Evaluation of Government Assisted Refugees (GAR) and Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP)

Executive summary

Purpose of the evaluation

This report highlights the key findings associated with the evaluation of the Government Assisted Refugee (GAR) program and the Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP). The evaluation addressed issues related to program relevance, design and impact, and focussed on the reference period of FY 2005/2006 to FY 2009/2010 (or annual data from 2005 to 2009). It should be noted however, that to provide context, there are also limited comparisons to refugee characteristics on the period before and after the introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) in 2002. The specific objectives of the evaluation were to:

• Assess program relevance with respect to continued need, alignment with government priorities and consistency with respect to federal roles and responsibilities; and
• Assess program performance in terms of intended outcomes, efficiency and economy.

In completing this complex evaluation of two separate, but related programs, multiple lines of evidence were utilized. In addition to an extensive analysis of program documentation and related literature, the evaluation drew on considerable primary data collection in the form of inland (Canada) case studies (10), four international case studies, a substantial number of key informant interviews, focus groups, and a large-scale telephone survey of recently arrived Government Assisted Refugees (GARs). In addition, a significant amount of data was accessed from federal government databases including Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System (CAIPS), Field Operations Support System (FOSS), the Longitudinal Immigration Database (IMDB) and Immigration Contribution Accountability Measurement System (iCAMS).

Background

As a state party to the United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Canada participates in efforts to address refugee situations worldwide. The Canadian Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program operates for those seeking protection from outside Canada. Working closely with international partners, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), Canada selects refugees in accordance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and regulations. Refugees are processed under the Convention Refugee Abroad Class or the Source Country Class when no other durable solution is available within a reasonable period of time.

In response to international concern over Canada’s immigration system, Canada enacted IRPA in 2002. IRPA changed the focus of refugee selection, placing greater emphasis on the need for protection and less on the ability of a refugee to become established in Canada. Resettled refugees are also exempt from inadmissibility to Canada for financial reasons, or for excessive demand on health or social services.

The number of refugees to be brought to Canada annually under the Government-Assisted Refugee (GAR) Program is set by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. To assist GARs with their integration into Canadian society, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) initially provided financial support and immediate essential services through the Adjustment Assistance Program, which was later (1998) redesigned into the Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP).

The RAP provides immediate and essential services and income support to recently arrived eligible refugees (primarily GARs). Resettlement services are generally received within the first 4 to 6 weeks of GARs’ arrival in Canada. Income support is provided for up to one year or until the GAR becomes self-sufficient, whichever comes first. For high-needs GARs, income support may be extended for up to 24 months. CIC administers the income support portion of RAP.

Approximately three-quarters of Resettlement Assistance Program funds go directly to GARs in the form of income support payments, with the remaining resources used to cover costs associated with RAP services which include:

• reception services,
• temporary accommodation and assistance with permanent accommodations,
• assessments,
• initial needs assessments
• orientation on financial and non-financial information and life skills training, and
• links to mandatory federal and provincial programs as well as to other settlement programs.

Major findings and conclusions – GAR

The major findings and conclusions associated with the Government Assisted Refugee (GAR) program are detailed below.

A1. There is a continued need for Canada to assist refugees through the Government Assisted Refugee (GAR) program.

As a signatory to the United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and in recognition of the 2002 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Agenda for Protection, Canada agreed to the importance of protection of refugees.

It should be further noted that from an international perspective, there continues to be an increase in the number of refugees worldwide. The UNHCR estimates that it registers more than 800,000 refugees per year. Canada’s commitment to refugee resettlement assists in the responsibility sharing across host countries, and also offers a durable solution for refugees in protracted situations. Consistent with UNHCR guidelines, resettlement is a durable solution only when combined with appropriate and effective resettlement assistance services. In this context, the GAR program relies on the Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP) to deliver the required supports to refugees once they arrive in Canada.

A2. The GAR program is seen to be in alignment with Federal Government objectives and priorities.

Stakeholders and a review of available documentation suggest that the GAR program is closely aligned with Government of Canada objectives. For example, the GAR program is consistent with CIC’s legislation, including the 2002 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) which clearly states that Canada has a commitment to provide assistance to those refugees in need of resettlement. In addition, the GAR program also clearly aligns with Government of Canada commitments to human rights and humanitarian issues as identified in the 2007 Speech from the Throne.

