According to the State Commission against Discrimination and Racism, simply intervening after the fact is not enough, it writes in its final report. “Take a proactive approach to discrimination and racism.”

The commission was established four years ago in the aftermath of the childcare benefits scandal. Its task was to map out discrimination and racism in society and within government institutions.

One of the recommendations in the report is to stop using data-driven profiling in the execution of public tasks and services. Filtering citizens based on postal code, education level, income, or other characteristics can easily introduce unlawful discrimination.

“Recent scandals have shown how deeply discrimination and racism can become embedded in policies, algorithms, and administrative practices,” the report states. The commission explicitly mentions student finance provider DUO in this context.

Students living away from home

In the detection of fraud involving the basic grant for students living away from home, students with a migration background were disproportionately targeted, according to an investigation three years ago by the Higher Education Press Agency, Investico, NOSop3, and the newspaper Trouw.

This led to government apologies, repayment of fines, and compensation for students who were discriminated against. The state commission prefers to prevent such problems rather than fix them afterward.

That is not always easy: visible forms of discrimination are often addressed, but “more subtle, deeply embedded forms persist,” the commission argues. Sometimes discrimination is difficult to recognize, for example in a fraud-detection algorithm “that in practice disproportionately selects certain groups.”

Profiling

Last month, the commission already published a report on data-driven profiling. “In monitoring grants for students living away from home, DUO insufficiently examined which alternatives to the algorithm were available,” it stated.

The government should no longer use data-driven profiling at all, was its earlier conclusion. Instead, it recommends random sampling without prior filtering, or otherwise checking everyone. “These methods reduce the risk of discrimination, are easier to explain, and contribute to equal treatment and public trust.” The commission also emphasizes a financial benefit: the government faces lower risk of costly corrective measures.

And if the government still wants to assess who might be suspicious? It should first demonstrate that the use of profiling is necessary and proportionate, the commission says. It must also be assessed whether it has discriminatory effects.

DUO is currently working on a new system to detect students who misuse the basic grant for living away from home. This system will be independently reviewed in advance, according to Education Minister Rianne Letschert.