Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) Consultation Workshop Update Date: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) Consultation Workshop Update

Date: Thursday 25 June 2015

Welcome

Welcome to the Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) Consultation Workshop Update Lunar House, Croydon

Slide 2

Hosts

AVR Consultation Workshop Update

Hosts:

• Ben Kelso, Director, National Removals Command,

Immigration Enforcement

• David Owen, Deputy Director, Voluntary Departures &

Data Matching Facilitator:

• Ophelia Elliott, Assistant Director, Head of Assisted

Voluntary Returns

Slide 3

Housekeeping Ophelia Elliott

• Fire exits
• Fire alarm – 11:00am
• WC facilities
• Mobile phones
• Refreshment break
• No smoking in Lunar House (or the vicinity)
• The use of cameras, video or recording equipment

is not permitted on Home Office premises

Slide 4

Agenda Ophelia Elliott

• 10:00 - Registration and coffee
• 10:30 - Welcome (Ophelia Elliott)
• 10:35 - Introduction and purpose of the day (Ben Kelso)
• 10:40 - AVR from 2016 onwards (Ben Kelso / David Owen)
• 10:55 - Consultation Review Responses (David Owen)
• 11:30 - Refreshment break
• 11:50 - Q & A session
• 12:25 - Summary of discussions and next steps
• 12:30 - Close

Slide 5

Introduction and purpose of the day Ben Kelso

Slide 6

To update you on the:

• AVR programme from 2016 onwards;
• Strategic direction of Immigration Enforcement following

the outcome of the General Election;

• AVR timescales for implementation;
• AVR Consultation responses received.

AVR from 2016 Onwards Ben Kelso

Whilst no decision has yet been formally agreed, it is time to provide clarity on the possible design of AVR in the future.

• We are committed to assisting people in returning

voluntarily in the future.

• We want to work with stakeholders to make that provision

effective, especially in assisting with overseas reintegration and support.

• We need to ensure the service is cost effective and aligns

fully with the government’s approach to managing immigration.

Slide 7

AVR from 2016 Onwards Ben Kelso

The tone and provision of AVR will look different:

• AVR will supplement not diminish enforced and other types
• f return.
• AVR will cater for a limited audience of those who would

not otherwise return.

• Those who still fail to return will find access to services

increasingly reduced and will be liable to arrest and detention.

• AVR will be an integral part of an integrated voluntary

departure service that makes it easier to leave.

Slide 8

AVR from 2016 Onwards Ben Kelso

Slide 9

Casework Overseas Integration Outreach and Marketing Vulnerable Cases Families Asylum

• Undertaken and

resourced within Home Office.

• Supported by

Other Government Departments.

• Delivered with

contribution from the voluntary sector. Undertaken and resourced within Home Office. We will seek partnerships with the sector in the future to deliver increasingly flexible reintegration, bespoke to individual needs.

AVR Consultation Review Responses Ophelia Elliott

An overview of the responses received:

• 64 individuals attended the AVR Consultation on 23

March;

• 11 responses from organisations were received by 17

April.

Slide 10

• 1. What are your thoughts on our plans to focus

the AVR programme on vulnerable persons? David Owen

Slide 11

• Any additional assistance is perceived as a positive initiative.
• Vulnerable migrants should be a specific focus of the programme.
• Very sensitive [for some individuals].
• Vulnerability is very difficult to assess.
• Interaction with Local Authorities is key.
• ARE care leavers should be included in the definition.
• Reintroduce access to AVR for all immigration detainees.
• Opposition to exclude irregular migrants.

• 2. What do you think about our proposals to focus

the AVR programme on families? David Owen

• Families are a rich source of persons who may be willing to return.
• Families should be a specific focus as they are likely to find the

process of return difficult.

• Family Returns model and independent panel are useful instruments.
• Important that future programmes preserve the opportunity to enable

families to have the best chance of a sustainable return.

• Important to think carefully about the impact of the return on each

family member.

