research-article

Open access

A Framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed through a Case Study of Child-Welfare

Authors:

Devansh Saxena,

Karla Badillo-Urquiola,

Pamela J. Wisniewski,

Shion GuhaAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 5, Issue CSCW2

Article No.: 348, Pages 1 - 41

https://doi.org/10.1145/3476089

Published: 18 October 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Algorithms have permeated throughout civil government and society, where they are being used to make high-stakes decisions about human lives. In this paper, we first develop a cohesive framework of algorithmic decision-making adapted for the public sector (ADMAPS) that reflects the complex socio-technical interactions between human discretion, bureaucratic processes, and algorithmic decision-making by synthesizing disparate bodies of work in the fields of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Science and Technology Studies (STS), and Public Administration (PA). We then applied the ADMAPS framework to conduct a qualitative analysis of an in-depth, eight-month ethnographic case study of algorithms in daily use within a child-welfare agency that serves approximately 900 families and 1300 children in the mid-western United States. Overall, we found that there is a need to focus on strength-based algorithmic outcomes centered in social ecological frameworks. In addition, algorithmic systems need to support existing bureaucratic processes and augment human discretion, rather than replace it. Finally, collective buy-in in algorithmic systems requires trust in the target outcomes at both the practitioner and bureaucratic levels. As a result of our study, we propose guidelines for the design of high-stakes algorithmic decision-making tools in the child-welfare system, and more generally, in the public sector. We empirically validate the theoretically derived ADMAPS framework to demonstrate how it can be useful for systematically making pragmatic decisions about the design of algorithms for the public sector.

References

[1]

Senate of the United States 115th Congress. 2018. S. 3039 - Using Data To Help Protect Children and Families Act.

[2]

Ali Alkhatib and Michael Bernstein. 2019. Street-level algorithms: A theory at the gaps between policy and decisions. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--13.

Digital Library

[3]

Doris Allhutter, Florian Cech, Fabian Fischer, Gabriel Grill, and Astrid Mager. 2020. Algorithmic profiling of job seekers in Austria: how austerity politics are made effective. Front. Big Data 3: 5. (2020).

[4]

Florian Artinger, Malte Petersen, Gerd Gigerenzer, and Jürgen Weibler. 2015. Heuristics as adaptive decision strategies in management. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36, S1 (2015), S33--S52.

[5]

Jos ARM Arts, Wim H Gijselaers, and Henny Boshuizen. 2000. Expertise Development in Managerial Sciences: The Use of Knowledge Types in Problem-Solving. (2000).

[6]

Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Jaclyn Abraham, Arup Kumar Ghosh, and Pamela Wisniewski. 2018. A Stakeholders' Analysis of the Systems that Support Foster Care. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Supporting Groupwork. ACM, 158--161.

Digital Library

[7]

Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Arup Kumar Ghosh, and Pamela Wisniewski. 2017. Understanding the unique online challenges faced by teens in the foster care system. In Companion of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, 139--142.

Digital Library

[8]

Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Scott Harpin, and Pamela Wisniewski. 2017. Abandoned but Not Forgotten: Providing Access While Protecting Foster Youth from Online Risks. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, 17--26.

Digital Library

[9]

Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Xinru Page, and Pamela Wisniewski. 2019. Risk vs. Restriction: The Digital Divide between Providing a Sense of Normalcy and Keeping Foster Teens Safe Online. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM.

Digital Library

[10]

Solon Barocas, Asia J Biega, Benjamin Fish, J?drzej Niklas, and Luke Stark. 2020. When not to design, build, or deploy. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 695--695.

Digital Library

[11]

Solon Barocas and Andrew D Selbst. 2016. Big data's disparate impact. Calif. L. Rev. 104 (2016), 671.

[12]

Eric PS Baumer. 2017. Toward human-centered algorithm design. Big Data & Society 4, 2 (2017), 2053951717718854.

[13]

Eric PS Baumer and M Six Silberman. 2011. When the implication is not to design (technology). In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2271--2274.

Digital Library

[14]

Richard Berk, Hoda Heidari, Shahin Jabbari, Michael Kearns, and Aaron Roth. 2018. Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. Sociological Methods & Research (2018), 0049124118782533.