Furthermore, stakeholders interviewed as part of this evaluation noted that the GAR program should remain a federally-managed program, especially as the program was seen to be part of Canada’s foreign policy, with linkages to other federal departments; including DFAIT, CBSA and CIDA. It was noted that the issue of refugees cut across a number of sectors – including development, humanitarian policy, peace building, diplomacy and immigration – all of which are the purview of the federal government.

A3. Canada places a high importance on the UNHCR for the initial selection of GARs.

With the exception of the Source Country Designation Program, CIC works in close cooperation with other organizations (primarily the UNHCR) to select refugees to enter Canada under the GAR program. In many regions, Canada’s acceptance of the UNHCR’s Prima Facie designation means that Canadian Visa Offices Abroad (CVOAs) are not required to extensively assess GAR applicants for eligibility, but rather, will assess on the basis of admissibility. For this reason, acceptance rates of UNHCR-identified GAR applicants is very high. Canada’s acceptance (or lack of acceptance) of UNHCR refugee determination also significantly affects the ease/speed at which refugees can be processed.

Canada’s high acceptance rate for UNHCR referred refugees (in excess of 90% for the international case study sites visited) was viewed positively by both UNHCR and CIC stakeholders. UNHCR noted that Canada’s willingness to accept a range of refugees, including urgent protection cases and those with high medical needs, was a strength of the system. Similarly, CIC staff noted that due to their “on the ground” use of CVOA-based refugee officers, Canada clearly communicates the criteria that they will use to assess refugee applications to local UNHCR staff.

A4. Use of different processing models impacts CIC’s ability to process refugees.

It is clear that the different processing models used by CIC (Source Country, Single Processing, Group Processing) and acceptance of UNHCR Prima Facie designations for refugees have a considerable impact on the ability of CVOA to review, screen and process refugees. It became clear in the evaluation that processing refugees under the Source Country designation required considerably more time and resources than did refugees processed under other models. In addition, Canada’s acceptance (or non-acceptance) of UNHCR Prima Facie designation also impacts efficiency in terms of refugee processing. Similarly, the group processing designation used by CIC further expedited the efficient processing of refugees, as it allows for the large-scale movement of refugees with similar socio-cultural characteristics. Group processing had advantages in both the overseas processing of GARs, as well as allowing Canadian-based Service Provider Organizations (SPOs) to develop tailored programs to meet the requirements of the identified “group” of GARs.

A5. Canada’s processing of GARs is viewed positively by UNHCR/IOM stakeholders.

Stakeholders (UNHCR/IOM) who are uniquely positioned to compare Canada’s selection and processing of refugees to that of other settlement countries noted several positive aspects of Canada’s process which they consider to be best practices, including:

• Having “on the ground” staff with appropriate decision-making authority to approve and expedite urgent cases, high medical needs, and other special cases. Having CVOA-based refugee staff also supports close communication between the UNHCR, IOM and Canada.
• Canada generally has fewer restrictions as to the type of refugees that it will accept. Consequently, refugees referred by the UNHCR to Canada are generally accepted (acceptance rate in excess of 90%).
• Canada continues to take high numbers of refugees (second only to the United States in 2009 in terms of the number of refugees resettled).

A6. Processing of GARs could be improved with better technology/infrastructure systems.

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/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.

Major findings and conclusions – RAP

The major findings and conclusions associated with the Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP) are detailed below.

B1. The RAP Program is consistent with UNHCR guidelines on providing immediate assistance to newly arriving refugees.

The Resettlement Assistance Program is designed to provide intensive services and supports to GAR who arrive in Canada in the first four to six weeks of arrival. RAP provides the services and support deemed essential by the UNHCR to facilitate the integration of refugees in resettlement countries – namely temporary accommodation, orientation to systems and resources, assistance with access to medical care, assessment and early settlement support, interpretation and income support.

B2. Refugee needs for support services has likely increased following the introduction of IRPA.

With the enactment of IRPA in 2002, there was a change in emphasis in terms of refugee selection. Under IRPA, there was a greater emphasis placed on the need for protection and less emphasis placed on the ability of a refugee to become established in Canada. Resettled refugees are also exempt from inadmissibility to Canada for financial needs, or for excess demand on health care and social services.

