evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

AMAS — Austria's Banned-Then-Vindicated Jobseeker Profiling Algorithm

Austria · Vienna · See the Austria profile · See the Vienna profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 98% 20/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Austria's AMS scored every jobseeker into 3 employability tiers to ration training funds; researchers found a −0.14 penalty for being female. The DPA banned it in 2020; courts cleared it only in 2025, after AMS wrote off €2.5m and dropped the project.

-0.14 points
Gender penalty applied to employability score
2.5 million EUR
AMS development cost written off
3
Employability tiers
5
Years the model was in development and pilot use (2015-2020)
5
Years between the DPA ban and the final court ruling (2020-2025)
AMAS — Austria's Banned-Then-Vindicated Jobseeker Profiling Algorithm

Details

Maturity
Discontinued
Promoter
Arbeitsmarktservice (AMS) — Austria's Public Employment Service
Period
2015–2020 (development and pilot); September 2025 (final court ruling)
Region (NUTS)
AT13
Keywords
public employment services, labour market, welfare targeting, algorithmic profiling

Context

Between 2015 and 2018, Austria's Public Employment Service (Arbeitsmarktservice, AMS) developed a regression-based scoring model, later branded AMAS, that sorted every registered jobseeker into three employability groups (A: high prospects, B: medium, C: low prospects) using variables including age, gender, nationality, care obligations and disability. Group C jobseekers were to be steered away from AMS's more expensive training programmes on cost-efficiency grounds, while Group A jobseekers were also deprioritised on the assumption they would find work unaided.

Results

An independent academic study (Allhutter et al., Frontiers in Big Data, 2020) obtained AMAS's technical documentation and found it explicitly subtracted 0.14 points from a jobseeker's score for being a woman, with a further penalty for declared care obligations applied only to women. Austria's data protection authority banned the system in August 2020 as an insufficiently justified form of automated profiling; AMS deleted the project's data that autumn and, per board chairman Johannes Kopf, wrote off roughly €2.5 million in development costs.

Conclusions

Austria's Federal Administrative Court did not finally resolve the legal challenge until September 2025, ruling that AMAS had not violated GDPR Article 22 because a human caseworker retained final sign-off — but by then AMS had already abandoned the project and confirmed it has no plans to revive it, saying it would likely use different AI-based methods today. AMAS was never deployed nationally and remained a contested pilot for its entire five-year existence.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — AMS wrote off roughly €2.5 million in development costs after abandoning the project
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Developed 2015-2018; piloted through 2020; banned by the DPA in August 2020; legal challenge resolved only in September 2025
Staffing & skills
Arbeitsmarktservice (AMS), Austria's Public Employment Service (developed the model in-house), Austria's Datenschutzbehörde (data protection authority, ruled on the ban), Federal Administrative Court (BVwG, final legal ruling)

Conditions for success

  • Retaining a human caseworker with final sign-off was the factor courts ultimately cited in finding the system did not violate GDPR Article 22

Common failure modes

  • Model explicitly subtracted 0.14 points from a jobseeker's score for being a woman, with an added penalty for declared care obligations applied only to women
  • System was built and used to ration access to training funds for years before any external evaluation of its fairness was published
  • Data protection authority found the automated profiling insufficiently justified and transparent
  • AMS wrote off roughly €2.5 million and deleted project data rather than remediate the model

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes ESF+ — European Social Fund Plus

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful