From Values to Benchmarks: Evaluating Large Language Models for Governmental Use in Dutch

Large language models are increasingly being deployed in governmental settings, yet few existing evaluation frameworks jointly reflect the values of public administration and the linguistic requirements of non-English contexts. We present the "Grip on LLMs" framework, a systematic evaluation suite for Dutch governmental use developed in collaboration with domain experts from a major Dutch municipal organisation. Through an advisory board process, user research, and a survey of the users of a civil-servant chatbot, we identify six evaluation dimensions (factuality, honesty, social bias, energy consumption, cost, and training data transparency) and operationalise them into a benchmark suite covering more than 30 multilingual and Dutch-specific models. Our results reveal that no single model excels across all dimensions, and that trade-offs are unavoidable: higher quality consistently comes at greater environmental impact and financial cost, while bias remains largely independent of both. We further find that factuality (whether a model answers correctly) and honesty (whether a model acknowledges what it does not know) are governed by distinct properties, with high factuality not implying high honesty. To make these findings actionable for non-technical audiences, we release a publicly accessible, user-friendly model overview designed for the full range of stakeholders involved in governmental LLM selection, from engineers to policymakers.

A Technical Typology of AI Systems in Public Administration

Research on artificial intelligence (AI) in the public sector often treats "AI" as a single category, neglecting technical distinctions between different AI systems. But these distinctions affect how different systems impact core public values like accountability, procedural justice, and non-discrimination. This paper argues that public administration research would benefit from more technical precision on "AI" and makes three contributions to this end. First, we introduce a typology of five categories of AI systems: hand-coded, glass-box, black-box, general-purpose, and agentic systems. We calibrate the typology to public administration by grouping system types by their distinct implications for public values. Second, we evaluate technical precision in recent public administration research about AI by coding 91 highly-cited papers (2019-2025) using our typology. We find widespread imprecision: most papers (55\%) leave the studied system underspecified, 31\% motivate their work with a different system than they study, and 41\% make more general conclusions than the studied system supports. Finally, we give practical recommendations for future research. We highlight common pitfalls to avoid, and suggest that researchers should, at a minimum, provide enough technical detail to locate the studied system in our typology. To this end, we provide a practical guide -- a short set of diagnostic questions answerable from public information and without specialist technical knowledge.

When AI Classifies: What Counts as Public Administration?

This study examines how alternative systems of scholarly representation identify and characterize broad public administration (PA) and artificial intelligence related public administration (AI-in-PA) scholarship. Using Web of Science and OpenAlex, it compares five approaches based on author-defined, citation-driven, and AI-assisted representations. The results highlight substantial differences in corpus size, publication types, publishing outlets, temporal development, and thematic clustering and structure. The alternative approaches often identify different knowledge domains instead of varied subsets of the same scholarship and therefore produce distinct representations, as evidenced by no overlap in publications and publishing outlets across representations. The findings suggest that algorithmic knowledge organization increasingly influences how interdisciplinary scholarship is classified, structured, and understood and, epistemologically, how its visibility, intellectual structure, and boundaries are represented. AI-enabled scholarly classifications and representations are not neutral but interpretative, likely self-reinforcing, and potentially constrain the evolution and adaptation of disciplinary boundaries. Human disciplinary judgment is essential and is complemented rather than replaced.

Optimising Temporary Accommodation Placement Across London with AI-Powered SaaS in E-Governance Systems

Temporary accommodation has become a major fiscal and administrative pressure for English local authorities, particularly in London, where demand and costs have risen sharply. This paper documents the creation and use of DOMUS, a cloud-based, AI-enabled decision-support system built from scratch at the University of East London and customised for the needs of London Borough of Newham to support statutory Temporary accommodation placement. DOMUS integrates household case records, policy-constrained affordability and suitability rules, and live private-rental listings within a single governance-aligned workflow. The system combines transparent, rule-based filtering with large language model-assisted search to standardise the application of bedroom need, affordability thresholds, geographic preferences, and accessibility requirements, while preserving officer discretion and audibility. Household and property attributes are encoded into policy-consistent representations prior to AI-assisted ranking and explanation. A pilot deployment in Newham's secure environment evaluated operational performance relative to manual workflows. Results indicate substantial reductions in search time, improved adherence to key placement constraints, and high staff satisfaction, while maintaining statutory compliance and role-based accountability. Beyond TA, the paper frames DOMUS as replicable digital public infrastructure: a modular, cloud-native Software-as-a-Service architecture that can be deployed across other UK boroughs and adapted to other public administration tasks characterised by scarcity, rule-bound eligibility, and high stakes. The findings demonstrate the feasibility of scalable, ethically governed AI deployment in local government and contribute to debates on AI-enabled public value creation in e-governance.