Unintentional discrimination when controlling students

Friday, March 1, 14:11 •Updated Friday, March 1, 15:37 Dijkgraaf: unintentional discrimination when controlling studentsThe way in which the Department of Education Implementation (DUO) controlled scholarships for students living away has unconsciously and unintentionally led to indirect discrimination. This is what outgoing Minister Dijkgraaf of Education said in response to research he commissioned. According to him, certain groups of students had a better chance of coming into the picture, especially those with a migration background and MBO students. On behalf of the cabinet, the minister apologises for the way things are going. “This affects me very much and this should not have happened,” he said after the cabinet's weekly meeting. Dijkgraaf had carried the investigation out after NOS on 3 and Investico had their findings about Duo's fraud detection. published. This showed that students with a migration background were remarkably often accused of fraud with grants living away from home. Students who live away receive a higher grant than those who still live with their parents. He then spoke of a “worrying signal”. Shortly after those publications, Dijkgraaf stopped the fraud system as it was. The algorithm used to select students for a check was turned off. Students could only be checked on the basis of a random sample. That remains the way of checking for now. NOS on 3 made this video about Duo's fraud detection: https://nos.nl/l/2479701Het research was done by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC). The agency describes, among other things, that students who lived closer to their parents were more likely to have control, while CBS research shows that children of parents with a migration background continue to live closer. According to the researchers, signals that indicated that prejudice was a risk were not adequately addressed. The minister finds the findings “painful” and emphasized that the leadership of the ministry and DUO were responsible for this.MBO courses closer to home. MBO students were also given a higher risk score than higher professional education students or universities. The reason for this is that MBO courses are often closer to home than higher professional education and university courses. The minister also finds these findings “wry”. He emphasized that it is important to him that students in various forms of education have an equal position. By the way, Dijkgraaf also pointed out that no direct discrimination was found: “Data related to origin, such as migration background, played no role.” Not in conversation The previous investigation by NOS op 3 and Investico showed that DUO had been working with an algorithm to detect fraud since 2012. Using self-invented risk indicators such as age and educational level, the system selected potential fraudsters. Fraud investigators then determined who auditors visited their homes. In turn, they looked at other factors. For example, according to DUO, students who live with family members such as brothers or aunts were a risk group for fraud, while they are also entitled to the grant for people living away from home. The home visits and any neighborhood research were carried out by companies hired by DUO. The auditors drew up an advisory report containing statements from roommates or local residents. Sometimes two statements were sufficient. Based on this, if DUO concluded that there was fraud, the student received a letter stating that the grant received should be reimbursed. There was often a fine and DUO did not talk to students prior to the decision, NOS op 3 and Investico noted.DUO may not use the algorithm until more information is known about possible discriminationLabelled a fraud by DUO: 'Was looked at as if I had killed someone'Students with a migration background are remarkably often accused of fraud, minister wants to thoroughly check the system