A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

A Way Forward for Refugees:

Findings from the WES Pilot Project

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many individuals contributed to the success of the WES Refugee Pilot Project at various times and in various

ways, but I am particularly grateful to the following individuals for their diligence and commitment to bringing

the project to fruition:

Steering Committee: Mariam Assefa, Tim Owen, Paul Feltman, Frank Guttilla

Project Sta: Sulaf Al-Shaikhly, Sarah Hua, Shaunna-Marie Kerr, Karolin Givergis, Dimitri Moumoutjis

Research and Policy Team: Jessica Brandt, Beka Tavartkiladze, Bryce Loo, Alejandro Ortiz, Sylvia Rusin, Jean

Cui, Beth Clarke, Linda Tobash

Program Evaluation Consultant: Vivian Figueredo

Thanks also to our referral partners and stakeholder institutions listed below who participated in this project,

as well as to Intact Insurance for making a generous donation to ensure Syrian refugees receive the support

needed to settle into Canada, and the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council (TRIEC), which

recognized the potential of the project and targeted its donation to help oset the cost of translation services.

• Access Centre for Regulated Employment (ACRE)

• Accessible Community Counselling and Employment Services (ACCES)

• Arab Community Centre

• Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA)

• Calgary Catholic Immigration Society (CCIS)

• Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC)

• Career Edge

• Centre for Immigrant and Community Services (CICS)

• Chartered Professional Accountants (CPA Ontario)

• College of Early Childhood Educators

• COSTI Immigrant Services

• North Park Community Church

• Ontario College of Teachers (OCT)

• Royal Bank of Canada (RBC)

• Seneca College

• Teachers of English as a Second Language (TESL Ontario)

• Toronto and Region Conservation Authority | Professional Access Into Employment Toronto Transit

Commission (TTC)

• University of Western Ontario (UWO)

And nally, thank you to our refugee clients, many of whom were interviewed and surveyed for this report and

whose aspirations inspired our work. We wish them every success.

Denise Jillions

Project Lead

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements iii.........................................................................................................................................

Introduction 1.......................................................................................................................................................

The WES Refugee Pilot Project 4 ......................................................................................................................

Project Design 5....................................................................................................................................................

Program Evaluation 6..........................................................................................................................................

Applicant Prole 7 ...............................................................................................................................................

Project Results at a Glance 10 ...........................................................................................................................

Intake and Referral Process 11...........................................................................................................................

Assessment Process 15 .......................................................................................................................................

Assessment Report 17.........................................................................................................................................

Conclusions 21......................................................................................................................................................

Next Steps 24.........................................................................................................................................................

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

INTRODUCTION

By July of 2016, when World Education Services

(WES) launched its pilot project to assess the

credentials of Syrian refugees to Canada, millions of

people had ed conict in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan,

and Africa. They had streamed across the borders

of Europe and the Middle East, creating an

unprecedented wave of displaced people in distress.

UNHCR estimates that today there are more than

66 million refugees, asylees, and displaced people

on the move, more than any time since the Second

World War.

1 UNHCR: http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/gures-at-a-glance.

html.

Canada, where there is a robust infrastructure

of settlement services and a long tradition of

welcoming refugees, mobilized to respond to the

crisis in an impressive way. Between November

2015 and February 2016, the Canadian government

settled more than 26,000 Syrians who had ed

to Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey. By June 2017,

almost 47,000 had been settled in Canada – with

a sustained outpouring of public support.

Among

this wave of immigrants to Canada were many

highly educated individuals who were unable to

access oicial documents from their educational

institutions, and who therefore would face diiculty

having their qualications recognized in their new

country. Over 40 percent of them arrived in Ontario;

about half of those settled in Toronto, where WES

has had its Canadian oice since 2000.

2 Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): hp://

www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/commitment.asp

WES is a non-prot organization with more than 40

years of experience in assessing academic credentials

from more than 200 countries and jurisdictions, and

40,000 educational institutions. In that time, WES has

provided more than 1.5 million credential evaluation

reports to immigrants and international students;

its database contains 1,600 grading scales, and

specimens of 20,000 dierent types of credentials

and their U.S. or Canadian equivalencies. This allows

WES to condently authenticate and assess virtually

any credential from almost any academic institution

in the world.

Receipt of veriable documents directly from

the awarding institution is normative credential

evaluation practice throughout North America.

Accordingly, WES does not accept originals,

photocopies, or aidavits from the applicant as

part of a standard WES evaluation. This approach

guarantees a high quality assessment based on bona

de documents and a rigorous protocol.

Meeting the requirements for a standard WES

assessment can be hard on refugees, who oen ee

their homes under dangerous circumstances. In many

cases, refugees may not have taken all or even any of

their documents with them. Many discover only later

that they cannot obtain their oicial records, since

the educational system or institutions they attended

may be disrupted or even closed due to conict.

In Syria, for example, many institutions are not

operating at all; others have been destroyed. Even

when open, some institutions may be unresponsive

or refuse to issue documents for various reasons.

Victims of natural disasters and those seeking asylum

from persecution may face a similar situation.

Arriving in the United States or Canada without

access to proof of their education, such individuals

have diiculty moving forward with their careers fully

utilizing their education, skills, and experience.

Through its Global Talent Bridge program, WES

works actively in Canada and the United States on

issues of integration, employment, and opportunities

for career success. It is well-documented that

gaining recognition for international qualications

is critical to immigrants and refugees trying to

rebuild their lives and identity in their new host

countries. New arrivals and long-term residents

alike are oen employed well below their levels of

qualication, despite the fact that many are highly

educated. Recognition of academic credentials is the

springboard for these individuals to pursue suitable

employment, further education, and licensing in

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

By June

2017, almost

47,000 Syrian

refugees had

been settled

in Canada.

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

regulated professions. When a refugee or immigrant

utilizes foreign education, training, and experience,

both the individual and the community benet.

Finally, despite the document challenges, recognition

of refugee credentials is enshrined in international

conventions. Specically, the Lisbon Recognition

Convention, to which Canada is a signatory, requires

that displaced people without documentation are

given a fair assessment of their qualications.

3 Lisbon Recognition Convention, 1997, Article VII. See also

“Assessing the Qualications of Refugees: Best Practices and

Guidelines”, (CICIC, 2017) for the latest guidance from the

Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC)

to Canadian organizations that assess refugee qualications.

https://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/

Attachments/376/Best_Practices_and_Guidelines.pdf

As a respected non-prot organization in the

settlement community and the largest provider

of credential evaluation services in Canada, WES

realized that it was in a position to facilitate the

recognition of refugee credentials.

As a rst step, WES researched international practices

in refugee credential assessment and recognition,

and released its ndings in a report, Recognizing

Refugee Credentials: Practical Tips for Credential

Assessment.

