Evaluation of Government Assisted Refugees (GAR) and Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP)
5. Conclusions and recommendations
This section presents the conclusions drawn by this evaluation and provides recommendations for the future of both GAR and RAP. The conclusions present lessons in the areas of relevance, design and delivery and program performance. These lessons present the state of the program and identify areas for improvement. Following from these conclusions, several recommendations have been identified under both the GAR and RAP programs to enhance the operations and/or outcomes associated with them.
5.1 Government assisted refugee (GAR) program conclusions
The GAR program was found to be relevant in that it underscores Canada’s commitment to international obligations and is consistent with Government of Canada and departmental objectives. GAR is a key tool that Canada uses to meet international commitments with respect to the resettlement of refugees. In combination with other programs (i.e., PSR), Canada has emerged as a world leader in terms of resettlement, and resettles the second highest number of refugees in the world.
The results of the evaluation also show that GAR is performing in alignment with expectations. Canada is a leading resettlement country due to its flexibility and responsiveness (i.e., few, if any, limitations on the types of refugees accepted) and to that regard, it is viewed as a “best practice” by UNHCR/IOM stakeholders. This responsiveness allows different types of refugees to live safely and independently, as Canada is a country with resettlement criteria that are based on humanitarian, not economic, priorities.
One of the main advantages of the design of the GAR program is having “on the ground” CVOA staff. A significant benefit of Canada’s program is that it facilitated the building of relationships with UNHCR/IOM staff and helped ensure CVOA staff had an in-depth understanding of country/regional issues as they impacted refugee movements. Therefore, CVOA staff members are enabled to provide better services to refugees.
Despite the positive views expressed about the design and delivery of the program, it is clear that the GAR program could be enhanced to expedite the screening, processing and resettlement of selected refugees. As noted in the evaluation, there are opportunities to streamline the processing of GARs in their host countries, and the program would also benefit from enhanced information-sharing supports and potential program or policy changes with respect to the transportation loan and provision of medical information.
The GAR program is performing appropriately and the design is functional to achieve its goal, which is to participate in efforts to resettle refugees in need of protection worldwide. Areas for improvement with respect to the design of the program were identified that would allow it to perform more efficiently and, as a result, better fulfill its mandate and continue to meet Canada’s international commitments. Recommendations on how to best achieve these improvements are outlined below.
5.2 GAR-related recommendations
There are three overall recommendations associated with the Government Assisted Refugee Program:
- Streamline the processing of GARs;
- Enhance information sharing mechanisms; and,
- Re-examine the need for the Transportation and Medical loan.
Recommendation 1: Streamline the processing of GARs
The first recommendation is to streamline the processing of GAR applications in order to increase efficiency and quality of service for GARs. There are four sub-recommendations which provide details on how to address this overall recommendation. They are related to: CVOA staff training, efficiency of screening and processing approaches, logistical constraints and the re-examination of the source country designation.
1.1 Enhance training and orientation to CVOA staff
The international case studies identified the considerable variance in case processing across CVOAs. The evaluation also noted considerable development of “CVOA specific” processes and quality control. CBO staff also reported limited ability to provide training/orientation to new staff as rotations typically had no “overlap” between outgoing and newly arriving CBO staff. In this context, it appears that there is scope to enhance the training provided to staff to ensure that the functions/processes are well understood by both Canadian-based officers as well as Locally Engaged staff. CIC should also build in structures to allow for training and orientation opportunities between incoming and outgoing CVOA staff as part of their rotation(s). This would allow incoming staff to be made aware of any ongoing issues or necessary context in the region and allow the outgoing staff to transfer some of their corporate memory in order to ensure that the operations of the office transition smoothly. This exchange of knowledge would thereby improve the service delivery.
1.2 Adopt more efficient refugee screening and processing approaches where appropriate
As noted in the evaluation there are a number of criteria that CVOAs use when completing refugee screening/processing. More efficient processing occurs when CIC recognizes UNHCR Prima Facie designation of refugees, and processing is further expedited when CIC designates certain refugee populations for group processing. As well, CIC should expand the use of group processing to include low-risk sub-groups of refugee populations.
1.3 Re-Examine the need to retain the source country designation
Several CVOA staff questioned the use of the Source Country designation in that they felt a significant proportion of applications did not meet the eligibility criteria, and the time and resources required to process refugees was considerably greater in the country examined than in other regions that did not use the Source Country program. As such, it is recommended that further examination be done on this designation.
1.4 Consider logistical and processing constraints in planning CVOA resources
The international case studies highlighted the considerable differences in the operational environments in which CBOs work to process GAR clients. It is clear, however, that CVOA abilities to process GAR clients will vary, for example, as CVOAs that deal primarily with urban-based clients (e.g., Damascus) faced fewer challenges in accessing refugees than did staff based in CVOAs that did not have ready access to refugees (e.g., Nairobi). Expecting the same number of GARs to be processed per FTE in Nairobi as in Damascus would not be appropriate. As such, it would be appropriate to examine staffing levels for CVOAs that face more complex issues in terms of access to and processing of GARs. This will account for those differing constraints to ensure that processing goals are achieved.
Recommendation 2: Enhance information sharing mechanisms
The second recommendation focuses on two key aspects of information sharing: enhancing the information technology platforms used in CVOAs and enhancing the information sharing mechanisms.
2.1 Enhance information technology platforms within CVOAs
The international case studies uncovered the development and/or use of a number of “parallel” information management systems in CVOAs due to perceived or actual limitations of CAIPS to provide timely information to CIC managers and supervisors. Further challenges identified in the international case studies were the inability to remotely access CAIPS, and the inability to seamlessly download information from the UNHCR database (PROGRESS) into CAIPS. Other issues included the lack of an online mechanism to track expenditures associated with the transportation and medical loan and the lack of a system to facilitate the sharing of medical information utilizing an Electronic Medical Records (EMR) platform. Enhancement of the technological capabilities in CVOAs would contribute to more efficient processing of GAR clients and information sharing among stakeholders.
2.2 Enhance or Develop Information Sharing Mechanisms
CVOA-based CBOs noted that they receive little or no information as to what factors or characteristics would affect the successful integration of GARs in Canada. Similarly, UNHCR and IOM officials noted that they received little information as to the appropriateness of GAR referrals to Canada. In cases where UNHCR does the initial screening and referral of refugees, this information could assist the UNHCR in terms of their screening process. CIC should establish a mechanism or process that would facilitate the two-way communication between international operations (CVOAs, UNHCR, IOM) and the experiences of GARs/SPOs in Canada. It should be further noted that given the relatively high use of Temporary Duty (TD) staff within the CVOAs, it would be important to develop a mechanism to help ensure such staff have access to appropriate information and resources. This could include:
- A “bulletin board” that could be accessed by CBOs and/or other parties (IOM/UNHCR); and
- A “wiki” site for CIC staff.
Recommendation 3: Re-Examine the Need for the Transportation and Medical Loan
The final recommendation on the GAR program is to re-examine the need, appropriateness and functionality of the transportation and medical loans issued to GARs.
3.1 Re-examine the need, appropriateness and functionality of the transportation and medical loan
Canada is one of the few countries that ask refugees to repay the cost of their medical and transportation to their resettlement country. Given that a high proportion (44%) of GARs are either not repaying or had their loan forgiven, and the considerable costs to manage the loan portfolio, Canada should re-examine the need to maintain this repayment. If this loan is to be retained, it would be advisable to examine the current functionality of the loan, including moving to an online form, and adopting the US model where costs are estimated and actual amounts are not required (transportation costs only). Given that CIC policies allow CVOA officers overseas to request that loans be converted to contributions for refugees deemed unlikely to be able to repay their loan, it may be appropriate to provide better information, guidelines and training as to what refugees should be considered for such loan conversions.
5.3 Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP) conclusions
The Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP) is a key support that CIC provides to individuals arriving in Canada as part of the Government Assisted Refugee program. With respect to program relevance, the RAP program is consistent with UNHCR guidelines that specifically state that resettled refugees should be provided with intensive supports upon arrival in their destined country. The RAP-related supports provided to GARs in their first four to six weeks in Canada are consistent with UNHCR recommendations and help to address two of the three UNHCR criteria to ensure resettlement is a durable solution. As such, RAP continues to be a relevant program and the federal government role of providing resettlement supports is appropriate.
