Ethnic discrimination – Central government efforts to counteract risks in agencies’ decisions

The seven agencies included in this audit are well prepared to act on lodged complaints concerning ethnic discrimination. The shortcomings are mainly in the agencies’ preventive efforts, which chiefly consist of general equal treatment measures such as training on core values in public administration. While such efforts may well help prevent the risk of ethnic discrimination in decision-making, measures are not usually founded on any analysis of risks of ethnic discrimination in the agencies’ own operations, and neither is any follow-up performed from that perspective. The agencies therefore lack the information needed to assess whether the measures in place are adequate.

The shortcomings in agencies’ preventive work lead to a tangible risk of failure to detect and address problems. It can be difficult for an individual to identify discrimination in an agency decision and file a complaint, which is why it is essential that agencies themselves take responsibility for examining risks in their operations.

There are examples of agencies that have launched more systematic efforts to identify and manage risks in parts of their operations. Some agencies have sought knowledge from numerous sources and identified risks using methods such as statistical analysis, surveys, interviews, observations and dialogue with relevant actors. There are also some examples of preventive work that is linked to the risks identified by the agencies, although this work is still in the early stages and has not been followed up, so it is not possible to assess whether it has been effective.

The agencies’ mapping and preventive efforts are hampered by uncertainty about which methods they may use. This uncertainty mainly concerns how risks can be identified without breaching data protection regulations. The Swedish National Audit Office considers that the agencies should examine which approaches are feasible – both those that require processing personal data and those that do not. While there is no universal method, there are approaches that some agencies have used on a smaller scale. The audit also points out that the Government should improve its steering to ensure that agencies take responsibility for examining and addressing risks in their operations. The Government could also ensure that agencies cooperate to exchange experience and develop suitable approaches for their work.

The Equality Ombudsman’s tools – supervision and promotive efforts – have not had any clear proactive effect on agencies’ work to counteract ethnic discrimination in decision-making. This can partly be explained by external factors; few of the lodged complaints concern agencies’ decisions that the Equality Ombudsman is authorised to review, and there are often shortcomings in the evidence, which impedes supervision. This can also be explained by how the Equality Ombudsman prioritises use of its tools.

The Equality Ombudsman’s operational focus means that its supervision is driven by individual complaints. However, none of the complaints concerning ethnic discrimination in agencies’ decisions have had any consequences for the agencies under review. The audit shows that they have rarely identified any need to take action by reason of the Equality Ombudsman’s supervision, as it has not entailed any criticism. Furthermore, many decisions made by central government agencies are not covered by any prohibition in the Discrimination Act. Therefore, the Equality Ombudsman cannot have any direct proactive role through its supervision of most agencies’ activities.

In addition, in its promotive work in recent years, the Equality Ombudsman has prioritised measures aimed at groups at risk of discrimination, in order to increase the inclination to file a complaint. Because of this, the Equality Ombudsman has scaled back training and dialogue aimed at entities like government agencies. Some of the Equality Ombudsman’s promotive projects have focused on relevant risks of ethnic discrimination in agencies’ decisions, for example in the application of artificial intelligence (AI). However, the audit does not show any clear effect at agencies.

The Swedish National Audit Office concludes that the Equality Ombudsman should consider adopting a more flexible approach to use of its tools, and to a greater extent direct promotive measures and other forms of supervision at government agencies where appropriate. This could make it easier for the Equality Ombudsman’s to encourage agencies to work more preventively.