[15]

Joan M Blakey, Sonya J Leathers, Michelle Lawler, Tyreasa Washington, Chiralaine Natschke, Tonya Strand, and Quenette Walton. 2012. A review of how states are addressing placement stability. Children and Youth Services Review 34, 2 (2012), 369--378.

[16]

Herman L Boschken. 1994. Organizational performance and multiple constituencies. Public Administration Review 54, 3 (1994), 308--312.

[17]

Mark Bovens and Stavros Zouridis. 2002. From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: how information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public administration review 62, 2 (2002), 174--184.

[18]

Evelyn Z Brodkin. 2008. Accountability in street-level organizations. Intl Journal of Public Administration 31, 3 (2008), 317--336.

[19]

Urie Bronfenbrenner. 1975. Reality and research in the ecology of human development. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 119, 6 (1975), 439--469.

[20]

Anna Brown, Alexandra Chouldechova, Emily Putnam-Hornstein, Andrew Tobin, and Rhema Vaithianathan. 2019. Toward Algorithmic Accountability in Public Services: A Qualitative Study of Affected Community Perspectives on Algorithmic Decision-making in Child Welfare Services. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 41.

Digital Library

[21]

Justin B Bullock. 2019. Artificial intelligence, discretion, and bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administration 49, 7 (2019), 751--761.

[22]

Justin B Bullock, Jesper Rosenberg Hansen, and David J Houston. 2018. Sector Differences in Employee's Perceived Importance of Income and Job Security: Can These be Found Across the Contexts of Countries, Cultures, and Occupations? International Public Management Journal 21, 2 (2018), 243--271.

[23]

Peter André Busch and Helle Zinner Henriksen. 2018. Digital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion. Information Polity 23, 1 (2018), 3--28.

Digital Library

[24]

Sarah Carnochan, Megan Moore, and Michael J Austin. 2013. Achieving placement stability. Journal of evidence-based social work 10, 3 (2013), 235--253.

[25]

Eleanor Carter, Clare FitzGerald, Ruth Dixon, Christina Economy, Tanyah Hameed, and Mara Airoldi. 2018. Building the tools for public services to secure better outcomes: Collaboration, Prevention, Innovation. Government Outcomes Lab, University of Oxford, Blavatnik School of Government (2018).

[26]

Spencer P Chainey. 2013. Examining the influence of cell size and bandwidth size on kernel density estimation crime hotspot maps for predicting spatial patterns of crime. Bulletin of the Geographical Society of Liege 60 (2013), 7--19.

[27]

Paul Chalekian. 2013. POSDCORB: Core patterns of administration. In Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs. The Hillside Group, 17.

[28]

Angèle Christin, Alex Rosenblat, and Danah Boyd. 2015. Courts and predictive algorithms. Data & CivilRight (2015).

[29]

Shelby L Clark, Ashley N Palmer, Becci A Akin, Stacy Dunkerley, and Jody Brook. 2020. Investigating the relationship between trauma symptoms and placement instability. Child Abuse & Neglect 108 (2020), 104660.

[30]

Victoria Clarke, Virginia Braun, and Nikki Hayfield. 2015. Thematic analysis. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (2015), 222--248.

[31]

Roxanne Connelly, Christopher J Playford, Vernon Gayle, and Chris Dibben. 2016. The role of administrative data in the big data revolution in social science research. Social science research 59 (2016), 1--12.

[32]

Stephanie Cuccaro-Alamin, Regan Foust, Rhema Vaithianathan, and Emily Putnam-Hornstein. 2017. Risk assessment and decision making in child protective services: Predictive risk modeling in context. Children and Youth Services Review 79 (2017), 291--298.

[33]

Mark Davidson. 2020. Extreme municipal fiscal stress and austerity? A case study of fiscal reform after Chapter 9 bankruptcy. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 38, 3 (2020), 522--538.

[34]

Maria De-Arteaga, Riccardo Fogliato, and Alexandra Chouldechova. 2020. A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic Scores. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--12.

Digital Library

[35]

James W Dean Jr and Mark P Sharfman. 1993. Procedural rationality in the strategic decision-making process. Journal of management Studies 30, 4 (1993), 587--610.

[36]

Ganesh Chandra Deka. 2014. Big data predictive and prescriptive analytics. In Handbook of research on cloud infrastructures for Big Data analytics. IGI Global, 370--391.

