... to direct our attention to addressing the crisis of the growing backlog.
Our former chairperson has spoken to this committee on several occasions on the transformation agenda that was launched in 2003. This plan consisted of more than a dozen specific initiatives that sought to standardize and simplify processes, provide decision-makers with greater institutional guidance to enhance the quality and consistency of decision-making, and improve the efficiency of hearings. We standardized our country-of-origin documentation, introduced chairperson's guidelines and jurisprudential guides, and provided ample opportunity for members to discuss best practices in decision-making in order to promote consistency.
As well, temporary funding was secured by the IRB to hire additional resources to address the backlog. By mid-2006, our inventory had been reduced to less than 20,000 claims.
Today, however, our inventory of claims waiting for a decision is growing again. We project that, by the end of the fiscal year, our inventory will have climbed back to over 26,000 claims waiting for a decision.
Turning to the implementation of the RAD, as I've indicated before, the board does not want to make pronouncements on policy. Obviously the question of whether to pass this bill is strictly a matter for Parliament. What I would seek to do is to give you some sense of what implementation might mean for the board in terms of cost, processing time, and member recruitment.
In relation to cost, certain one-time start-up costs would be incurred in the first year of operation. Thereafter, there are the regular operating costs of a division. All of the estimates that I'm referring to are very preliminary, I'd like to stress that, and we might need to revisit them in the course of implementing.
Exclusive of information technology costs, we estimate that the one-time start-up cost relating to implementation would be around $2 million. Most of that is directed at ensuring that we get the right people with the right skills in place on the day that an appeal is first filed. Much of that is targeted at human resources work. It involves creating competency profiles for decision-makers, recruitment of decision-makers, recruitment of staff, and classification actions. A lot of training would need to be done. In addition, we need to develop the rules of the refugee appeal division, and we need to address our mind to such issues as accommodations and equipment.
I'd like to mention very briefly the question of information technology. In 2003 the board began work to replace what is an outdated case tracking system. We would have to institute a case management system for the refugee appeal division that would be compatible with the one that we've now developed for the refugee protection division.
We've taken a very preliminary look at the business requirements for the RAD, and that's a one-time cost that we estimate at $6 million. The one-time start-up costs that we see are $6 million for IT and $2 million for everything that is non-IT-related.
In relation to the operating costs, this is largely driven by the demand--in other words, the overall volume of appeals that the RAD would receive every year. That obviously is a function of how many cases the RPD finalize. We would anticipate that in any given year the operating costs would be somewhere between $6 million and $8 million. Again, it's something that depends on the volume of appeals that are filed.
To have a fair process, the law requires that the person appealing the case be given the time to review the original decision and prepare their written arguments. That would take about 45 days from the original decision. It would take the RAD a further three to three-and-a-half months to complete the case, so we estimate that, on average, the appeal process would add an additional five months to the board's overall average processing time.
Those are the costs and timeframes that the board can speak to; there are other costs that may be incurred by other federal organizations or other levels of government until the appeal is resolved. The success of the RAD depends on getting the right kind of decision-maker. The work that is done in adjudicating appeals in a paper process is different from the work required to conduct an oral hearing, where parties are present and give evidence.
The RAD members would need to have a practical approach to the appeal process, so past experience in adjudicating refugee claims at the first level would be a great asset.
I've given you a summary of what it would take in preparation and implementation. Taking all of those various elements together, the board estimates the RAD would be ready to function within 12 months of legislation being passed.
I'd like to stress, however, that the one-year window is really dependent on certain critical assumptions. One is that the funding is available for the board to do this job. Two is that there are timely appointments or reappointments of decision-makers. And the important third assumption, which really is critical to the success of the RAD, is that it doesn't come into existence with a backlog of appeals waiting to be adjudicated.
If the board does not have sufficient lead time to establish and staff the RAD prior to the right of appeal taking effect, then the RAD will start life with a backlog. This will potentially increase the processing time from the five months I've just mentioned, and raises questions about the workability of the appeal process.