicatio for Asylum from begiig to the ed of the process. A process for cosiderig a asylum applicatio quickly. While the applicatio is cosidered, the applicat is held i detetio at a Immigratio ad Removal Cetre. Asylum applicats atted this evet at oe of the Agecy s regioal offices, where the itetio is they meet with their Case Ower for the first time ad have the process explaied to them. A foreig atioal who has bee imprisoed i the UK. I this cotext, it also refers to those prisoers who have come to the ed of their setece ad should be or are beig cosidered for deportatio. The process by which a refugee settles ad comes to participate i UK society. The Agecy provides assistace uder the Refugee Itegratio ad Employmet Service cotracts which provide help ad advice, a employmet service ad metorig across the UK. A asylum applicat, or their legal represetative, ca apply for a Judicial Review if they believe there has bee a error of law i the hadlig of their asylum applicatio ad/or appeal. The 400, ,000 asylum applicatios uresolved prior to the itroductio of the New Asylum Model. Rather tha reprocess existig applicatios through the ew model, this stock of cases is ow beig processed by the separate Case Resolutio Directorate. Regioal UK Border Agecy offices where immigratio staff resposible for eforcemet are located. The ew process the Agecy has developed for maagig asylum applicatios. Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy 47

50 appedix three No-Suspesive Appeal Refugee Routig Screeig Sectio IV support Substative Iterview Third Coutry case Tippig poit target Typically, asylum applicats caot be removed while they are appealig the Agecy s decisio. However, those claims from a list of coutries established to be safe ad certified to be clearly ufouded by the Agecy may oly appeal agaist that decisio after removal. A refugee is someoe who has left their coutry ad is recogised by the authorities of the host coutry as beig uable or uwillig to retur 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 process through which a asylum applicatio is allocated to a Case Ower. Oce a applicat has claimed Asylum, they are iterviewed, or screeed as soo as possible to allow staff to decide the most appropriate method for processig the applicatio. If a asylum applicatio is refused but the Agecy caot, for whatever reaso, retur the applicat to their coutry of origi, they ca apply for fiacial support uder Sectio IV of the Immigratio ad Asylum Act This is where the Case Ower asks the asylum applicat questios o all aspects of their claim, to iform their decisio. Uder the Dubli II regulatios 4 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. The Agecy objective that more failed asylum applicats are removed tha make ufouded claims each moth. Prited i the UK for the Statioery Office Limited o behalf of the Cotroller of Her Majesty s Statioery Office / 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. 48 Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy

51 Desig ad Productio by NAO Marketig & Commuicatios Team DP Ref: This report has bee prited o Cosort Royal Silk ad is produced from a combiatio of ECF (Elemetal Chlorie Free) ad TCF (Totally Chlorie Free) wood pulp that is fully recyclable ad sourced from carefully maaged ad reewed commercial forests. The rage is maufactured withi a mill which is registered uder the BS EN ISO 9001 accreditatio, which provides the highest stadard of quality assurace.

52 Published by TSO (The Statioery Office) ad available from: Olie Mail, Telephoe, Fax & TSO PO Box 29, Norwich, NR3 1GN Telephoe orders/geeral equiries: Order through the Parliametary Hotlie Lo-call Fax orders: [email protected] Textphoe TSO Shops 16 Arthur Street, Belfast BT1 4GD Fax Lothia Road, Ediburgh EH3 9AZ Fax The Parliametary Bookshop 12 Bridge Street, Parliamet Square, Lodo SW1A 2JX Telephoe orders/geeral equiries Fax Orders [email protected] Iteret bookshop.parliamet.uk ISBN TSO@Blackwell ad other Accredited Agets Maagemet of Asylum Applicatios by the UK Border Agecy A report by the Comptroller ad Auditor Geeral The Statioery Office