[37]

Benoît Desmarchelier, Faridah Djellal, and Faïz Gallouj. 2019. Innovation in public services in the light of public administration paradigms and service innovation perspectives. European Review of Service Economics and Management 8 (2019), 91--120.

[38]

Paul Dourish and Edgar Gómez Cruz. 2018. Datafication and data fiction: Narrating data and narrating with data. Big Data & Society 5, 2 (2018), 2053951718784083.

[39]

Grant Drawve, Joel Caplan, and Michael Ostermann. 2019. Utilizing a risk of crime measure for recidivism research: Moving environmental corrections forward. Crime & Delinquency 65, 5 (2019), 606--629.

[40]

Phoebe C Ellsworth. 2005. Legal Reasoning (The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, KJ Holyoak and RG Morrison Jr.(eds),(New York).

[41]

K Anders Ericsson and Jacqui Smith. 1991. Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge University Press.

[42]

Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.

Digital Library

[43]

Ali Farazmand. 2009. Bureaucracy and administration. CRC Press.

[44]

Ali Farazmand. 2017. Governance reforms: The good, the bad, and the ugly; and the sound: Examining the past and exploring the future of public organizations. Public Organization Review 17, 4 (2017), 595--617.

[45]

Patricia Fredericksen and Rosanne London. 2000. Disconnect in the hollow state: The pivotal role of organizational capacity in community-based development organizations. Public Administration Review 60, 3 (2000), 230--239.

[46]

H George Frederickson, Kevin B Smith, Christopher W Larimer, and Michael J Licari. 2015. The public administration theory primer. Westview Press.

[47]

Batya Friedman, Peter Kahn, and Alan Borning. 2002. Value sensitive design: Theory and methods. University of Washington technical report 2--12 (2002).

[48]

David J Fritzsche. 1991. A model of decision-making incorporating ethical values. Journal of Business Ethics 10, 11 (1991), 841--852.

[49]

Eileen Gambrill and Aron Shlonsky. 2000. Risk assessment in context.

[50]

Eileen Gambrill and Aron Shlonsky. 2001. The need for comprehensive risk management systems in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review 23, 1 (2001), 79--107.

[51]

Sarah Giest and Nadine Raaphorst. 2018. Unraveling the hindering factors of digital public service delivery at street-level: the case of electronic health records. Policy Design and Practice 1, 2 (2018), 141--154.

[52]

Gerd Gigerenzer and Wolfgang Gaissmaier. 2011. Heuristic decision making. Annual review of psychology 62 (2011), 451--482.

[53]

Philip Gillingham. 2018. Decision-making about the adoption of information technology in social welfare agencies: Some key considerations. European Journal of Social Work 21, 4 (2018), 521--529.

[54]

Philip Gillingham. 2019. Decision Support Systems, Social Justice and Algorithmic Accountability in Social Work: A New Challenge. Practice 31, 4 (2019), 277--290.

[55]

Travis Greene, Galit Shmueli, Jan Fell, Ching-Fu Lin, Mark L Shope, and Han-Wei Liu. 2020. The Hidden Inconsistencies Introduced by Predictive Algorithms in Judicial Decision Making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.00289 (2020).

[56]

Nina Grgi?-Hla?a, Christoph Engel, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2019. Human decision making with machine assistance: An experiment on bailing and jailing. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1--25.

[57]

Kenneth R Hammond. 1996. Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. Oxford University Press on Demand.

[58]

MD Romael Haque, Katherine Weathington, Joseph Chudzik, and Shion Guha. 2020. Understanding Law Enforcement and Common Peoples' Perspectives on Designing Explainable Crime Mapping Algorithms. In Conference Companion Publication of the 2020 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 269--273.

[59]

MD Romael Haque, Katherine Weathington, and Shion Guha. 2019. Exploring the Impact of (Not) Changing Default Settings in Algorithmic Crime Mapping-A Case Study of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In Conference Companion Publication of the 2019 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 206--210.

[60]

Alison Hendricks, Lisa Conradi, and Charles Wilson. 2011. Creating trauma-informed child welfare systems using a community assessment process. Child Welfare 90, 6 (2011), 187.