• Local Authorities need to consider whether return [to country of
• rigin] is in the best interests of the child.

Slide 12

• 3. What are your thoughts on our plans to include those

who have already sought asylum in the AVR programme? David Owen

• Asylum seekers should receive flexible assistance, including

enhanced overseas provision.

• AVR is a dignified option.
• AVR remains a better and more effective option than forced returns

where possible.

• Local Authorities support the retention of this group in the

programme.

• People who have sought asylum in the UK are grateful for the
• pportunity for AVR.

Slide 13

• 4. What do you think about our proposals to exclude those

persons who do not meet the vulnerability threshold? David Owen

• Appropriate for additional support to be reserved for those who have

sought asylum, families and vulnerable groups.

• AVR should be as inclusive as possible to ease the public purse.
• Concerned about the impact of withdrawing AVR for irregular

migrants.

• All people should have an opportunity to consider AVR at any point

in their claim.

Slide 14

• 5. Do you have any further suggestions on which categories of

persons that we should consider including in the AVR programme? David Owen

• Care leavers to be included under the vulnerability threshold.
• Individuals on spouse visas but who have separated because of

domestic violence.

• People granted short term compassionate leave after the death of

their partner.

• All migrants in administrative detention should be included within the

AVR programme.

Slide 15

• 6. What other audience can the third sector access on

behalf of the AVR programme? David Owen

• All irregular migrants
• Visa overstayers
• Work places
• Initial accommodation
• Dispersal regions
• Community diasporas
• Communities and Voluntary Organisations
• Public sector
• Ethnic diaspora media
• International Embassies and High Commissions
• International organisations

Slide 16

• 7. What categories of persons do you think we should consider

including on the scope of vulnerable for the purposes of AVR? David Owen

• UASCs
• Disabled Persons
• Elderly
• Pregnant
• Lone parents with child
• Person subject to torture, exploitation, etc
• Victims of Trafficking
• Those where individual evaluation has identified a need
• Lack of reading and writing – inability to understand UK systems
• Lack of confidence to communicate
• Those with acute mental or physical health needs
• ARE cases
• Females from particular ethnic minorities – certain foreign

countries within the EEA i.e. Romania / Bulgaria

Slide 17

• 8. Do you think there are any categories of persons that should be

excluded from the scope of vulnerable for the purposes of AVR?

David Owen

The following were suggested as groups who should be excluded:

• Human traffickers – conflicting assists both Victims of Trafficking

and their perpetrators.

• The Home Office should investigate how balance can be struck to

introduce a system whereby individuals guilty of an offence cannot access the service. Most respondents did not believe that any categories should be excluded.

Slide 18

• 9. Do you agree with our current proposals to reduce the

current three month maximum timescale for return?

David Owen

• Generally long enough although vulnerable might need longer.
• Takes time to make the necessary preparations to return via AVR.
• Existing three month timescale in respect of AVR is sometimes

inadequate.

• Average length of time for departure – 1 .3 months for a VARRP case –

1 . 6 months for an AVRIM case – 2 . 6 months for AVRFC.

• Return is a major decision and not one that applicants should be

pressured into making.

Slide 19

• 10. What are your thoughts on our intention for the AVR

team to refer and receive cases to and from vol deps? David Owen

• Seems like a sensible approach as there is a clear cross over.
• Supportive of a more defined referral route between AVR and Vol Deps.
• On the surface not an unreasonable suggestion but open to suspicion by

potential returnees.

• Migrants often distrustful of government departments. HO could include Vol

Deps into the AVR programme

• This would compromise the independence of the AVR provider.
• Fairness needs to be ensured. Criteria for judging vulnerability and

eligibility must be uniform.

• Risk it will become routine to refer AVR cases to Vol Deps and fewer

people will receive AVR.

• Need to ensure cohesive responsive programmes between AVR and Vol

Deps.

• If the AVR team referred and received cases to/from Vol Deps this would

lead to fewer people engaging with AVR.

Slide 20

• 11. We are considering restricting AVR to one application

per person / family only. Do you agree? David Owen

• As a general rule this makes sense.
• Yes providing there is a meaningful effective and accurate

appeals process in place.

• Restricting the number of AVR applications to one per

person/family could increase the number of eligible migrants who wish to return home but do not have the means to do so.

• Disagrees with this policy.
• If AVR is restricted to one application per family what happens if

there are administrative delays or change in country guidance?

Slide 21

• 12. What are your thoughts on our plans to make best use
• f digital technology?

David Owen

• A portal should be created to enable the third sector to submit online

applications, documents, make referrals.

• Benefits for the client in terms of efficient case management.
• Online forms can be a useful way of promoting services. Emphasis

must be on discreetness.

• Supportive of making the best use of the website for promoting AVR.
• Fine line between facilitating voluntary return and encouraging it.

Risk of shading towards involuntary returns.

• Best practice for voluntary return options to be explained and

discussed face to face.

Slide 22

• 13. Do you have any suggestions on how we can go

digital? David Owen

• Ensure the IT requirements are explicit in the specifications. Requirement should

indicate a good digital platform. Specification should include the requirement for the provision of a multi – lingual, national telephone helpline which includes a texting response

• service. Make best use of VOIP (Voice over internet protocol). Secure Cloud based
• technology. Interpreter to engage. Use of secure upload and download portals to exchange
• information. Specification should reflect the requirement for the provision of free advice and

support telephone service.

• Use social media for Outreach Awareness Raising – social media – digital banner adverts.
• Online Information and Application – provide up to date information on the AVR programme

– process overview – eligibility criteria – returnee testimonials – multi language website – contact information – e mail – self service application – provide application status checking for AVR applicants. Case management – process applications in one digital service that automatically links with online applications – but also allows for manual applications – enhance reporting of management data.

• It would be worth consulting how this worked in other parts of the public sector

engagement e.g. MOJ.

• Focus on the quality of information about the programme and the services – health –

education – employment – available in the country of return particularly in the top ten countries to where AVR is likely to take place.

Slide 23

• 14. Do you have any suggestions on how we can make the

AVR package more flexible for the applicant? David Owen

• More local support would ensure the applicant gets the advice

needed.

• The positive aspects of sustainable reintegration via AVR should be

promoted more to combat the negative perspectives that revolve around return.

• Focus on quality of in country support immediately on return without

insistence on in-kind support over a year.

• Recognise the value of flexibility of provision dependent on

individual circumstances and the situation in the country of origin.

• Greater flexibility and autonomy in the provision of reintegration

assistance welcomed.

• Review the financial levels of support per country – as blanket

amounts in sterling have different values in countries of return.

• Widen reintegration assistance criteria- provide financial support to

extended family in the country of return.

Slide 24

• 15. Do you have any further suggestions on how we can

improve the overseas provision? David Owen

• Creating more points of contacts with local NGOS to implement
• verseas provision, strengthen opportunities for reintegration.
• HO to take advice from organisations with relevant experience.
• Information should be accessible at the pre departure phase to

ensure that clients are as prepared as possible.

• Overseas support for returnees could be enhanced by having more

information and access to initiatives delivered by FCO and DFID.

• Make sure the service provider has up to date information about the

situation in country- and some contacts there to help and support the returner in the early days and weeks.

Slide 25

• 16. Do you have any further suggestions on how Home office services

could better access voluntary, community and third sector networks? David Owen

• Increase publicity like AVR flyers in hospitals, churches,
• newspapers. HO to host regional awareness days for frontline

professionals from housing CAB etc.

• Good partnerships with national and international organisations

that work with target communities. In depth understanding of economic geography of migrants on the UK. A strong presence in Initial Accommodation etc to assist clients that have a distrust of authorities, through an organisation that is trusted by clients.