The report covers approaches WES

found in Canada, Europe, and the United States, and

articulates some promising practices with regard to

assessing and recognizing refugee credentials.

4 http://knowledge.wes.org/wes-research-report-recognizing-

refugee-credentials.html

Download the report:

http://bit.ly/2BqBTFF

In May 2016, WES convened its key constituents and

stakeholders in Toronto to share these ndings and

to explore the degree of support among academic

and regulatory institutions for a WES assessment

of documents that could not be authenticated. The

concern heard loud and clear was that this

wave of refugees – many of them highly-educated

– would be knocking on their doors in the next few

years, seeking admission to higher education and

regulated professions.

WES had some questions to consider:

• How could academic and professional

communities come to a consensus regarding

the handling of documents that cannot be

authenticated?

• A WES evaluation relies on an authentication

process that requires receiving academic

documents directly from issuing institutions. Yet,

many refugees have in their possession some

credible evidence of academic study even if

such documents cannot be veried. Could an

assessment by WES, with its extensive expertise

and robust database, be a part of a layered strategy

to validate the applicant’s claims?

• What methods would be suiciently rigorous to

give WES’ institutional partners the condence they

need to build the case for recognition? Would a

WES assessment add any value to the due diligence

and tools institutions can employ, perhaps as a

“rst opinion” to be corroborated?

Assessing documents in the applicants’ possession

seemed an approach worth testing in that historical

moment, as WES considered the more than one

hundred applications from Syrians who could not

meet its document requirements because major

Syrian universities were unresponsive to inquiries.

The usual approach was not working for anyone,

least of all refugees. Flexibility and imagination were

required, and WES was willing to share the risks with

institutional partners by revisiting its own document

policies as other actors revisited theirs.

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

THE WES REFUGEE PILOT PROJECT

WES launched its refugee pilot project in July 2016

with the target of accepting 200 applications by the

end of that year. This goal was achieved and, in fact,

surpassed without publicizing the program. WES

accepted additional applicants until the project

was paused in May 2017 to undertake program

evaluation. This report analyzes the sample of

the rst 205 individuals who applied before

December 31, 2016, 95 percent of whom received

a WES Alternative Credential Assessment of their

academic qualications (as it was known in the

pilot phase).

As stated previously, because many refugees

are unable to obtain veriable documents, the

assessment of their qualications calls for a dierent

approach than is normally used by WES. The pilot

project was designed to test many assumptions, as

well as new methods, policies, and a new model

of service delivery. To validate its approach, WES

issued credential evaluation reports to a select

number of Syrian refugees and conducted a thorough

evaluation of the pilot program itself. WES recruited

applicants by working through trusted referral

partners who could screen participants for program

eligibility, explain the purpose of an assessment,

and guide them through the process. Beyond testing

assumptions and methods, WES also hoped to learn

more about its refugee applicants, including their

aspirations, intentions, and needs related to using

the assessment to achieve their goals.

Project Principles

A WES alternative process will be based on credible evidence of educational

achievement and professional standing in the applicant’s possession only when ofﬁcial

documents cannot be obtained.

WES will use the information and documentation provided by the applicant, in

combination with its research and experience with credentials issued by Syrian

educational institutions, to corroborate the applicant’s claimed academic history, and

“reconstruct” the credential where possible, if documentation is missing.

WES will advise on the Canadian equivalency of the Syrian credentials and include

contextual information on the Syrian education system to assist in interpreting the

applicant’s background.

To validate the approach, WES will issue assessments to a select number of Syrian

refugees and conduct a thorough evaluation.

WES will advocate for the recognition of the refugee’s credentials based on the

WES assessment.

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

PROJECT DESIGN

Several considerations were critical to the design

of the pilot project. First, because some Syrian

schools are open and functioning, WES needed

criteria for determining which applicants could

legitimately access this “alternative” service, and

which applicants should receive the standard WES

evaluation. (WES continues to receive documents

from the Syrian Ministry of Education, and many

Syrian institutions are still functioning.) Furthermore,

WES needed to ensure that only refugees were being

served, and not others who might simply wish to

circumvent its standard document requirements.

This led WES to propose eligibility criteria and a new

service delivery model that engaged trusted referral

partners. These partners would prescreen applicants

for admission to the pilot program and support them

through the process.

Second, WES has built its reputation by adhering

to the strictest document practices, thereby

guaranteeing the authenticity of documents it

assesses.

Although WES would not be the rst

or only credential evaluation service in Canada

to assess non-veried documents, it needed to

demonstrate high quality and transparency to ensure

the credibility of the assessment report. In being

willing to examine documents in the applicant’s

possession when oicial documents could not be

obtained, WES was relying on its expertise to detect

fraudulent documents. Furthermore, this project

involved implementing a new intake process that

depended on partners. It also involved serving a

population that was vulnerable and oen in the

media. These elements entailed risks to the WES

reputation. It was thus critical that the pilot project

meet the same quality assurance standards as WES’

normal processes.

5 Best Pracces: Strategies and Processes to Obtain Authenc

Internaonal Educaon Credenals hp://knowledge.wes.org/

WES-Training-Best-Pracces.html

6 This includes the right to not process an application if fraud is

detected or suspected.

Finally, WES needed to test its methodology for

“reconstructing” a credential where a full transcript

was not available, in some cases relying on

originals, photocopies, or electronic images of a

range of evidence of professional and academic

accomplishments. WES determined that it could work

with at least one credible (oicially-issued) document

in the applicant’s possession, examine corroborative

evidence in its database, and, in most cases, outline

the program of studies the individual likely pursued.

Based on that outline, WES could then provide the

list of courses that an applicant had completed.

Although there would be no grades to assess, an

individual might get course credit or advanced

standing on this basis. Alternately, applicants might

get a chance to take a challenge exam based on the

course syllabus and their claimed competencies.

In the 1970s, WES had already tested this

methodology during a period of increased migration

by educated immigrants and refugees from the

(former) Soviet Union and Vietnam. Now, with 40

years of precedent cases in the database, a team

of trained evaluators with language and country-

specic expertise, and technical and research

capacity to quickly identify fraudulent documents,

WES was prepared to stand by the validity of its

assessment with a high level of condence. What

was less certain was whether institutions could and

would utilize such an assessment report once it was

in circulation. WES would need to be sure of its utility

to justify expanding the program.

New Service Delivery Model

Traditionally, WES clients apply online for an

assessment of their credentials. For the pilot,

however, the project was administered in

community-based, refugee-serving agencies,

allowing WES to embed its service in familiar and

trusted environments. This approach also allowed

WES to test a model that could bring refugee services

to scale. For the applicant, WES created a potentially

seamless pipeline from the caseworker, to WES, and

then to a specied recipient (i.e., college, university,

employer, or regulator). In the event that the refugee

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

was not sure of their plans at the time of application,

WES established a loop back to the referral partner

by sending the credential evaluation report to the

caseworker and the applicant simultaneously. The

duplicate report provided caseworkers with an

opportunity for further discussion with refugees

about how to use their foreign education and

experience to move forward in their careers.

Six community agencies in Ontario and one in Alberta

were designated as referral partners. In addition, two

regulatory bodies (one each in Ontario and Alberta)

asked to engage with the project as referral partners

and sent their applicants directly to WES. While this

was not in the original design of the pilot, WES will

consider this model going forward.

Through its Global Talent Bridge program, WES

provided the training and support to the referring

agencies. The partners provided information

about the pilot, application assistance, and case

management to their clients. No compensation was

made to agencies for their participation, and no fees

were charged to refugees during the pilot.

Applicants were eligible for the alternative process if

they met the following criteria. They were:

• a refugee or in a “refugee-like” situation

• educated in Syria, completed at least grade 10

• unable to meet usual WES document requirements

for Syria

• had at least one piece of credible evidence of

academic study

7 If an individual had studied both in Syria and a country that could

be processed in the standard way, a hybrid protocol was adopted,

depending upon which was the higher degree.

As indicated previously, WES agreed to examine any

applications accompanied by at least one piece of

credible evidence of academic study. This evidence

could include, for example, a complete or partial

transcript or degree certicate, license or registration

in a licensed occupation; an oicial student card;

or a letter of professional appointment. Originals,

photocopies, and electronic copies were acceptable

if in the original language.

The assessment report format was based on the

standard WES evaluation but presented so as to

distinguish it as an “alternative” to that evaluation.

In the assessment report, WES advised on the nature

of the credential and its equivalency in Canada,

indicating what evidence and methods were used to

complete the assessment. In addition, WES provided

a course analysis, and access to the information and

documents submitted (with English translation) to

facilitate corroboration and further assessment. The

report was supplemented by contextual information

on the educational system in Syria to assist in

interpreting results, as well as by an explanation

of WES methodology and best practices in refugee

credential recognition.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

Aer a slow start, there was a surge in applications

once word got out. WES easily met its target of 200

applications in ve months, although it took many

more months to process all of these les. WES’

program evaluation focused on whether the policies,

program design, and implementation process

supported the intended outcome: to provide skilled

refugees who lacked access to their oicial documents

with a timely assessment of their credentials that

could be useful for recognition purposes.

It remains to be seen to what degree the WES

assessment is being successfully used to facilitate

entry to licensing, education, and employment,

however initial ndings are encouraging.

Improvements in the referral process and internal

operational eiciency are already being addressed

by WES. This report describes the various elements

of the project, and includes analysis of the data to

provide context for specic recommendations and

next steps for this project.

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

Program Evaluation

Methodology

Findings are based on survey responses

from 50 applicants who received

assessments, and from 45 stakeholders

(with a 62 percent and 67 percent

response rate respectively). Thirty-three

qualitative interviews were conducted

with applicants, academic institutions,

regulatory bodies, employers, and

referral partners, as well as with WES

sta. WES also interviewed 11 of the 12

applicants who were prescreened for

eligibility, but who did not successfully

complete the application process.

Interviewer bias was checked by

using multiple interviewers and note-

takers. Analysis of qualitative data

focused on key themes and outliers.

Interview ndings were triangulated

with survey data. Administrative

data was also carefully analyzed to

provide recommendations on internal

operations. The extent and depth of

this evaluation gives WES a high level of

condence in the ndings of this report.

APPLICANT PROFILE

Applicants to the pilot project included a fairly

diverse group (see

page 8). Men (52 percent)

and women (48 percent) were almost equally

represented, while applicants’ age ranges were

diverse: 23 percent were aged 18 to 28, 25 percent

were aged 29 to 34, and 42 percent were aged 35 to

50, with 10 percent older than 50.

The highest credential attained by a majority of the

applicants was a bachelor’s degree (57 percent),

followed by a graduate degree (19 percent). Those with

some post-secondary study (17 percent) and a high

school diploma (7 percent) complete the educational

prole. By far the largest elds of study were engineering

and computer/information technology (27 percent),

and English language and literature (26 percent).

In addition to the data collected from the application

form, WES collected information from the applicant

survey (n=50) to better understand the applicant

pool. For example, WES learned that the majority of

those surveyed (68 percent) had been in Canada one

to two years. Some 38 percent were unemployed.

About 40 percent were working full-time: 16 percent

in their original profession; 18 percent in a “new

profession” (which might indicate a survival job or

something similar to their original profession); 6

percent in their rst-ever job.

The WES applicant prole reects characteristics

of “privately sponsored refugees.”

According to

government data on privately-sponsored refugees

arriving in Canada in early 2016:

8 Refugees in Canada can be settled in dierent ways, including by

being “privately” sponsored by churches, small groups of citizens

and families who provide nancial and other support to the

refugee for the rst 13 months.

• 37 percent had completed some post-secondary

education.

• Over 60 percent spoke English, French or both.

• 52 percent were of working age (ages 25-64).

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

Participants

52%

Males

48%

Females

+++

age 18-28

23%

age 29-34

25%

age 35-50

42%

age 51-69

10%

7++I

High school

diploma

PERCENT

++I

Some post-

secondary study

PERCENT

++I

Bachelor’s

degree

PERCENT

++I

Graduate

degree

PERCENT

One Applicant’s Journey

One applicant interviewed for this study, a young man who had been in Canada for over a year,

holds a bachelor’s in accounting from a Syrian university and had worked in banking in Syria

before the war. He was completing a master’s in accounting at the time the war started, but

ﬂed the country before ﬁnishing his thesis. Once in Canada, a co-worker at his “survival job,” an

immigrant from India, told him about WES. The applicant was upset to ﬁnd that he could not

meet the eligibility requirements for a standard evaluation because he was unable to obtain his

documents directly from Syria.

Fortunately, he found the WES pilot project through a community agency and submitted

an applic

ation with copies of his full transcript for both degrees (the master’s transcript was

complete except for the thesis). He received a WES alternative assessment for both the

completed bachelor’s and the incomplete master’s.

The young man had hoped to use the report to return and ﬁnish his master’s degree. Since then,

wever, he has learned that he may only need a few certiﬁcations, which he can obtain from

the Canadian Securities Institute, to return to the accounting profession. He will use his WES

assessment report to enroll in the Certiﬁed Public Accounting program and avoid repeating

prerequisite courses. Then, he simply needs to take the Canada-speciﬁc courses, such as tax

regulations and business law. He is hoping that the WES assessment report will sufﬁce for this

purpose. He also plans to use the report on his résumé.