The design of RAP also provides longer-term service to refugees through income support. As Canada has accepted the responsibility to welcome refugees into the country, it is also Canada’s responsibility, reinforced through departmental policy, that Canada should “totally support” such individuals. Currently, the levels of income support provided to refugees are equivalent to provincial social assistance rates.
Analysis of the characteristics of GARs arriving in Canada since the introduction of IRPA shows that RAP SPOs are facing more challenges, not less, in terms of providing required services to refugee clients. The increase in the number and proportion of clients with “barriers” to resettlement such as no education, no ability to speak English or French, and higher age (over 65) underscores the need to maintain, if not augment, resources going toward orientation and/or other basic assistance services.
With respect to the performance of the program, numerous studies, as well as data collected through the evaluation, illustrate that the level of income support is too low – the proportion (29%) of refugees who note that their income support does not cover basic needs and the high proportion (57%) of GARs who have used food banks to meet their basic food needs shows that Canada is not providing “full support” to this group. Recommendations outlined below address the potential performance improvements that could be made to RAP.
Similar to the GAR program, the results of the evaluation identify an opportunity to enhance the delivery of RAP. While the core services provided through RAP are felt to be generally appropriate, there is a need and desire among SPOs to see a more flexible funding model whereby high-needs GARs can receive additional services. The evaluation also shows that a key challenge for refugees is finding appropriate housing; consideration should be given to extending the time available for GARs to stay in temporary accommodation and housing-related requirements should be a priority in terms of potential RAP funding adjustments.
Additionally, there is a need for improved linkages between SPOs and the overseas processing offices in order to receive necessary information about GARs prior to their arrival. Given that, under IRPA, there are increased numbers of refugees arriving in Canada with complex needs (including medical conditions that require attention), the more information SPOs can access in advance of GARs’ arrival will assist SPOs in adequately preparing appropriate services such as accessible housing or help them to anticipate the necessary time required to devote to medical attention. SPOs would also benefit from better methods of connecting with Canadian service providers who are responsible for other services GARs use.
A main goal of RAP is to ensure that GARs are able to live safely and independently after resettling in Canada. Programming should provide the necessary resources to accommodate this. The evaluation shows that the current design of the program does not fully meet this goal, in that it does not reflect the changing needs of the GAR population and does not allow the flexibility or resources to fully meet those needs. In addition, the current housing market and costs of living add a constraint to the program that impacts its ability to provide adequate housing and income supports. As such, the program needs to explore options on how to ensure that the program design allows GARs to live safely and independently.
5.4 RAP-related recommendations
There are three overall recommendations associated with the Resettlement Assistance Program. It should be noted that in some instances the recommendations will address joint GAR-RAP program delivery issues.
The overall recommendations are as follows:
- Modify programming to reflect changing needs of GAR clients
- Examine the adequacy of income and housing supports
- Enhance information sharing
Recommendation 1: Modify programming to reflect changing needs of GAR clients
The first recommendation related to the RAP concerns programming modifications to reflect the changing needs of GARs, such as arriving with no language ability or education, or with medical needs. There are five sub-recommendations that provide more detail about how to address this overarching recommendation. They are related to: adequacy of program resourcing; establishment of a system to provide longer term support to GARs after their immediate needs have been met; and, current service gaps.
1.1 Review RAP resources to reflect the changing needs of GARs arriving in Canada
Key stakeholders, CIC staff and internal documentation all note that the profile of GARs arriving in Canada has changed since the introduction of IRPA and that Canada is now receiving many GARs that require additional supports to facilitate their integration into Canadian society. In particular, SPOs noted that GARs with complex medical needs required considerable support that was beyond the current level provided. SPOs also noted that they were increasingly being asked to provide translation and interpretive services; as such services were not generally available in the community. CIC should undertake an analysis of current RAP service delivery to establish the adequacy of funding given the profile of GARs that are currently entering Canada. This analysis would allow the program to determine the options available to best serve the GAR population given their changing needs and the mandate of RAP.