[61]

Joana Hois, Dimitra Theofanou-Fuelbier, and Alischa Janine Junk. 2019. How to Achieve Explainability and Transparency in Human AI Interaction. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 177--183.

[62]

Naja Holten Møller, Irina Shklovski, and Thomas T Hildebrandt. 2020. Shifting concepts of value: Designing algorithmic decision-support systems for public services. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society. 1--12.

Digital Library

[63]

Steven J Jackson, Tarleton Gillespie, and Sandy Payette. 2014. The policy knot: re-integrating policy, practice and design in cscw studies of social computing. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 588--602.

Digital Library

[64]

Elizabeth K Hopper, Ellen L Bassuk, and Jeffrey Olivet. 2010. Shelter from the storm: Trauma-informed care in homelessness services settings. The Open Health Services and Policy Journal 3, 1 (2010).

[65]

Geraldine Kennett et al. 2013. The impact of training practices on individual, organisation, and industry skill development. Australian Bulletin of Labour 39, 1 (2013), 112.

[66]

Rob Kitchin and Tracey Lauriault. 2014. Towards critical data studies: Charting and unpacking data assemblages and their work. (2014).

[67]

Eun Koh and Mark F Testa. 2008. Propensity score matching of children in kinship and nonkinship foster care: Do permanency outcomes differ? Social Work Research 32, 2 (2008), 105--116.

[68]

Jan-Erik Lane. 2000. New public management. Taylor & Francis US.

[69]

Soo-Young Lee and Andrew B Whitford. 2013. Assessing the effects of organizational resources on public agency performance: Evidence from the US federal government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23, 3 (2013), 687--712.

[70]

Per LEgreid. 2017. Transcending new public management: the transformation of public sector reforms. Routledge.

[71]

Agnieszka Leszczynski. 2016. Speculative futures: Cities, data, and governance beyond smart urbanism. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 48, 9 (2016), 1691--1708.

[72]

Jill Levenson. 2017. Trauma-informed social work practice. Social Work 62, 2 (2017), 105--113.

[73]

Q Vera Liao, Daniel Gruen, and Sarah Miller. 2020. Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--15.

Digital Library

[74]

Michael Lipsky. 2010. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.

[75]

Linda Lobao, Mia Gray, Kevin Cox, and Michael Kitson. 2018. The shrinking state? Understanding the assault on the public sector.

[76]

Thomas Lodato and Carl DiSalvo. 2018. Institutional constraints: the forms and limits of participatory design in the public realm. In Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers-Volume 1. 1--12.

Digital Library

[77]

Kim Loyens and Jeroen Maesschalck. 2010. Toward a theoretical framework for ethical decision making of street-level bureaucracy: Existing models reconsidered. Administration & Society 42, 1 (2010), 66--100.

[78]

John S Lyons. 2009. Communimetrics: A communication theory of measurement in human service settings. Springer Science & Business Media.

[79]

John S Lyons, Dana Aron Weiner, and Melanie Buddin Lyons. 2004. Measurement as communication in outcomes management: The child and adolescent needs and strengths (CANS). The Use of Psychological Testing for Treatment Planning and Outcomes Assessment. Volume 2: Instruments for Children and Adolescents (2004).

[80]

Thomas M. Vogl. 2020. Artificial intelligence and organizational memory in government: the experience of record duplication in the child welfare sector in Canada. In The 21st Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. 223--231.

Digital Library

[81]

Mariusz Maciejewski. 2017. To do more, better, faster and more cheaply: Using big data in public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences 83, 1_suppl (2017), 120--135.

[82]

Azhar Manzoor. 2014. A look at efficiency in public administration: Past and future. Sage Open 4, 4 (2014), 2158244014564936.

[83]

Steven Maynard-Moody and Michael Musheno. 2003. Cops, teachers, counselors: Narratives of street-level judgment. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press (2003).

[84]

Gary B Melton. 2005. Mandated reporting: A policy without reason. Child abuse & neglect 29, 1 (2005), 9--18.

[85]

Michael E Milakovich and George J Gordon. 2013. Public administration in America. Cengage Learning.

[86]

Terry D Moore, Thomas P McDonald, and Kari Cronbaugh-Auld. 2016. Assessing risk of placement instability to aid foster care placement decision making. Journal of Public Child Welfare 10, 2 (2016), 117--131.

[87]

Shabnam Mousavi and Gerd Gigerenzer. 2014. Risk, uncertainty, and heuristics. Journal of Business Research 67, 8 (2014), 1671--1678.

[88]

Henrik Mucha, Sebastian Robert, Rüdiger Breitschwerdt, and Michael Fellmann. [n.d.]. Towards Participatory Design Spaces for Explainable AI Interfaces in Expert Domains. ([n. d.]).

[89]

US Department of Health, Human Services, et al. 2020. The AFCARS Report. Preliminary FY 2019 Estimates as of June 23, 2020 (27). Retrieved December 23 (2020), 2019.

[90]

Stephen P Osborne and Louise Brown. 2013. Handbook of innovation in public services. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[91]

Juho Pääkkönen, Matti Nelimarkka, Jesse Haapoja, and Airi Lampinen. 2020. Bureaucracy as a Lens for Analyzing and Designing Algorithmic Systems. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--14.

Digital Library

[92]

Samir Passi and Steven Jackson. 2017. Data vision: Learning to see through algorithmic abstraction. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 2436--2447.

Digital Library

[93]

Samir Passi and Steven J Jackson. 2018. Trust in data science: collaboration, translation, and accountability in corporate data science projects. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1--28.

Digital Library

[94]

Samir Passi and Phoebe Sengers. 2020. Making data science systems work. Big Data & Society 7, 2 (2020), 2053951720939605.

[95]

John W Payne, James R Bettman, and Eric J Johnson. 1993. The use of multiple strategies in judgment and choice. (1993).

[96]

Rik Peeters. 2020. The agency of algorithms: Understanding human-algorithm interaction in administrative decision-making. Information Polity Preprint (2020), 1--16.

[97]

B Guy Peters. 2014. Accountability in public administration. The Oxford handbook of public accountability (2014), 211--225.

[98]

Hitendra Pillay and Andrea R McCrindle. 2005. Distributed and relative nature of professional expertise. Studies in Continuing Education 27, 1 (2005), 67--88.

[99]

Anthony T Pinter, Pamela J Wisniewski, Heng Xu, Mary Beth Rosson, and Jack M Caroll. 2017. Adolescent online safety: Moving beyond formative evaluations to designing solutions for the future. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, 352--357.

Digital Library

[100]

Anja Pors and Jannick Schou. 2020. Street-level morality at the digital frontlines: An ethnographic study of moral mediation in welfare work. Administrative Theory & Praxis (2020), 1--18.

[101]

Joanna Redden, Lina Dencik, and Harry Warne. 2020. Datafied child welfare services: unpacking politics, economics and power. Policy Studies (2020), 1--20.

[102]

Jeanne S Ringel, Dana Schultz, Joshua Mendelsohn, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, Katharine Sieck, Ifeanyi Edochie, and Lauren Davis. 2018. Improving child welfare outcomes: balancing investments in prevention and treatment. Rand health quarterly 7, 4 (2018).

[103]

Samantha Robertson, Tonya Nguyen, and Niloufar Salehi. 2021. Modeling Assumptions Clash with the Real World: Transparency, Equity, and Community Challenges for Student Assignment Algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.10367 (2021).

[104]

Samantha Robertson and Niloufar Salehi. 2020. What If I Don't Like Any Of The Choices? The Limits of Preference Elicitation for Participatory Algorithm Design. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.06718 (2020).

[105]

Jodi R Sandfort. 2000. Moving beyond discretion and outcomes: Examining public management from the front lines of the welfare system. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10, 4 (2000), 729--756.

[106]

Devansh Saxena, Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Pamela Wisniewski, and Shion Guha. 2020. Child Welfare System: Interaction of Policy, Practice and Algorithms. In Companion of the 2020 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work. 119--122.

Digital Library

[107]

Devansh Saxena, Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Pamela J Wisniewski, and Shion Guha. 2020. A Human-Centered Review of Algorithms used within the US Child Welfare System. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--15.

Digital Library

[108]

Devansh Saxena, Erhardt Graeff, Shion Guha, EunJeong Cheon, Pedro Reynolds-Cuéllar, Dawn Walker, Christoph Becker, and Kenneth R Fleischmann. 2020. Collective Organizing and Social Responsibility at CSCW. In Conference Companion Publication of the 2020 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 503--509.