This change in selection criteria has had far reaching impact in terms of the types of clients RAP service provider organizations (SPOs) provide service to as compared to the pre-IRPA GAR clients. As noted in the evaluation, GAR clients now face more “obstacles”, as demonstrated by the percentage increase in the proportion of clients (2009 compared to 2000) with no official language skills (+14%), no formal education (+26%), or those 65 years of age or older (+150%).

B3. Mixed findings were found regarding the quality of the matching.

It was noted by SPOs and CIC staff that GARs were appropriately matched to communities. In this context, GAR needs were said to be placed at the forefront of the matching process. This finding was echoed among GARs who participated in the survey, as three-quarters reported being happy with the town or city where they were destined. However, approximately one-fifth (18%) of GARs surveyed reported moving away from their destined community, which is also echoed by results from the IMDB indicating that 22% of GARs had moved away from their province of destination two years after landing. SPOs reported that relocation was generally associated with reunification of family or friends, to find work, or to access programs or services not available in the destined community.

B4. GARs report a high level of satisfaction with service provided.

GARs expressed a high level of satisfaction with the services provided under the RAP program, with generally three-quarters or more of GARs citing a high level of satisfaction with orientation services provided by SPOs. A high proportion (85%) of GARs also reported that RAP helped meet their immediate and essential needs.

Notwithstanding the high level of satisfaction GARs have with RAP services provided, service provider organization (SPO) representatives consulted identified that GARs were in need of more services than were currently provided. In particular, SPO stakeholders cited the need for more tailored programs that would be modified to meet the specific needs of GARs, the need to provide case management that would extend beyond the six weeks currently provided under RAP, and development of programs and services that target youth and/or seniors.

B5. Concerns with respect to the RAP program revolve around housing, medical needs, level of income support and flexibility in program delivery.

Evaluation findings highlight priority areas in terms of the current shortcomings of the RAP program. The key issues identified in the evaluation are as follows:

• Accessing affordable housing A key challenge faced by GARs is finding affordable housing. Based on an analysis of income support rates versus average housing costs, it was found that the majority of GAR income (upwards 56%) is used for housing, placing them in core housing need.
• Medical needs SPOs report a marked increase in the complexity of medical conditions of GARs. Although iCAMS data suggests that there has been little change in the average number of hours per GAR to attend to emergency cases, there is considerable variation in the level of service provided for emergency medical needs.
• Income support Stakeholders noted that the current benchmark (provincial income assistance rates) used to calculate income support levels for GARs was inappropriate. There are numerous indicators to suggest that income support levels are insufficient including the high proportion of GARs who reported using food banks (57%), the proportion who reported difficulties in repaying their CIC transportation loan (61%) and the proportion citing financial issues as the greatest difficulty in terms of resettlement (33%). It has also been calculated that CIC income support equates to less than one-half the income required to meet the Low Income Cut-Off level (LICO) in Canada.
• Flexibility in program delivery SPOs are under the impression that all GARs must receive the same level of service, irrespective of their particular needs or requirements. Analyses of the RAP guidelines suggest that RAP is quite “prescriptive” in terms of the types of information/services that should be provided to GARs. To allow resources to be appropriately targeted based on need, SPOs should be provided with the funding flexibility to modify individual service provision based on client need(s).

B6. Longitudinal analysis of GAR outcomes highlights the difficulties faced by GAR clients in Canada.

Analysis of survey and taxfiler (IMDB) data underscored the economic challenges faced by GARs in terms of integration into Canada. For example, the survey of GAR clients indicated that for GARs who arrived in Canada over the past five years, the unemployment rate averaged 25%. Analysis of IMDB data shows that GARs were reliant on social assistance, especially in the first years following arrival. Although most of the GARs secured employment during the first years after landing, a significant share (about 40%) were not employed after three years in Canada and for those who were employed, their earnings remained fairly low. Employment earnings averaged between $11,700 one year after landing and $21,700 five years after landing. Factors such as gender, country of birth, age at landing, and knowledge of official languages contributed to the explanation of the economic outcomes of GARs.

GAR – Management response

RAP – Management response

• Previous
• 1
• 2 (current)
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• Next