1.2 Address SPO concerns with program flexibility and service provision
As noted in the evaluation, SPOs generally operate under the impression that all GARs must be provided with the equivalent level of service, irrespective of the specific needs or requirements of individual GARs. Notwithstanding that RAP can be adjusted to better meet the needs of identified sub-groups (see RAP recommendation 1.5), there is a need to communicate or formalize policy with respect to program flexibility. For example, the Resettlement Assistance Handbook is prescriptive in what sources/information must be provided to clients, and does not appear to emphasize that SPOs have flexibility to tailor service provision depending on the personal characteristics of the immigrant. In this context, providing SPOs with such flexibility (or communicating such flexibility through a policy/program directive), could help ensure that SPO resources are appropriately targeted to GARs who have higher needs.
1.3 Consider adopting a case management approach for GAR clients
Key stakeholders and the evaluation of a case management pilot project identified that GARs could benefit from an active case management approach. SPOs report that in many instances they continue to provide support and/or counselling advice to GARs well after the initial six week period. As GARs develop a close bond with SPO staff, it was felt that the integration of refugees in Canada could be expedited by access to a case manager who could continue to provide direction and advice to GARs during their first year in Canada. If a decision is made to move towards case management services by SPOs (e.g., specified number of hours per month) for up to one year after resettlement in Canada, the program should undertake analysis to determine the options available to support this.
1.4 Consider modifications to the length of time GARs have access to RAP services
The current program guidelines indicate that resettlement and transition services are to be provided for the first four to six weeks in Canada, during and after which refugees are expected to access services through settlement services available to all newcomers to Canada. SPOs report that, for many GARs, additional support/assistance should be provided that extends beyond the initial six weeks. CIC should consider exemptions that would enable SPOs to provide resettlement/transition services for a period greater than six weeks for identified high needs GAR clients. Changes in the funding model may be required to accommodate this extended service delivery.
1.5 Address gaps in RAP service delivery
SPOs report that there are specific GAR sub-groups that are not well-served under current RAP guidelines. Among these are youth, seniors and those with high medical needs. It was noted that RAP services should be modified to include specific supports/orientation/services to these sub-groups and program or service modules be developed for SPOs to provide comprehensive services to such individuals.
Based on the desire to be a “one stop shop” for GARs, consideration should also be given to expanding the service offerings available from SPOs to possibly include child-minding, employment and housing support services.
Recommendation 2: Examine the adequacy of income and housing supports
The following recommendations provide details about how to address RAP delivery of income support and housing; two key areas under which RAP is designed to support GARs.
2.1 Address insufficiency of income support
The results of the evaluation suggests that GARs arriving in Canada are having difficulties in meeting basic needs based on current income support levels provided through the RAP program. RAP did not meet current minimum requirements using either Market Basket Measure (MBM) or Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) measures. A more telling statistic is that more than one-half (57%) of GARs reported using food banks to meet their basic food needs and that one-third (29%) reported that their income support did not cover basic necessities (food, shelter, clothing). Much of the issue of insufficient income is based on CIC’s use of provincial social assistance rates as the level of income support provided to GARs.
It is recommended that CIC review a range of options to address the insufficiency of income support which could include one or all of the following:
- Elimination of the transportation loan;
- Re-basing income support to a different benchmark;
- Re-examining shelter/housing allowances; and
- Other (e.g., reducing or removing the claw-backFootnote 26 for those who find employment in the first year in Canada).
2.2 Re-examine housing allowances
SPOs report that a major challenge for GARs is finding appropriate and affordable housing. CIC should review current housing allowances and consider the development of housing allowances that reflect local market rental rates. Policy should be developed whereby housing allowances are adjusted to ensure that the RAP allowances will enable GARs to rent an “average” rental unit without using more than a prescribed limit of income (i.e., 30% or 40%) on housing. In order to achieve the goals of GARs living safely and independently, the program should conduct analysis to determine options on how to best balance the achievement of these goals and keep up with the evolving housing market.
Recommendation 3: Enhance information sharing
The final recommendation addresses the need for better linkages between RAP SPOs and both international region offices and other Canadian service providers.
3.1 Provide enhanced opportunities for information sharing
SPOs reported limited information as to the probable medical or other complex needs of refugee arrivals as well as limited information as to the specific needs of GAR arrivals. In addition, SPOs also noted that they had limited information as to “best practices” among Canadian service providers. In this context, it is recommended that CIC identify processes that could improve the information flow from regions to SPOs, as well as explore mechanisms that would support information sharing across service providers such as a bulletin board, “wiki” or other mechanism(s).
Page details
- Date modified: