‘Let fraud hunters show some proof first’

Under the monitoring system for student financing that was introduced by policymakers in 2012, inspectors have been ringing students’ doorbells to verify their address. If it turns out that someone has provided false information, they not only have to pay back part of their basic student grant for students living away from home, but they may also be fined.

Sounds good in theory, but how has it worked out in practice? Not so great. Because how do you decide who to visit, and how can you tell if someone actually lives somewhere? Many students who were accused of fraud decided to take their case to court. Despite the fact that one in four successfully challenged the allegations against them, no alarm bells went off at DUO.

In court, a remarkable number of students pointed to cultural barriers, for instance explaining that their housemates didn’t speak Dutch and were unable to understand the inspectors’ questions. Others said they lived with a relative instead of in ‘regular’ student housing.

One of the biggest problems was that DUO didn’t require hard evidence. The fraud inspectors only had to make a plausible case that a student had provided false information, for example by asking neighbours if they lived next door to a student. If there was any doubt or misunderstanding, the burden of proof was on the student.

Bemusement

We asked DUO how they could be sure that their fraud checks weren’t discriminatory. Our question was met with bemusement. DUO inspectors never selected students based on their surname or ethnicity, so how could they discriminate?

And yet they did. It took some digging by HOP, Investico, NOSop3 and Trouw, but the evidence exceeded our worst suspicions. In the court cases brought against DUO, 98 percent of the claimants turned out to have a migration background.

When confronted with these facts, former minister Robbert Dijkgraaf immediately shut down the fraud detection system, a decision that received near unanimous support in the House of Representatives. It was only opposed by PVV, JA21 and FvD.

Burden of proof

Dijkgraaf’s successor, Eppo Bruins, took the first step in the reparations process by compensating all affected students. He now wants to set up a new anti-fraud system, without repeating the mistakes of the past. This system will be based on trust in citizens, the Minister promises.

If he’s serious about this, he should set higher standards for fraud investigations. Under the old system, it was up to students to prove that DUO’s suspicions were unfounded. The Minister should change this, making it so that DUO has to present hard evidence in cases where fraud is suspected.

It may be difficult to find political support for such an intervention, however, as two motions to this effect have already been voted down. But perhaps these motions came too soon, with parties wanting to wait for the results of further investigations.

Those results are now in, and they’ve led to apologies, soon to be followed by compensation. The logical next step is to shift the burden of proof to fraud inspectors. Does DUO believe that someone isn’t entitled to the basic grant for students living away from home? Does it want to go so far as to impose a fine? Prove it. Better that ten fraudsters go free than for one innocent person to become a victim of government discrimination.

HOP, Bas Belleman