Signalling abuse and improper use Wmo & Jeugdwet

Municipality of The Hague

The model helps detect and analyse irregularities and irregularities following the allocation of a Wmo/Jeugdwet provision. The model signals whether further investigation is needed into the spending of funds.

Last change on 5th of July 2024, at 9:31 (CET) | Publication Standard 1.0

• Publication category: Impactful algorithms
• Impact assessment: IAMA
• Status: In use

General information

Theme

Health and Healthcare

Begin date

Field not filled in.

Contact information

[e-mail]

Responsible use

Goal and impact

Signalling to further investigate whether there might be abuse and/or improper use of facilities provided under the Wmo and Youth Act. It is also a monitoring tool that is used periodically.

Should there be indications of abuse and/or improper use, the Wmo/Jeugdwet supervisor conducts further investigations. This involves contacting, for example, the client, representative(s), care provider(s), etc. In specific cases, this may lead to a policy adjustment and/or municipal regulations with a preventive effect.

Considerations

Manual analysis takes a lot of time and a lot of staff.

The model signals whether further investigation into the spending of funds is needed. There are no automated decisions; a supervisor is always involved.

Human intervention

The algorithm is for internal use only; there is always intervention by a supervisor. Citizens can object to the municipal decision to have to pay back. No automated decision-making takes place. The algorithm is used for analysis to identify possible abuse and improper use. It is also a monitoring tool used periodically.

Risk management

Consideration was given to the risks. Based on this, algorithm rules were chosen that only use situations where experience has shown that there is an increased risk of abuse and improper use (e.g. a representative representing more than 3 citizens, unbalanced budget utilisation, billing after the facility has been discontinued, etc.). Personal characteristics are not used. Signalling only means that further investigation is necessary, not that in all cases there is abuse and improper use. Further investigation must always show that. There is no profiling based on data such as ethnicity, gender or postal code.

Legal basis

Social Support Act and Youth Act.

Elaboration on impact assessments

A pre DPIA was carried out to determine whether a DPIA is necessary. This is not the case regarding the algorithm. However, separate DPIAs are carried out on the processes.

An IAMA has been carried out. The algorithm is a filter that makes it possible to look up in the database whether criteria have been met. The advantage of the algorithm is that the criteria are clearly defined, ensuring transparency and eliminating randomness.

Impact assessment

Impact Assessment Mensenrechten en Algoritmes (IAMA)

Operations

Data

No automated link with the basic register (BRP). Data from the SVB (the implementing body for drawing rights) are used. a) BSN numbers of budget holders, representatives and Chamber of Commerce data of care providers, b) Size of the budget plus payments already made, c) Category of budget granted and type of contract entered into (between care provider and budget holder) , d) Price rate information (hourly wages).

Technical design

Causality reasoning captured in rules.

The algorithm is actually a set of rules which are used to run queries. The queries contain domain knowledge indicating what expected values would be. The expected values are compared with the actual values. Examples of comparisons between expected and actual values relate to e.g. number of representatives per budget holder, care providers who are also representatives, utilisation rate during a certain period, monthly wages, excessive hourly wages, etc.