Swedish agencies wait for complaints before checking ethnic bias
Riksrevisionen called Sweden's safeguards reactive and ineffective. More than half the complaints it examined concerned decisions the Equality Ombudsman could not supervise.
Seven agencies decide benefits, taxes, debt collection, policing and custody. They rarely test those decisions for ethnic discrimination until someone complains, and the watchdog cannot review most decisions at four of them.
Listen to this articleNarrated - 9:12
Riksrevisionen's national audit, published on 16 April, covered the Public Employment Service, Social Insurance Agency, Prison and Probation Service, Enforcement Authority, Police Authority, Tax Agency and Customs. Together, the seven employ roughly one-third of central-government staff. The auditors called the state's safeguards reactive and ineffective.
Most of the agencies act after an incident or complaint. They seldom map where ethnic discrimination could influence a decision, compare outcomes between groups or check whether prevention works. People affected by a decision usually see only their own file. The agency can compare thousands. Riksrevisionen says individual complaints cannot reveal patterns across a large body of decisions; agencies need their own group-level analysis for that.
The Equality Ombudsman can examine the substance of decisions made by the Public Employment Service, the Social Insurance Agency and parts of the Tax Agency's work. Its mandate is narrower at the Prison and Probation Service, Enforcement Authority, Police and Customs. At those four, the discrimination law generally covers officials' treatment and assistance rather than the substance of most decisions.
More than half of the complaints about agency decisions in the audited period concerned areas that the Ombudsman could not supervise under the discrimination law. Among the cases that did fall within its mandate, no investigation into ethnic discrimination in an agency decision had led to formal criticism, compensation or a court judgment.
Riksrevisionen did not review individual case files or estimate how often agencies discriminate. A difference between groups is not proof of discrimination. The audit asked whether agencies have reliable ways to identify and reduce the risk. Its conclusion concerns preventive work, not the outcome of a particular benefit, tax, policing or custody case. It found some useful work, but systematic mapping, group comparisons and follow-up remained uncommon.
The auditors want the government to focus first on authorities that make large numbers of decisions about individuals. They want agency leaders to identify risks in their own work and measure whether prevention changes outcomes. They also want the Ombudsman to use supervision and guidance more flexibly when that can improve prevention.
DO's complaint guidance tells complainants to describe what happened and when, explain the possible link to a protected ground, and preserve documents, emails, messages or witness details. A complaint becomes a public record. If DO opens an investigation, it tells the organisation named in the complaint. DO does not investigate every case.
A DO complaint does not challenge the agency decision itself. The Swedish Courts' appeal guide says that many agency decisions can be appealed to an administrative court. The decision normally states where to send the appeal and which deadline applies. A person who disputes both discrimination and the decision may need to preserve evidence for DO while filing a separate appeal on time.
The agencies already hold the records needed to compare decisions across groups. Riksrevisionen wants their leaders to use those records to identify risks before another person has to complain.
DailySweden
DailySweden's desk of editors, reporters, researchers and investigative journalists. We bring readers factual, truthful and objective reporting on the issues that matter to them.
Contact the editorial desk ›