Digital Library

[109]

Devansh Saxena and Shion Guha. 2020. Conducting Participatory Design to Improve Algorithms in Public Services: Lessons and Challenges. In Conference Companion Publication of the 2020 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 383--388.

Digital Library

[110]

Philipp Schmidt and Felix Biessmann. 2020. Calibrating Human-AI Collaboration: Impact of Risk, Ambiguity and Transparency on Algorithmic Bias. In International Cross-Domain Conference for Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction. Springer, 431--449.

[111]

Craig Schwalbe. 2004. Re-visioning risk assessment for human service decision making. Children and Youth Services Review 26, 6 (2004), 561--576.

[112]

Nick Seaver. 2017. Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society 4, 2 (2017), 2053951717738104.

[113]

Aron Shlonsky and Dennis Wagner. 2005. The next step: Integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management. Children and youth services review 27, 4 (2005), 409--427.

[114]

Ravi Shroff. 2017. Predictive Analytics for City Agencies: Lessons from Children's Services. Big data 5, 3 (2017), 189--196.

[115]

Elizabeth A Smith. 2001. The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal of knowledge Management (2001).

[116]

Michael R Sosin. 2010. Discretion in human service organizations. Human services as complex organizations (2010), 381--403.

[117]

Megan Stevenson. 2018. Assessing risk assessment in action. Minn. L. Rev. 103 (2018), 303.

[118]

Brian J Taylor and Karen McQuillan. 2014. Perspectives of foster parents and social workers on foster placement disruption. Child Care in Practice 20, 2 (2014), 232--249.

[119]

James Topitzes, Timothy Grove, Erika E Meyer, Stacey M Pangratz, and Caitlin M Sprague. 2019. Trauma-responsive child welfare services: A mixed methods study assessing safety, stability, and permanency. Journal of Child Custody 16, 3 (2019), 291--312.

[120]

Marcel F van Assen. 2021. Training, employee involvement and continuous improvement--the moderating effect of a common improvement method. Production Planning & Control 32, 2 (2021), 132--144.

[121]

Michael Veale, Max Van Kleek, and Reuben Binns. 2018. Fairness and accountability design needs for algorithmic support in high-stakes public sector decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1--14.

Digital Library

[122]

Eran Vigoda-Gadot and Itai Beeri. 2011. Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in public administration: The power of leadership and the cost of organizational politics. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22, 3 (2011), 573--596.

[123]

Paul Voigt and Axel Von dem Bussche. 2017. The eu general data protection regulation (gdpr). A Practical Guide, 1st Ed., Cham: Springer International Publishing (2017).

[124]

Sandra K Welch. 2008. A metasynthesis of the transition from novice to expert: Can instructional interventions shorten the process? Ph.D. Dissertation. Capella University.

[125]

Melody Williams. 2014. Child welfare in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (2014).

[126]

Ben Williamson. 2016. Digital education governance: data visualization, predictive analytics, and 'real-time' policy instruments. Journal of Education Policy 31, 2 (2016), 123--141.

[127]

C Wilson. 2014. Integrating safety, permanency, and well-being: A view from the field. Integrating safety, permanency and well-being series (2014).

[128]

Matthew M Young, Justin B Bullock, and Jesse D Lecy. 2019. Artificial discretion as a tool of governance: a framework for understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on public administration. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 2, 4 (2019), 301--313.

[129]

Kristen M Zgoba and Nishi P Dayal. 2015. Recidivism. The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment (2015), 1--5.

[130]

Haiyi Zhu, Bowen Yu, Aaron Halfaker, and Loren Terveen. 2018. Value-sensitive algorithm design: Method, case study, and lessons. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1--23.

Digital Library

[131]

Marc A Zimmerman. 2013. Resiliency theory: A strengths-based approach to research and practice for adolescent health.