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

Now I have something in my hand that I can

use to ght for myself. I think it’s enough for

me now.”

- WES Applicant

This report gave my clients back their dignity.

The sooner you can deliver hope, the better.

An early sign that your foreign education has

value is a priceless gift when everything else

has been taken from you.”

- WES Partner

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

In contrast, only 6 percent of those who were settled

as “government-assisted refugees” had some post-

secondary education, and 67 percent spoke neither

English nor French.

9 Immigrants, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), June 2016.

Privately sponsored refugees are dispersed

throughout Canadian society and are nancially

supported by families, churches, or small

organizations that take an active interest in their

settlement. For example, one of WES’ referral

partners is a faith-based group that is assisting

dozens of privately sponsored Syrian refugees.

Though privately sponsored refugees may not

routinely use settlement services, they can access

specic support services as needed from agencies,

such as language and employment programs and, in

this case, access to the WES pilot project.

Although WES has only indirect evidence that

privately sponsored refugees accessed the project,

its survey conrmed that a majority of applicants

found the pilot project by word of mouth from family

and friends (38 percent), or through an employment

or settlement agency (30 percent). A more targeted

outreach to this loosely-networked group of refugees

will be needed in the future.

PROJECT RESULTS AT A GLANCE

• All documents were scrutinized according to

normal WES practices and quality assurance

standards, and no evidence was found of

fraudulent documents.

• All of the les accompanied by at least one credible

piece of evidence (95 percent of the sample) were

successfully assessed.

• Applications submitted with full transcripts (72

percent) were easily processed using standard WES

procedures. The remainder (28 percent) required

reconstruction of at least part of the credential

because of missing or incomplete documentation.

• With the success of this project WES has

demonstrated the value of facilitating credential

assessment through community engagement.

Referral partners concur that this approach

provides a tool and a platform of support for their

refugee clients to achieve goals that utilize their

international education.

• There was universal appreciation for this service,

despite the risks in working with documents that

cannot be readily authenticated. Organizations that

recognize foreign credentials face the same risks,

and it was felt that WES is sharing this risk.

• WES’ reputation for rigor and high quality enhanced

the credibility of the report. Seventy-three percent of

stakeholders surveyed indicated that the methods

used gave them condence in the results, and

almost half indicated their organization would use,

or would consider using the report for recognition.

• At least half of the organizations interviewed

had, or were formulating, policies of their own

to admit refugees and, having seen the new WES

assessment, some are planning to include it in their

policy. One admitted to having no plan and was

grateful to WES respondent for providing a solution.

Unless an institution is doing its own evaluations,

the WES assessment provides a gateway to an

orderly process for credential recognition.

• Institutions frequently expressed the hope that

WES would extend the service beyond Syrians

to refugees from other countries and victims of

natural disaster.

• Some clients have successfully used the WES

assessment to apply for higher education,

licensing, and employment.

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

INTAKE AND REFERRAL PROCESS

The initial reason for WES to work with referral

partners was to recruit a limited number of refugees

who met basic eligibility requirements for testing new

methods of working with documents that cannot

be readily authenticated. WES could then produce

an assessment that could be useful in granting

these refugees access to educational, licensing, and

employment pathways.

Designated agencies were asked to vet refugees

according to clear eligibility criteria to ensure they

were not able to obtain oicial documents. Agency

sta assisted clients in completing the application for

inclusion in the pilot, and for scanning any available

documents related to academic history. Upon

completion of the assessment report, intake workers

received a copy at the same time as the applicant.

Partnerships

WES Global Talent Bridge sta provided “high-

touch” support, and worked collaboratively with

the agencies to implement this project. Partners

reported that WES was reliably responsive to their

inquiries, and that issues were handled promptly and

with good judgement. Routine communication with

clients and ways for them to check on the progress

of applications were not part of the original design

of the pilot. For all parties involved, including WES,

the experience of working this way with partners

to assess refugees’ academic qualications as a

gateway to professional opportunities has been a

success. There are now community partners in place

eager to refer more clients.

Each referral partner was asked by WES Global Talent

Bridge sta to commit to the number of refugees

whom they thought they could serve within the pilot

period. Agency heads reported that they did not

feel overburdened by program requirements and

that they perceived this service as a benet to their

clients. In interviews and follow-up conversations

with agency managers and sta, WES found support

for expanding these services, for tracking applicant

outcomes, and for formalizing the expectation

that partners would provide more comprehensive

services to supplement this intervention. There is

clear support for case managers to work with clients

to help them understand their assessments, and

to make decisions about how to use them. WES

is prepared to support this partner activity with

enhanced training and resources.

By embedding the credential assessment as an

essential, normative part of settlement services for

skilled refugees, WES, the WES Global Talent Bridge

program, and partner agencies are empowering

refugees to pursue opportunities that utilize their

foreign qualications.

Pre-screening

WES Global Talent Bridge sta trained agency sta

on eligibility requirements and program goals, which

included checking refugee status. WES is condent

that the pilot project served only refugees. According

to feedback from caseworkers, the simple eligibility

requirements were easy to apply. Three applicants

were eligible for a standard WES assessment because

their oicial documents were available. Interviews

with applicants revealed that the dierence between

a standard WES assessment and an “alternative”

assessment – which carries with it some limitations

in use – was unclear to some applicants. The free

service appeared to be an incentive, rather than the

limitations of the report being a disincentive.

Application and Intake Protocols

WES’ aim in this project was to create a seamless

referral pipeline that would help to identify and

serve those eligible for the program. Records

show that there was a high level of compliance

with prescreening and application protocols from

partner agencies. However, WES also identied a

need to further improve some aspects of training,

and to institute some quality assurance measures,

especially given high sta turnover at agencies.

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

The program evaluation sought to identify which attitudes and characteristics

among partners correlated with successful referrals. Among these were:

Eagerness to help refugees with a

product that has value

We’ve developed a partnership with a

community college that requires a credential

evaluation for their bridging program, and we were

so excited to nd out that refugees were eligible for

this. We don’t want to just give them another piece of

paper – it needs value. We would absolutely be

willing to advise clients aer they receive the report

about how they could use it.”

– Intake workers, referral partner

A clear understanding of the value of

a credential assessment, project goals,

and eligibility criteria

We reached the number [of applicants] we

committed to very quickly; we went beyond that to

help eager applicants. We tell them they have to get

their education recognized. It’s part of the usual way

we work with clients. For those who are highly

educated, it is a no-brainer – they see a chance to

regain a sense of pride in their profession.”

