APPENDIX A
To: Mandie Campbell
STREAMLINING REVIEW
1. UKvisas launched streamlining globally
in 2002, following workshops with a cross-section of Posts to
examine all aspects of the visa process. The need for streamlining
arose because the demand for visas had outstripped our ability
to resource Posts to work in the way that they were doing. The
essence of streamlining was requiring Entry Clearance Managers
to risk-manage their Sections, concentrating resources on higher
risk areas of work. Streamlining would not compromise quality
but offer quicker and more efficient processes to support the
quality agenda. This was to be achieved in a number of ways:
(i) Information: By providing sufficient information
to enable applicants to fully prepare their application before
lodging it, and making it clear that the ECO will aim to resolve
the application on the day it is lodged, on the basis of the documents
produced at that time.
(ii) The sift: Linked to (i) above. By moving
away from pre-assessment to discourage frivolous applications.
Not sifting also provides a more transparent and fair service.
(iii) Front-end working: By reconfiguring visa
sections to facilitate decisions being taken at the front counter,
by 1 ECO. Previously, an applicant could expect to see up to 3
different officers before a decision was reached.
(iv) Interviews: By introducing standard templates
to assist focussed interviews. ECMs were also encouraged to support
ECOs to hone their interview skills and to concentrate on the
core issues.
(v) Standardised forms: By introducing a set
of customised short format refusal templates that ECOs could tailor
to individual applicants.
(vi) Non-present applications: By introducing
a system for non-present applications, usually referred to as
"drop box", for applicants who were likely to qualify
for visas (eg previous travel history).
(vii) Refusal on Papers: By not interviewing
applicants simply to confirm the documentary evidence already
submitted (where it is already clear that an application fails
to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules)
(viii) Outsourcing: By outsourcing some
of the administrative functions of the visa application process
(eg accepting, checking and submitting applications to Post).
2. Some two years after the introduction
of streamlining, UKvisas decided that it would be helpful to review
its impact. In its 2004 report on the Entry Clearance Operation,
the National Audit Office also recommended a review of streamlining
to establish the benefits and to explore any unintended consequences.
The NAO recommended that such a review cover:
(a) The extent of the introduction of streamlining
globally.
(b) The impact of the various elements on productivity/efficiency.
(c) Any adverse consequences.
METHODOLOGY
3. As a first step, a questionnaire was
sent to all 151 UK Entry Clearance issuing posts to establish
the extent to which the various elements of streamlining had been
implemented.
4. At the time of this analysis two Posts
(Abidjan and Sana'a) were closed for security reasons, but responses
were received from each of the remaining 149 Posts. These responses
showed:
— 93% of Posts had introduced one
or more streamlining initiative.
— Of the remaining 7% (11 Posts),
none dealt with more than 2400 applications during the 2004 calendar
year and six of the 11 dealt with less than 700 applications.
— Nine of the 10 largest Posts by
volume of applications had implemented at least four individual
elements of streamlining.
— 5% of Posts (seven) had implemented
all of the streamlining initiatives.
A further breakdown showed the extent to which
each individual element of streamlining had been implemented:
— Interview Templates/Standard Refusal
Wordings—123 (83%).
— Front End Working—105 (69%).
— Fast Track/Business Express—63
(42%).
— Refusals on Paper—53 (36%).
— Drop Box—48 (32%).
— Outsourcing—27 (18%).
5. The next phase of the review targeted
a sample of 20% of Posts and sought qualitative and quantitative
information on the impact of streamlining. The main source of
the quantitative information was management information held centrally
(principally a comparison of 2001 and 2004 data to look at the
position before and after streamlining). But to supplement this,
two further questionnaires were sent out; one to ECMs and one
to ECOs and ECAs. The questionnaires served three main purposes
— To identify any local data—to
supplement or compare with central statistics.
— To seek the views of staff.
— To compare the views of ECAs/ECOs
and their managers (ECMs).
The key findings of this Phase of the Review
were:
Outsourcing
— Of the eight Posts that had introduced
outsourcing, 87.5% had experienced an increase in productivity
(2004 figures compared to those in 2001). The same number had
seen an improved or consistent performance against the PSA target
for non-straightforward applications, while 50% had an improved
and or consistent performance against the PSA target for straightforward
applications.
