UWV under fire over possible discrimination in enforcement
An internal investigation and staff discussions raise fresh questions about fraud checks and fines.
There is news on this story (Monday, 5 October 2026, 13:16): UWV chief apologises after discrimination concerns
Signs of racism, discrimination and ethnic profiling have emerged in the Enforcement department of benefits agency UWV. EenVandaag reports that an internal investigation found differences in the way people with Dutch and non-Dutch surnames were fined, but UWV stresses that no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this.
The signs come from confidential documents and conversations with current and former department staff. The department conducts fraud investigations and can impose fines. According to EenVandaag, several employees describe a culture in which reports of discrimination were downplayed or inadequately investigated.
The internal investigation on which the reports are based looked at differences between case files. According to the broadcaster, it found that people with non-Dutch surnames were fined relatively more often and more heavily. According to UWV, the investigation was not a scientific study. The difference may therefore be a reason for further investigation, but in itself does not prove that background was the cause.
A set of working instructions for fraud investigations is also under scrutiny. It names ‘country of origin’ as a possible risk characteristic when selecting cases. UWV says this criterion was never used and was removed in 2020, but has announced that it will nevertheless remove the passage from the instructions in full.
Abdeluheb Choho, the new chair of the executive board, has apologised to people who have experienced discrimination or racism within or outside UWV. He says the findings affect him, but does not want to prejudge an ongoing external investigation into possible unequal treatment.
The issue touches on a broader debate about risk selection by public implementing organisations. Fraud control is a statutory duty, but selection methods must not result in distinctions based on origin. When differences in fines arise, implementing bodies must be able to explain which objective characteristics are responsible for them.
UWV says the new investigation should be completed by the end of this year. Until then, it remains unclear how large the group of potentially disadvantaged clients is and whether previously imposed fines should be reviewed. It is also not yet known what measures UWV will take if the investigation does establish discrimination.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- An internal UWV investigation identified differences in fines between groups of clients.
- According to UWV, the investigation was not scientific and does not constitute definitive evidence of discrimination.
- UWV has an external investigation under way and says it will remove the passage about ‘country of origin’.
Left
Arguments Public implementing bodies must demonstrably stop using risk selection that could disadvantage people because of their origin and actively reassess previous case files.
Values Equal treatment, legal protection and trust in government.
Consequences Without robust oversight, unjustified fines and a new benefits scandal could arise.
Centre
Arguments Fraud must be tackled, but differences in outcomes call for independent investigation, transparent criteria and redress wherever necessary.
Values Carefulness, practicability and institutional reliability.
Consequences A phased approach prevents both dismissing the signals and drawing hasty conclusions.
Right
Arguments Enforcement must remain effective and must not be paralysed by political suspicions as long as it has not been established that individual staff members deliberately discriminated.
Values Equal application of the rules, accountability and protection of public funds.
Consequences Overly broad restrictions on risk selection could make fraud harder to detect and increase implementation costs.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The factual core is based on current reporting by EenVandaag and publicly available information from UWV. The text clearly distinguishes between signals, investigation findings and proven facts.
- confirmed UWV’s Enforcement department conducts fraud investigations and can impose fines. — EenVandaag describes the department’s task; UWV describes enforcement as checking compliance with benefit obligations. source
- confirmed An internal investigation found differences in fines for people with Dutch and non-Dutch surnames. — This is reported by EenVandaag, with the caveat that the investigation was not a scientific study. source
- confirmed UWV says that ‘country of origin’ was never used as a criterion and wants to remove the passage. — EenVandaag reports this response from UWV. source
- confirmed UWV has a chair called Abdeluheb Choho who has apologised. — The current EenVandaag publication mentions this. source
Editor's note
The reporting is based on confidential documents and testimonies. The internal investigation identifies differences, but UWV does not consider the method scientific; the scale and cause are therefore still uncertain.Sources
The story so far
- Monday, 5 October 2026, 10:15 UWV under fire over possible discrimination in enforcement (this article)
- Monday, 5 October 2026, 13:16 UWV chief apologises after discrimination concerns
More on this in Dutch media
- NU.nl — „uwv discriminatie”
- De Telegraaf — „uwv discriminatie”
- AD — „uwv discriminatie”