– Agency head, referral partner

Staff assigned to the project who have

cultural competence, language skills,

and experience working with refugees

Two of us worked with this project. We sent WES

between 35 and 45 people. With all the inquiries from

email, phone, and walk-ins, we tried to answer all

their questions. We speak 16 languages in our oice,

and interviewed everyone in Arabic because that is

what applicants preferred, even if they could speak

English. This project is important for us to work with.

We understand how important it is for their lives.”

– Coordinator, referral partner

Sound case management practices

and focus on outcomes

We select the refugees that we think we can

help. Every one of the refugees we serve who had a

university degree got referred to WES. We are

committed to working with the person through

coaching and troubleshooting for as long as it takes.”

– Agency head, referral partner

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

Using the WES Report

The Alternative

Credential

Assessment will be

useful in helping me

take the next step

in my educational

and/or career

journey in Canada.

++4+4+

Strongly

agree

24%

Agree

54%

Disagree

Strongly

disagree

I don’t know

14%

Do you know how

you intend to

use your World

Education Services

(WES) Alternative

Credential

Assessment?

+++C

I’m not sure

36%

18%

Yes

46%

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

Client Outreach

In terms of completing the application, the best

outcomes for applicants correlated with assistance

from a personal case worker. Sixty-two percent of

applicants surveyed had an intake worker help them

with their application. The 38 percent who were

not assisted came primarily from two information

sessions oered by one of the agencies seeking to

process applications as eiciently as possible. In

this case, applicants were instructed to mail or scan

their documents, and to send them directly to WES.

As one applicant told WES, “In the Middle East, we

do everything in person. We don’t send in the mail.

So, that’s why all Syrians brought their certications

to the information session. We all thought that we

had to provide everything there in person. But in

Canada, you have to mail everything. Everything is

online, nothing in person.”

Fiy-four percent of those who received personal

assistance in submitting the application completed

their applications, compared to only 24 percent of

those who attended these information sessions.

Outreach to clients to address incomplete

applications increased the processing time.

Arabic-speaking WES sta reached out to refugees

who had either incomplete applications or

missing documents. The goal was to learn as

much as possible about whether there had been

any misunderstanding at the referral end, what

documents these applicants had in their possession,

and whether they were sending all the documents

they had. Although it is true that WES will not use

every piece of evidence to conduct an assessment,

seeing everything helps to build a picture of the

applicant’s history and corroborate an applicant’s

claims. In more than a few cases, additional

information supplied by the applicant created a more

complete picture. WES found clients more responsive

to telephone calls than emails, Arabic language skills

were useful (and appreciated), but usually not as

essential for cooperation as honoring the cultural

norm of engaging personally.

These ndings conrm WES’ decision to utilize referral

partners with case management capacity to conduct

intake on an individual basis, whether face-to-face or by

telephone, and where possible, with relevant language

skills. In any case, with access to evaluators who

represent 40 countries speaking 37 dierent languages,

WES has the capacity to reach out to most clients to

have conversations where technical terms can be

understood in a way familiar to the client, as well as to

corroborate the translation of any documents.

Training

Foreign credential assessment is a new concept for

many newcomers, and even for some settlement

workers and job developers who are focused on

helping refugees or immigrants get settled and

become nancially self-suicient as soon as possible.

Newcomers are not always made aware of the doors

a credential assessment can open to opportunities

that utilize their qualications. Training the sta at

partner agencies was, therefore, an essential element

of this project.

In terms of screening applicants, the training

provided appears to have been reasonably eective:

virtually all referrals met WES’ program criteria

and most applications were complete on arrival.

However, through surveys and interviews done as

part of the program evaluation, WES learned that at

the time of application, caseworkers did not always

provide suicient and accurate information about

the purpose and value of an assessment. Interviews

revealed that some caseworkers unknowingly gave

misleading information about documentation; some

caseworkers screened out documents they didn’t

think were pertinent to eligibility for participation

in the pilot project (which they were not trained to

do); some turned people away who had incomplete

degrees (which is not WES policy). In some agencies,

sta focused on processing applications for the

pilot project, not on carefully explaining what a

credential assessment is, and how it would be useful

to their clients. Some sta admitted in the survey

and interviews that it was because they did not

understand it themselves. This is corroborated by

++4+4+

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

the applicant survey: Only 22 percent of respondents

said that they understood the limitations of the

alternative assessment compared to the standard

WES assessment.

In retrospect, WES underestimated how much

training would be necessary. In addition, interviews

revealed that there had been considerable turnover

in sta at agencies over the duration of the pilot,

so that by the end, many of the caseworkers in the

program had been trained by coworkers who had

moved on, and not by WES.

This nding led to an important insight: As this wave

of refugees enters a dierent stage of settlement,

programs that support refugees are evolving

and stabilizing. WES services will be even more

important to foreign-trained individuals who are

ready to continue a professional career. WES intends

to modify its training program to provide more

targeted support and better resources to its partners.

Partner agreements will articulate expectations

for wrap-around support for the referral process,

including post-assessment debriefs and path-nding

support. The agreements will also include tracking

of applicant outcomes and satisfaction, as well

as feedback on WES training and resources. One

applicant perfectly expressed the challenges that

come aer a WES assessment:

“When we come here, we feel lost. We need some sort

of roadmap. What’s next for us? Now that we have

this report, what’s next? We lack direction – we lack

advisement. Where can we go? What can we do? What

are the next steps? Syria and Canada are two totally

dierent systems. We feel lost.”

In summary, it was learned that there is plenty of work

for WES and the WES Global Talent Bridge program to

do to support partners both at the time of application

and aer the assessment has been received. It is in

the best interest of refugee clients to expand this

program from a simple intake and referral partnership

to a more comprehensive service, with the credential

assessment embedded as an important tool for using

one’s foreign qualications in Canada.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Assessment Methods

The assessment methodology used in this project

relies upon well-tested processes for document

examination and verication, a robust database of

precedent cases, and country-specic and language

expertise of senior evaluators. In reporting results,

WES was transparent regarding the methodology and

documents used in the assessment. Of stakeholders

surveyed, 73 percent stated that the WES

methodology gave them condence in the results.

All of the applications accompanied by at least one

credible piece of evidence (95 percent of the sample)

were successfully assessed. Seventy-two percent of

these were accompanied by full transcripts and could

easily be processed. The remainder of the applications

(28 percent) required “reconstruction” of at least part

of the credential, depending on what documents were

available. In all but one case, this was possible.

Reconstruction is feasible for Syrian-educated clients

because of the highly structured and centralized

higher education system in Syria, where the course

requirements and curricula are standardized across

institutions and are remarkably consistent over time

(see box on page 16 for example). In countries

where such consistency is lacking, or where similar

precedent cases (same credential, same institution,

same program, same year of graduation) do not

exist in the WES database, it may not be possible to

validate documents or to reconstruct a credential.

All documents received were scrutinized according

to normal WES practices and quality assurance

standards, and no evidence was found of fraudulent

documents being submitted. Before beginning to

assess any le where there was missing or partial

documentation, a senior, Arabic-speaking evaluator

contacted the client personally to review their

situation. In this way she was able to learn as much

as possible about WES’ refugee clients and their

document challenges, and to then decide with

condence how to proceed. This level of scrutiny

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

and due diligence was necessary for the pilot, and

may be employed in cases where evaluators have

any questions about the documents with which they

are working.

The documents used for the Alternative Credential

Assessment had to be submitted in the original

language, even if an English translation was

available. The assessment report issued on the

basis of this examination includes the documents

submitted, as well as a detailed description of the

documents used as the basis of the assessment

(e.g., photocopy of transcript, student ID, etc.)

specically to encourage institutions or receiving

authorities to corroborate WES’ ndings by further

examination. This level of transparency underscores

the shared risk that institutions, licensing boards,

and employers are taking to serve refugees. This

level of risk also demands that WES indicate that

its assessment is advisory in nature. This is all the

more important when working with documents that

cannot be authenticated.

WES reviewed some complex cases that presented

policy challenges, and it waived eligibility

requirements in a few cases. WES also reserved the

right not to process a le, such as in the 12 cases

where no documentation was ever submitted.

WES reached out at least once to 90 applicants

(44.5 percent of the sample under study) who

had submitted either partial (n=60) or no (n=34)

documentation with their applications.

• About half of these les required reconstruction.

Files with missing documentation were

reconstructed as long as evaluators had at least

one credible piece of evidence with which to work.

• Outreach was critical in these cases. For example,

some had sent only the degree or diploma

certicate, not realizing they should send the

transcript as well; others needed to hear the

Arabic word for “transcript” to understand what

WES needed.

“R econstruction” refers to using WES research and other assets to substitute for

missing documents. For example, if a transcript was provided for only year one of

a two-year graduate diploma in engineering, and the degree certicate was also

provided, indicating completion of the diploma, it could be assumed that year two

was completed even if the transcript was missing. If WES could match the university,

year of study, and program to a specimen in its database, it could provide the

courses studied in that year. Even if an exact match was not available, because of

the standardized nature of the Syrian education system, studying engineering at one

university in Syria that year would follow the same curriculum in a similar university.

Even semester credits could be reconstructed; grades, of course, could not. In our

example, this detailed level of knowledge allows WES to prole the course of studies

for year two and to provide valuable information to a recognition authority. The

authority can then corroborate or challenge the applicant’s claims, and even provide

a way for the candidate to demonstrate competence in advanced courses in the

absence of grades – for instance, through “challenge” examinations or tests.

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

• Of those who applied without submitting any

documents, 20 applicants responded to WES’

outreach by sending documents: Many of them had

attended the general information session and had

not followed up by mailing their documents. If they

sent documents, the processing continued. The

remaining applications were cancelled.

10 Before cancelling a le, WES reached out multiple times. Eleven

of these candidates were eventually interviewed as part of the

program evaluation. Reasons for not completing their applications

ranged from, “I got a job,” to “I forgot,” to “I no longer need it,” to “I

thought WES was going to get my documents from Syria.”

A combination of more rigorous training, a clear

policy of cancelling incomplete applications (i.e.

without any documentation), and a dedicated

outreach eort will ensure that refugees send

required documentary evidence so that assessments

can proceed as eiciently as possible.

Processing Times

The project entailed a learning curve: The best

outcomes with regard to timeliness correlated with

those les processed later in the project.

The les

needing reconstruction took almost twice as long to

process as les based on full transcripts. Ten percent

needed an English translation, which extended the

processing time by an average of two weeks.

11 The last 38 percent of les were processed in an average of 17

days, compared to taking months when WES rst started, and

every le was scrutinized by senior management and multiple

proofreaders. With more integration into WES automated

platforms in the future, this time can be shortened; however

providing a course analysis where reconstruction is required will

still be largely a manual task and take longer.

To provide for the learning and exibility important

to a pilot project, WES’ automated database system

was not used in implementation. However, this

approach slowed down operations, and deprived

the project of key functionality at WES that ensures

speed. All of the feedback WES has received

indicates that, while the report was of high quality,

processing times were too long. WES heard from

partners that the delays were disheartening for

their clients, particularly those who were motivated

to quickly move forward with their next steps.

Refugees unable to track the progress of their

evaluation or discover an explanation for delays

became frustrated. The issue underscored what can

happen when the benets of an automated system

generating routine updates are not built into the

process. By integrating refugee services into WES’

normal business systems when the project is scaled

up, this issue will be remedied. The anticipated

result is that WES will be able to deliver a more

timely report.

In May 2017, WES put the pilot project on pause

in order to evaluate it. It decided at that time to

eliminate its backlog of 130 remaining les through

expedited processing. A document assessment

includes a complete description of the study

undertaken and the Canadian equivalency. This

type of assessment, adequate for most purposes,

was provided to those refugees. This briefer report,

similar to the basic WES evaluation, did not include

a course and grade analysis. Otherwise, the same

methods and quality assurance standards were

applied. Should one of these applicants need a

course assessment in the future to satisfy admissions

requirements, a free upgrade will be provided.

The backlog was cleared within a matter of weeks,

conrming that WES can meet reasonable timeliness

standards for this program in the future if it takes

into account the purpose of the assessment. An

evaluation of this second cohort of applicants is

pending to determine if the document assessment

satised their immediate needs.

ASSESSMENT REPORT

All of the elements of a standard WES evaluation are

included in WES Alternative Credential Assessment.

For example, just as in a standard evaluation, a

degree equivalency is provided. Where transcripts

are available, courses are listed, and credit hours and

grade conversions are supplied. For these reports,

language of instruction is indicated as is the function

of the credential in Syria. For example, a bachelor’s

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

degree would enable graduate study; a Diploma of

Education can be used to teach in Syria. In the May

2016 stakeholder forum, this contextual information

was specically requested by institutions and others.

WES therefore included an infographic on the Syrian

education system with each report.

12 In interviews with refugee applicants WES was asked a number

of times why it would include the Syrian Education System in the

report when they needed to understand the Canadian Education

System. Having patterned the alternative WES report as closely as

possible to the standard WES report, which serves primarily the

needs of institutional clients, this had not even been considered.

A standard WES evaluation is based on academic documents that have been

sent to WES directly from the awarding institution. WES conducts an objective

assessment of the documents, conrming their authenticity, the type and level

of education they represent in the home country, and advises on a comparable

equivalency level for Canada. The document assessment can be accompanied

by a detailed course assessment in which course names along with grades and

credit equivalencies are reported.

An alternative assessment follows a similar pattern, but is based on documents

that have not been sent directly to WES and that may not be complete. In

the latter case, WES utilizes its considerable experience and archival data to

complete the report.

WES did not requir

e the refugee to indicate a

recipient institution on the application form to

participate in this pilot. Only 10 percent asked WES

to send the report to an institution, making the

refugee the main recipient of the report.

A distinctly branded report, clearly explaining the

methodology and including the documents used for

the WES assessment, was central to the credibility of

the program. Because there were not many reports

in circulation among end users by May of 2017, WES

surveyed a list of its institutional clients and other

stakeholders, and included a sample report for their

review. With a 67 percent response rate to its survey,

WES received feedback.

WES now has a rich picture of both the strengths

and weakness of the assessment report format, the

credibility of the methodology, and the ways the

report might be used by applicants, institutions, and

other recipients.

The majority surveyed believed WES was providing a

useful service to assist refugees.

• Over 80 percent were familiar with WES and the

standard WES evaluation. By relying on their

knowledge of standard WES processes, they

were able to assess whether the report eectively

explained WES’ new methodology and its

limitations, and whether it presented results in a

clear, comprehensive, credible, and accessible way

in comparison to a standard report.

• Over 80 percent were either satised or very

satised with the report package, and over 65

percent indicated that information included with

the report was necessary for their understanding.

Only three stakeholders responding to the survey

had unanswered questions aer seeing a

sample report.

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

Using the Assessment: Institutions

In North America, credential recognition is

handled by institutions that create the policies and

procedures to support their mandates and missions.

Academic institutions, employers, and regulatory

bodies in various industries and professions all

entertain a dierent degree of risk in working with

documents that cannot be authenticated. WES’ initial

research into global practices for assessing refugee

qualications detailed ways that institutions can

add requirements to corroborate applicant claims

and compensate for insuicient documentation. It

also provides recommendations for discretionary

options, such as pathways to conditional admission,

employment, paid internships, or temporary or

provisional licensing or certication

. How a third-

party assessment ts into these institutional policies

is a question that is posed by WES’ initiative and the

eorts of other credential agencies serving refugees.

Is a third-party assessment useful? Does it carry any

validity for those making recognition decisions?

13 http://knowledge.wes.org/wes-research-report-recognizing-

refugee-credentials.html

Responses to WES’ stakeholder survey begin to paint

a promising picture. Of 45 respondents, 30 percent

reported that they intended to use the report to

support recognition, and some are already doing so.

Sixty percent found the inclusion of the documents

and translations either very useful or essential.

Although there was virtually universal praise for WES’

initiative based on seeing the sample report, few

organizations were willing to commit to accepting

its validity before a report had been received from a

candidate and processed. This can take a long time

and, as one respondent said, “This [report] gets the

applicant one step closer to recognition, but it does

not solve the issue of the gaps in education due to

lack of documentation.”

There are likely to be many scenarios and dierent

ways and degrees in which the WES report might be

used, depending upon the exibility of institutional

policies. For example, the accounting regulators of

Ontario are using the WES report to recognize the

foundational requirements of a bachelor’s degree,

but not to meet subject-specic requirements, which

will be met by challenge exams. One university in

Ontario has accepted the report “as equivalent to

a standard WES evaluation,” but others may use

it as part of their own assessment protocols. Not

surprisingly, institutions that had a pre-existing

relationship with WES reported that they are likely to

accept the assessment as part of their process, and

some are already using it.

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

Unless they are doing the evaluation themselves,

academic institutions and other recognition agencies

have few options if they want to consider refugees

with incomplete or missing documentation. Most

of those interviewed were willing to lean on WES’

credibility, and its very clear and careful methodology.

Asked if their organization was likely to use the report,

an almost equal number of respondents agreed

or strongly agreed as were non-committal. One

organization indicated they would not use the report

because they do their own assessments.

Another clue that this report may gain traction is that

many of respondents had specic recommendations

to make the report easier to use, such as:

• Provide electronic access and transmission,

and keys for grade conversion and other

interpretive tools.

• Allow direct communication between third parties

and WES regarding refugee client.

• Use academic and regulatory institutions as a

source of referral.

WES is now considering these recommendations.

These preliminary ndings are hopeful. However,

licensing and admissions processes are lengthy and

dependent on internal policies that may need to

change. Acceptance by some regulatory bodies will

likely have an eect on others, such as provincial

counterparts in the same profession. WES will continue

to provide technical assistance and training related

to its research and assessment methods, especially

where WES believes that it adds value: in the validation

of unoicial documents and in the reconstruction of

credentials from partial or missing documentation.

Using the Assessment: Applicants

Using the report for admission to a licensed

profession, college, or university depends on an

institution accepting that the report meets their

requirements for assessment of foreign credentials.

However, beyond its traditional purpose, WES

believes there is intrinsic value to refugees and

immigrants knowing the value of their foreign

credentials in Canada. This information empowers

individuals to plan and access opportunities that use

their qualications, and to advocate for themselves.

Because only a small number of participants asked

WES to send the report to specic institutions, it was

important that WES use the opportunity to survey

and interview its applicants to learn more about what

receiving the report meant to them. This included

understanding their aspirations and experience using

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

the report, their understanding of the limitations of the

report, and their plans for next steps in their journey.

WES found that applicants were eager to receive the

report and, that once received, it gave many of them

hope, dignity, and a basis upon which to reclaim their

identity and plan for their futures. A timely credential

assessment appears to be not only a tool for credential

recognition, but useful for increasing condence and

understanding of the way things work in Canada.

For example, many complained that there was not

enough information about the Canadian education

system in the report. WES may have to consider how it

denes successful outcomes if a recipient or purpose

is not yet clear on the application, or if the assessment

will not immediately be used to gain entry into further

education or a profession. How does one measure the

impact of hope? Dignity? Empowerment?

Over 75 percent of the applicants who responded

to the survey agree or strongly agree that the WES

report will help them on their educational and career

paths in Canada.

Some applicants were self-directed and motivated

to move quickly, having indicated a recipient on the

application form. Of the 22 applicants who did so

(almost a year ago) some are denitely using it to

pursue further education and licensing. However,

WES has learned that a few of these individuals

did not, in fact, have an active application with the

institution at the time it was sent, or withdrew their

applications because they “weren’t ready,” “life took

over,” or they were overwhelmed and depressed.

With the assistance of its referral partners, WES will

be tracking such applicants for another year as part

of this pilot project.

Other applicants, having seen the report, became

more motivated to learn how they could use it.

Referral partners reported clients returning for advice,

and WES Global Talent Bridge hosted a well-attended

information session in one referral agency to explain

the report and answer questions about opportunities

for skilled refugees to resume their careers or

consider alternate careers.

