In October 2023 the Amsterdam Court of Audit tested the city's algorithm governance: its framework addressed 49 of 61 risks, but fairness was examined for only one algorithm and the register held 29 entries.
Details
Promoter
Rekenkamer Metropool Amsterdam (Amsterdam-Zaanstad Court of Audit)
Period
2023
Keywords
algorithm audit, algorithm register, municipal governance
Description
In October 2023 the Rekenkamer Metropool Amsterdam published 'Algoritmen', an independent audit of the guidelines Amsterdam set to make its algorithms transparent and responsible. It examined three algorithms: a decision-support system for self-employed benefit applications (Bbz) and two tools that flag potential water-related and social-housing violations. The audit found the municipal framework addressed 49 of 61 identified risks across governance, data and modelling, privacy, IT management and ethics. It concluded that the city had insufficient grip on its algorithms: fairness had been thoroughly investigated for only one algorithm, legal privacy checks were still insufficient, citizens were not clearly told how algorithms were used in decisions about them, and the organisation had less visibility than it had estimated — the municipality believed it used hundreds of algorithms but only 29 appeared in the public register in October 2023. The council accepted all five recommendations on 20 December 2023 (stronger fairness and privacy safeguards, a more consistent framework, a fuller register, clearer communication to citizens) and requested an implementation plan. The case is a cautionary example: a pioneer of algorithm registers shows that publishing a register does not by itself guarantee control, and that independent audit of the practice is needed. No outcome data on the follow-up are cited here.
Read the full analysis: https://www.rekenkamer.amsterdam.nl/onderzoek/algoritmen/
Implementation
Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.
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.