Paying failed refugee claimants to leave Canada didn’t work: Review

Classic case of anecdote driving assumptions, assumptions not validated prior to launch. It would be interesting to know what was CBSA and CIC advice to the political level on the design of this program: was it ‘fearless’ or going along with the flow?

And an interesting reference to “like many aspects of the refugee reform,” suggesting other aspects were similarly driven more by anecdote than evidence:

But an evaluation by Canada Border Services Agency found that’s not what happened.

“The need for the AVRR as currently designed is questionable in that removals take longer and cost more compared to other low-risk removals since the refugee reform came into effect,” the evaluation found.

The controversial program was part of the Conservative government’s overhaul of the refugee system, launched in a bid to crack down on people making unfounded refugee claims and tying up government resources.

Critics said the changes were made without considering the implications, a point echoed by the government’s own evaluation of the return project.

“Like many aspects of the refugee reform, the pilot program was designed based on a set of assumptions that could not be validated prior to launch, some of which proved not to be accurate,” the evaluation said.

Among them: the idea that giving people money to help them resettle in their home countries would convince them to stop trying to appeal negative decisions.

“Since the assistance received decreases with each additional appeal made, it was expected that more failed refugee claimants would choose to leave instead of filing an appeal,” the evaluation report said.

“The assistance paid so far shows this was not the case as more participants made two appeals in 2013-2014 than in 2012-2013.”

Those making claims from so-called safe countries, known as DCOs, were offered $500 and those from elsewhere were eligible for up to $2,000.

That didn’t work as planned either.

“The Immigration and Refugee Board databases did not initially include a marker to indicate which failed refugee claimants were from a DCO,” the report said.

However, the evaluation process worked, and it was a pilot program. Sometimes you have to try things to see if they will work, but better testing and challenge of assumptions would help reduce risk of failure.

Paying failed refugee claimants to leave Canada didn’t work: Review.

Link to evaluation here.