As of February 2017, 46 percent of applicants

surveyed knew how they would use the report;

36 percent were not sure. Their current thinking

represented the range of possibilities in roughly equal

proportions: employment using their qualications,

relicensing in their profession, further education, and

training for a new career.

Based on applicant survey data, those in their thirties

appear to be the most ready to proceed, compared

with those in their late teens or twenties, or in middle

age, or older. Seventy percent in this age bracket

were more likely to answer “yes” when asked if they

knew how they wished to use the report, compared

to 37 percent of those under 30 years old, and only 20

percent of those 40 to 49 years old. Thirty-somethings

may have the right combination of career experience

and condence, with many already knowing at least

some English.

CONCLUSIONS

The pilot sought to test a new methodology, a new

outreach and service model, and the utility of a

new kind of WES report. WES succeeded in all three

aims, thanks to referral partners who implemented

the program, refugee clients who participated, and

the support of stakeholders who helped evaluate

the program.

The following are concluding impressions,

highlighting some risks going forward and questions

that remain, as well as next steps for WES’ service

to refugees and others with similar challenges in

Canada in the immediate term; and refugees in the

United States in the longer term.

There is no doubt that there are risks in this endeavor

and that working with documents that cannot be

authenticated runs counter to normative practices

that WES has insisted on for years, notwithstanding

its recent research on best practices for working with

such documents. The WES Alternative Credential

Assessment will be a non-starter in professions and

institutions that cannot be exible with their entry

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

WES cannot ignore the ﬁndings that

the assessment reports conveyed hope,

empowerment and dignity, or that they

sparked the imagination and resolve of

many refugees to take action.

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

requirements for whatever reason(s). At the same

time, many refugees may nd the assessment a valid

and credible tool for exploring their options and

gaining recognition of qualications.

The innovation and value in this pilot was directly

related to WES’ claim that it could reconstruct

credentials from partial documentation, as well as

validate documents in the applicant’s possession.

WES has applied its extensive resources and expertise

to developing a methodology that can sustain the

utmost scrutiny and be corroborated by additional

strategies available to recognition bodies.

Of course, there is a human face to this technical

problem. Thousands of high-skilled, internationally-

trained Syrian refugees are now in Canada, improving

their language skills, and ready to thrive – not to

speak of the thousands of refugees from other

countries. WES believes that all of these individuals

deserve to have the same opportunities as other

permanent residents. This gets to the heart of the

problem that refugees face: A credential assessment

is a lifeline to many who would otherwise have to

start over. There are serious risks to the fabric of

society when people fail to thrive.

Until the utility of the alternative assessment is

known, there are risks of unmet and unmanaged

expectations. WES must provide prompt and early

intervention, understanding as it does from its

work with immigrants that it takes sometimes years

to regain momentum in one’s career. So much is

now known about directing individuals to bridging

programs, alternate careers, industry-recognized

certicates, skills-related employment, internships,

and further education. These are strategies that

need to be oered to refugees so they can use their

qualications to succeed. The credential assessment

is but a tool, although an important one to get people

in these circumstances moving in the right direction.

This is especially the case when a partner agency can

provide wrap-around services.

The demand for credential assessments among

this population is potentially immense, and will

be ongoing if the program is to be brought to

scale. WES hopes to serve this current wave of

Syrian refugees in all regions of Canada and begin

to extend the program to refugees from other

countries, as well as to refugees in the United States.

The capacity and commitment to do this has been

determined. WES, however, is mindful that its

ndings suggest that readiness is a key concept, and

“just-in-time intervention” is a challenge. Refugee

clients did not initiate this intervention. It was

oered to them whether or not they knew how they

would put it to use.

One could make the mistake of thinking that a

credential assessment was a premature intervention

– but it may be more complicated than that.

Although recognition is in the hands of institutions

and employers, there is a journey to that point that

deserves more attention, where an assessment

is a tool for another kind of purpose. WES cannot

ignore the ndings that the assessment reports

conveyed hope, empowerment and dignity, or that

they sparked the imagination and resolve of many

refugees to take action.

The timing, type of assessment, as well as its

function, purpose, and usefulness as part of the

refugee’s journey are all variables that can be studied

to better serve WES’ clients. For example, while

waiting for the report, the WES Degree Equivalency

Tool,

available free on the WES website, may be

used as the basis for a rst conversation between

caseworker and refugee to imagine possibilities. A

simple document assessment may be what is needed

for employment. A course assessment may be useful

only for those who are ready to submit an application

to higher education or licensing. WES has already

started testing some of these ideas in interviews with

partners, stakeholders, and applicants.

14 hps://applicaons.wes.org/ca/degree-equivalency-tool/

A Way Forward for Refugees: Findings from the WES Pilot Project

NEXT STEPS

WES will build on the ndings and conclusions of the

pilot project, and continue to expand the services

it oers refugees. WES will encourage institutions

to review and revise their recognition policies and

procedures by promoting the assessment methods

and knowledge resources that WES oers. WES

believes that a refugee has the right to know how

the qualications earned in their home country are

recognized in their new country. In the absence of

access to veriable academic documents, a third-

party assessment may be helpful.

WES intends to develop its policy regarding

documents that cannot be readily authenticated

with not only refugees in mind, but anyone who

cannot retrieve their academic documents due to

circumstances beyond their control, such as refugee

claimants, and victims of natural disaster.

WES also intends to extend refugee services to all

regions of Canada by developing agreements with

additional agencies and organizations that have the

capacity to provide referral and follow-up services to

refugee clients in collaboration with WES.

WES intends to oer this service to refugees from

countries other than Syria. WES has already begun

researching countries in distress and conict to

better understand the criteria by which it can

serve refugees from those countries. Many of these

refugees have been in Canada for years and have

not been eligible for a WES report. This research

involves understanding not only the ow of refugees

over time to determine the need for services, but the

nature of the disruption to institutions, the integrity

of the educational system during conict, and other

considerations. WES is committed to rolling out this

service to refugees from other countries based on

this research, in ways still under consideration.

Finally, WES is developing a plan to implement this

program in the United States, through a pilot project

in 2018. Based on lessons learned through the pilot

in Canada, WES will work closely with selected

referral partners to provide training and resources

that support credential assessment as a path to

credential recognition and integration.

These activities will require time to bring this

program to scale. At the same time, WES continues

to track the experience of its applicants in accessing

professional and educational opportunities using

the WES Alternative Credential Assessment, and will

report these subsequent ndings in due course.

Our Expertise. Your Success.

wes.org/ca

wes.org/gtb

supportca@wes.org

World Education Services is a non-

prot organization whose mission is to

foster the integration of internationally

educated persons into academic and

professional settings.

Find us on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.

For more information about the WES Refugee Project, contact [email protected]

Click here to subscribe to our newsletters.