— Of the 30 Posts that had not introduced
outsourcing, 60% had seen an increase in productivity, 66% an
improved or consistent performance against the PSA target for
non-straightforward applications and 47% an improved or consistent
performance against the PSA target for straightforward applications.
Drop—Box (for straightforward applications)
— Of the 29 Posts that had introduced
a Drop-Box, 66% had seen an increase in productivity and 59% an
improved performance against the PSA target for straightforward
applications.
— Of the nine Posts that had not introduced
a Drop-Box, 44% had seen an increase in productivity and 33% an
improved or consistent performance against the PSA target for
straightforward applications.
Refusals on Paper (for non-straightforward applications)
— Of the 19 Posts that had introduced
Refusals on Paper, 84% had seen an increase in productivity and
68% an improved or consistent performance against the PSA target
for non-straightforward applications.
— Of the 19 Posts that had not introduced
Refusals on Paper, 42% had seen an increase in productivity and
79% an improved or consistent performance against the PSA target
for non-straightforward applications.
Fast-Track (for straightforward applications)
— Of the 26 Posts that had introduced
a Fast-Track facility, 73% had seen an increase in productivity
and 54% an improved or consistent performance against the PSA
target for straightforward applications.
— Of the 12 Posts that had not introduced
a Fast-Track facility, 42% had seen an increase in productivity
and 42% an improved or consistent performance against the PSA
target for straightforward applications.
Front End Working
— Of the 35 Posts that had introduced
Front End Working, 60% had seen an increase in productivity, 51%
an improved or consistent performance against the PSA target for
straightforward applications and 74% an improved or consistent
performance against the PSA target for non-straightforward applications.
— Of the three Posts that had not
introduced Front End Working, 33% had seen an increase in productivity,
0% an improved or consistent performance against the PSA target
for straightforward applications and 33% an improved or consistent
performance against the PSA target for non-straightforward applications.
Interview/Refusal Templates (for non-straightforward
applications)
— Of the 38 Posts that had introduced
the use of Interview/Refusal Templates, 61% had seen an increase
in productivity and 74% an improved or consistent performance
against the PSA target for non-straightforward applications.
6. The analysis also provided a clear indication
that Posts that had introduced the most elements of streamlining
had seen the greatest improvement in productivity. For example,
of the Posts surveyed in Phase 2, only 30% had seen a decrease
in productivity. None of these Posts had introduced more than
four different elements of streamlining. By contrast all of the
11 Posts that had introduced five or six elements of streamlining
had seen an increase in productivity (average increase of 28%
per Post). These 11 Posts included the five busiest Posts surveyed
in Phase 2 (and four of the five busiest Posts overall), accounting
for 60% of the applications dealt with by Phase 2 Posts in FY
2003-04 and 29% of the global number of applications processed
that financial year.
7. This pattern is reinforced by comparing
similar size Posts (in terms of volume of applications). It is
clear that in most cases Posts that have seen a decrease in productivity
have not introduced as many elements of streamlining as similar
size Posts that have seen an increase.
8. Looking at the impact of not streamlining,
55% of the Posts that had not introduced any elements of streamlining
had seen a decrease in Productivity. Overall non-streamlined Posts
experienced an average decrease in productivity of 5% compared
to an overall average increase in productivity of 12.5% in all
the Phase 2 Posts surveyed.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
9. The NAO Report suggested the Review consider
any unintended consequences of streamlining and gave examples,
such as refusal templates affecting success rates at appeal. Since
The NAO review, UKvisas has recognised the need to address a number
of decision quality issues across what is a diverse overseas network.
This is not a consequence of streamlining per se. A programme
of work, looking at consistency of decision-making, refusal formulae
and quality reviews has begun. As a consequence this review limited
its enquiry in this area to the area of refusal rates and appeals
outcomes. Refusal rates were looked at because of the fear that
streamlining focuses on productivity and service delivery at the
expense of the control. Appeal rates are an imperfect measure
of quality for a number of reasons (eg passage of time, the presence
of a sponsor etc) but they are one of the few external measures
of decision-making that lends itself to statistical analysis.
Refusals
10. 60% of the Posts surveyed in Phase 2 saw
an overall increase in their refusal rate compared to 36% of Posts
that had not introduced any elements of streamlining.