Cited By

Kolkman DBex FNarayan Nvan der Put M(2024)Justitia ex machina: The impact of an AI system on legal decision-making and discretionary authorityBig Data & Society10.1177/2053951724125510111:2Online publication date: 4-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241255101
Kawakami ACoston AHeidari HHolstein KZhu H(2024)Studying Up Public Sector AI: How Networks of Power Relations Shape Agency Decisions Around AI Design and UseProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869898:CSCW2(1-24)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686989
Chopra SCarroll JPater J(2024)Providing Context to the "Unknown": Patient and Provider Reflections on Connecting Personal Tracking, Patient-Reported Insights, and EHR Data within a Post-COVID ClinicProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869888:CSCW2(1-34)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686988
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

A Framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed through a Case Study of Child-Welfare
1. Applied computing
  1. Computers in other domains
    1. Computing in government
      1. E-government
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. Empirical studies in HCI

Recommendations

Street-Level Algorithms and AI in Bureaucratic Decision-Making: A Caseworker Perspective
CSCW

Studies of algorithmic decision-making in Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) and related fields of research increasingly recognize an analogy between AI and bureaucracies. We elaborate this link with an empirical study of AI in the context of ...
Fairness and Accountability Design Needs for Algorithmic Support in High-Stakes Public Sector Decision-Making
CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Calls for heightened consideration of fairness and accountability in algorithmically-informed public decisions-like taxation, justice, and child protection-are now commonplace. How might designers support such human values? We interviewed 27 public ...
Designing Human-Centered Algorithms for the Public Sector A Case Study of the U.S. Child-Welfare System
GROUP '23: Companion Proceedings of the 2023 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work

The U.S. Child Welfare System (CWS) is increasingly seeking to emulate business models of the private sector centered in efficiency, cost reduction, and innovation through the adoption of algorithms. These data-driven systems purportedly improve ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 5, Issue CSCW2

CSCW2

October 2021

5376 pages

EISSN:2573-0142

DOI:10.1145/3493286

Editor:
Jeff Nichols
Apple Inc., United States

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2021 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 18 October 2021

Published in PACMHCI Volume 5, Issue CSCW2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Badges

Honorable Mention

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

56
Total Citations
View Citations
2,984
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)1,147
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)146

Reflects downloads up to 18 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Kolkman DBex FNarayan Nvan der Put M(2024)Justitia ex machina: The impact of an AI system on legal decision-making and discretionary authorityBig Data & Society10.1177/2053951724125510111:2Online publication date: 4-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241255101
Kawakami ACoston AHeidari HHolstein KZhu H(2024)Studying Up Public Sector AI: How Networks of Power Relations Shape Agency Decisions Around AI Design and UseProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869898:CSCW2(1-24)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686989
Chopra SCarroll JPater J(2024)Providing Context to the "Unknown": Patient and Provider Reflections on Connecting Personal Tracking, Patient-Reported Insights, and EHR Data within a Post-COVID ClinicProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869888:CSCW2(1-34)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686988
Tracey PGarcia P(2024)Intermediation: Algorithmic Prioritization in Practice in Homeless ServicesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869518:CSCW2(1-24)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686951
Datey IZytko D(2024)"Just Like, Risking Your Life Here": Participatory Design of User Interactions with Risk Detection AI to Prevent Online-to-Offline Harm Through Dating AppsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869068:CSCW2(1-41)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686906
Kim SHo JLi YFan BYang WRamey JFox SZhu HZimmerman JEslami M(2024)Integrating Equity in Public Sector Data-Driven Decision Making: Exploring the Desired Futures of Underserved StakeholdersProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869058:CSCW2(1-39)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686905
Valentine MPratt AHinds RBernstein M(2024)The Algorithm and the Org Chart: How Algorithms Can Conflict with Organizational StructuresProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869038:CSCW2(1-31)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686903
Ammitzbøll Flügge AKorsgaard HBødker S(2024)The Working Jobless: Unemployment as WorkProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36868948:CSCW2(1-24)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686894
Deng WBerman GKaur HSchwartz RIbrahim MEslami MHolstein KMadaio MFarzan RLópez CCardoso Llach DQuercia DMustafa MNiu SWong-Villacrés M(2024)Collaboratively Designing and Evaluating Responsible AI InterventionsCompanion Publication of the 2024 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing10.1145/3678884.3687136(658-662)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3678884.3687136
Moon ESaxena DMaharaj TGuha S(2024)Beyond Predictive Algorithms in Child WelfareProceedings of the 50th Graphics Interface Conference10.1145/3670947.3670976(1-13)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3670947.3670976
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents