Background:

The Finnish Immigration Service is exploring ways to improve the efficiency of the international protection procedure. As part of this effort, Finland is examining how many asylum interviews and decisions can be conducted or issued by one full-time equivalent (FTE) per year. Finland is interested in knowing whether other EMN Members or Observer Countries assess the efficiency of their international protection procedures using similar indicators. If so, Finland would like to learn which metrics are used and, where comparable data exists, how its own figures relate to those in other countries. 

Respondents:

15 EMN Members and one Observer Country provided a public answer to this ad hoc query. 

Findings:

A preliminary analysis of the results of the ad hoc query shows that:

• Out of 16 respondents, 11 EMN Members confirmed that they actively measure procedural efficiency, whereas four Members and one Observer Country (RS) do not track these metrics at present. 

• Among those measuring efficiency, distinct approaches emerged. HR, FI, and SE focus primarily on the annual number of decisions produced by a single FTE, using that “decisions-per-FTE” ratio as their core performance indicator. AT and CY concentrate instead on timing: they monitor waiting-time intervals and other procedural deadlines to ensure compliance with legal time limits. IT and PL combine both output and timing metrics, while EL evaluates performance against predetermined caseload quotas and processing targets. LU stands out by applying a holistic framework—balancing quantitative targets with quality controls (such as the “four-eyes principle”) and measures of staff well-being. 

• Twelve reporting EMN Members do not track how many asylum interviews a single FTE conducts. Those that do report substantial variation in interview volumes. In FI, an officer averages just 28 interviews per year, whereas CY reports 90 interviews annually. EL records the highest volume, at 155 interviews per FTE each year. 

• Several responding EMN Members emphasised that interview length depends heavily on case complexity, so they refrain from maintaining a single average. Where reported, durations range from around two and a half hours in EL and HU to approximately three hours in IT and LT, four hours in RS, and more than five hours in FI. 

• Nine Members do not measure decision output per FTE. Among those who do, outputs vary from about 31 decisions per year in FI and SE to 90 decisions in CY. EL supplements these annual figures with weekly expectations, requiring caseworkers to issue four eligibility decisions or eight inadmissibility decisions each week. 

• Nine EMN Members report using no specialised analytics tools beyond their core case-management systems. The remainder rely on standard management information—such as application counts, decision tallies, waiting-time statistics, and the percentage of cases closed within target deadlines—to monitor efficiency. 

• In most responding EMN Members, responsibility for tracking these metrics lies with existing line managers or directors. However, FI and SE have created dedicated planning departments or expert units tasked explicitly with assessing asylum workflow productivity and forecasting future staffing needs. 

For further details, please read the compilation of answers attached above.