• Crucial that the AVR provider is independent of Government so

they can provide impartial advice. Payments to AVR providers should not be linked to targets concerning the number of returnees. This could create problematic incentives for the provider to persuade people to return voluntarily where this was not safe of appropriate.

Slide 26

• 17. What are your thoughts on the Commercial

considerations? David Owen

• Duration – programme should not be under 3 years – but could be

a real benefit if the duration was 5 years.

• Would welcome 5 years + 2 years to allow the organisation to

deliver the service.

• Segmentation – a consortium would be better equipped than a

single organisation to offer an AVR programme to communities.

• Concern that the proposal to divide the contract into 9 segments

could become unmanageable if 9 separate organisation tendered successfully for the work.

• Segmentation would introduce a complex and bureaucratic

process.

• Timescale for undertaking the bidding process seems a bit short

leaving little time for innovation and favouring larger organisations.

Slide 27

• 18. Commercial timescales are tight. Do you have any primary concerns. Do

you have any suggestions on how we could help prospective bidders meet this time scale? David Owen

• Provided timescales are presented and adhered to we have no

concerns.

• A minimum of three months is allocated for the transition activity.
• Concerns are that the process should be effective rather than

rushed and if the timescales need to be extended then that should be seriously considered in order to achieve an effective

• utcome.
• Timescale for bid appears quite short. The process would be

assisted if detailed information relating to AVR programme over the last four years is made available.

• Proposed timeframe for mobilisation is extremely challenging.

Slide 28

• 19. Value for money is a key consideration for the future AVR
• programme. Do you have any suggestions on how this consideration

can be met? David Owen

• HO urged to see the bigger picture. AVR is cheap compared to

detention removal.

• Ensure that the organisation has existing structural base IT and

telephony capacity.

• The AVR programme should be open to a wider range of potential

returnees making the programme more cost effective and reducing unit cost.

• Cost benefit analysis conducted considering ongoing country of

return support such as supporting the sourcing of safe accommodation, access to employment / training / education on return.

• Consideration could be given to providing short term financial

assistance to migrant whilst they are in the UK.

• Make use of volunteers – investors in people accreditation for

volunteer recruitment and retention.

Slide 29

• 20. Do you have any further thoughts on the toughest
• pportunities for AVR as set out in the vision?

David Owen

• Address the practicality of any future AVR.
• Regain the credibility of the service; for clients to see

AVR as a positive option.

• Communication – the success and failure of the AVR

programme will reside in effective communication of the vision.

Slide 30

• 21. Do you have any further thoughts on the most exciting
• pportunities for the future of AVR as set out in the vision?

David Owen

• Disappointed that few people seem to have been consulted about

the major changes proposed in the AVR scheme.

• AVR is most valuable when seen as an important part of a fair

asylum system.

• Suggests finding digital approaches for most of the AVR

programme to lead to innovative opportunities and results.

• Excited about the future of AVR and want to develop AVR in the

future.

Slide 31

• 22. Do you have any further suggestions on our overall

future provision for the AVR programme? David Owen

• Professionalise the programme. Make best use of technology and
• telephony. Simplify the process of communication into action using one
• rganisation rather than many.
• Reintegration needs of men and women are different. Women

access information in different places to men in the UK. Home Office should require the AVR provider to focus on gender sensitivity.

• Utilise the model for family returns conferencing and returns

process for other vulnerable cases. Adopt models which have been proven in other areas of business

Slide 32

Refreshment Break

Slide 33

AVR Consultation Update

Q&A

Slide 34

Next steps Ben Kelso

• We will write to you setting out a summary of the consultation

feedback.

• There will be further communication in respect of overseas

provision when the direction has been confirmed.

• The current programme will continue in its present form until

31st December 2015.

• After that, we intend to continue to work alongside community

and voluntary sector organisations in the UK.

Slide 35

Workshop Close Ben Kelso Thank you for your participation

Slide 36