Appeals
11. A review of Family Visit Appeals (the
largest category in terms of the number of appeals submitted)
appeared to indicate that whilst the overall number of appeals
had increased dramatically (from 4,273 promulgations in 2001 to
22,773 in 2004) the overall percentage of appeals allowed had
decreased since 2001 (54% in 2001 compared to 47% in 2004).
|
| 2001 | Allowed—54%
|
| Dismissed—43%
|
| 2002 | Allowed—53%
|
| Dismissed—44%
|
| 2003 | Allowed—48%
|
| Dismissed—49%
|
| 2004 | Allowed—47%
|
| Dismissed—49%
|
|
FEEDBACK FROM
STAFF
12. A total of 79 staff of different grades were asked
for feedback (32 ECMs; 36 ECOs; 11 ECAs). The responses showed
that:
— 75% of ECMs felt that productivity had increased
as a result of streamlining. 94% of ECOs and 85% of ECAs shared
this view.
— 75% of ECMs felt that productivity targets are
realistic/achievable. This compares with 61% of ECOs and 62% of
ECAs.
— Only 44% of ECOs and 36% of ECAs felt that there
had been any degree of consultation prior to the implementation
of streamlining initiatives.
— 45% of ECMs surveyed felt that the refusal rate
at their Post had increased. This compared to 78% of ECOs/ECAs.
— 19% of ECMs felt that the introduction of streamlining
had had some degree of negative impact on staff morale. This contrasts
with 61% of ECOs and 36% of ECAs who felt that it had.
— 12.5% of ECMs felt that streamlining had lead
to an increase in the percentage of appeals received. 36% of ECOs
and 45% of ECAs shared this view.
— 19% of ECMs felt that the percentage of appeals
allowed had increased, as did 25% of ECOs and 27% of ECAs.
CAVEATS
13. There are a number of factors that may have affected
these findings:
— Data errors.
— Legislative and policy changes can affect productivity
(eg ECAA, SBS, and WHM), refusal rates and appeals outcomes.
— Direct comparisons between Posts can be subject
to many variables (eg quality of application; quality and experience
of staff; profile of applications; whether English is widely spoken;
security constraints).
— Difficult to assess productivity/performance
accurately in small Posts where staff are multi-hatted or where
overall application numbers are low.
— Not all elements of streamlining are appropriate
to all Posts—eg the cost of operating an outsourced operation
might be prohibitive, there may not be an appropriate outsource
partner available.
CONCLUSIONS
14. Noting the caveats above, caution must be exercised
when attempting to draw unequivocal conclusions from this review.
That said, the main findings of this review are:
(i) Only 11 out of a total of 149 Entry Clearance Posts had
not introduced some measure of streamlining. The Posts that hadn't
handle very low volumes of applications.
(ii) There is a correlation between streamlining and improvements
in productivity. The results also suggest a cumulative effect,
with the biggest productivity gains noticed in posts that had
introduced multiple elements of streamlining.
(iii) While it is difficult to measure the impact of each
element of streamlining, the greatest productivity gains noticed
in this review have come as a result of outsourcing and refusal
on papers. Based on this review there is no single measure introduced
under streamlining that hasn't positively impacted on productivity.
(iv) There is no evidence to suggest that productivity gains
have been at the expense of an effective control. Refusal rates
have gone up in most of the posts that have streamlined.
(v) Appeals success rates have improved. It is difficult to
identify the extent to which streamlining has been a contributory
factor but this finding is consistent with the view that streamlining
has helped focus effort where it is most needed.
(vi) The feedback from staff shows a clear difference of perception
between ECMs and their staff. It also highlights the importance
of effective communication and change management if such changes
are to be introduced as successfully as possible.
16. Some three years on from the introduction of streamlining,
we are no longer looking at a "new way" of working but
rather the accepted norm. It is encouraging to note the widespread
take-up of streamlining. This review should give managers the
confidence to look again at how their post operates, how streamlined
the operation is, and consider what further streamlining measures
might be introduced to further improve the operation. Further
work needs to be done on how to maximise efficiency in our smallest
posts and this is a workstream that will be taken forward by the
Systems Quality team.
Simon Hewett
6 March 2006
| 
