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

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.

[1]  Samantha Robertson,et al.  Modeling Assumptions Clash with the Real World: Transparency, Equity, and Community Challenges for Student Assignment Algorithms , 2021, CHI.

[2]  M. V. van Assen,et al.  Training, employee involvement and continuous improvement – the moderating effect of a common improvement method , 2021 .

[3]  Galit Shmueli,et al.  The Hidden Inconsistencies Introduced by Predictive Algorithms in Judicial Decision Making , 2020, ArXiv.

[4]  Irina Shklovski,et al.  Shifting Concepts of Value: Designing Algorithmic Decision-Support Systems for Public Services , 2020, NordiCHI.

[5]  Devansh Saxena,et al.  Conducting Participatory Design to Improve Algorithms in Public Services: Lessons and Challenges , 2020, CSCW Companion.

[6]  Devansh Saxena,et al.  Collective Organizing and Social Responsibility at CSCW , 2020, CSCW Companion.

[7]  Shion Guha,et al.  Understanding Law Enforcement and Common Peoples' Perspectives on Designing Explainable Crime Mapping Algorithms , 2020, CSCW Companion.

[8]  Felix Bießmann,et al.  Calibrating Human-AI Collaboration: Impact of Risk, Ambiguity and Transparency on Algorithmic Bias , 2020, CD-MAKE.

[9]  Becci A. Akin,et al.  Investigating the Relationship between Trauma Symptoms and Placement Instability. , 2020, Child abuse & neglect.

[10]  Niloufar Salehi,et al.  What If I Don't Like Any Of The Choices? The Limits of Preference Elicitation for Participatory Algorithm Design , 2020, ArXiv.

[11]  Phoebe Sengers,et al.  Making data science systems work , 2020, Big Data Soc..

[12]  A. Pors,et al.  Street-level morality at the digital frontlines: An ethnographic study of moral mediation in welfare work , 2020, Administrative Theory & Praxis.

[13]  Thomas M. Vogl,et al.  Artificial Intelligence and Organizational Memory in Government: The Experience of Record Duplication in the Child Welfare Sector in Canada , 2020, DG.O.

[14]  Matti Nelimarkka,et al.  Bureaucracy as a Lens for Analyzing and Designing Algorithmic Systems , 2020, CHI.

[15]  Karla A. Badillo-Urquiola,et al.  A Human-Centered Review of Algorithms used within the U.S. Child Welfare System , 2020, CHI.

[16]  Astrid Mager,et al.  Algorithmic Profiling of Job Seekers in Austria: How Austerity Politics Are Made Effective , 2020, Frontiers in Big Data.

[17]  Alexandra Chouldechova,et al.  A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic Scores , 2020, CHI.

[18]  Lina Dencik,et al.  Datafied child welfare services: unpacking politics, economics and power , 2020, Policy Studies.

[19]  Solon Barocas,et al.  When not to design, build, or deploy , 2020, FAT*.

[20]  Q. Liao,et al.  Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences , 2020, CHI.

[21]  Devansh Saxena,et al.  Child Welfare System: Interaction of Policy, Practice and Algorithms , 2020, GROUP.

[22]  M. Fellmann,et al.  Towards Participatory Design Spaces for Explainable AI Interfaces in Expert Domains (Short Paper) , 2020, XI-ML@KI.

[23]  Rik Peeters,et al.  The agency of algorithms: Understanding human-algorithm interaction in administrative decision-making , 2020, Inf. Polity.

[24]  M. Davidson Extreme municipal fiscal stress and austerity? A case study of fiscal reform after Chapter 9 bankruptcy , 2020, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space.

[25]  F. Gallouj,et al.  Innovation in public services in the light of public administration paradigms and service innovation perspectives , 2019 .

[26]  Matthew M. Young,et al.  Artificial Discretion as a Tool of Governance: A Framework for Understanding the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Public Administration , 2019, Perspectives on Public Management and Governance.

[27]  Shion Guha,et al.  Exploring the Impact of (Not) Changing Default Settings in Algorithmic Crime Mapping - A Case Study of Milwaukee, Wisconsin , 2019, CSCW Companion.

[28]  Joana Hois,et al.  How to Achieve Explainability and Transparency in Human AI Interaction , 2019, HCI.

[29]  J. Topitzes,et al.  Trauma-responsive child welfare services: A mixed methods study assessing safety, stability, and permanency , 2019, Journal of Child Custody.

[30]  Justin B. Bullock Artificial Intelligence, Discretion, and Bureaucracy , 2019, The American Review of Public Administration.

[31]  A. Chouldechova,et al.  Toward Algorithmic Accountability in Public Services: A Qualitative Study of Affected Community Perspectives on Algorithmic Decision-making in Child Welfare Services , 2019, CHI.

[32]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  Street-Level Algorithms: A Theory at the Gaps Between Policy and Decisions , 2019, CHI.

[33]  P. Gillingham Decision Support Systems, Social Justice and Algorithmic Accountability in Social Work: A New Challenge , 2019, Practice.

[34]  K. Gummadi,et al.  Human Decision Making with Machine Assistance , 2019, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[35]  K. Cox,et al.  The shrinking state? Understanding the assault on the public sector , 2018, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society.

[36]  Carl DiSalvo,et al.  Institutional constraints: the forms and limits of participatory design in the public realm , 2018, PDC.

[37]  P. Gillingham Decision-making about the adoption of information technology in social welfare agencies: some key considerations , 2018 .

[38]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Datafication and data fiction: Narrating data and narrating with data , 2018, Big Data Soc..

[39]  Joel M. Caplan,et al.  Utilizing a Risk of Crime Measure for Recidivism Research: Moving Environmental Corrections Forward , 2018, Crime & Delinquency.

[40]  M. Stevenson,et al.  Assessing Risk Assessment in Action , 2018 .

[41]  Sarah Giest,et al.  Unraveling the hindering factors of digital public service delivery at street-level: the case of electronic health records , 2018 .

[42]  Justin B. Bullock,et al.  Sector Differences in Employee’s Perceived Importance of Income and Job Security: Can These be Found Across the Contexts of Countries, Cultures, and Occupations? , 2018 .

[43]  Michael Veale,et al.  Fairness and Accountability Design Needs for Algorithmic Support in High-Stakes Public Sector Decision-Making , 2018, CHI.

[44]  Virginia E. Eubanks Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor , 2018 .

[45]  Pamela J. Wisniewski,et al.  A Stakeholders' Analysis of the Systems that Support Foster Care , 2018, GROUP.

[46]  Jeanne S. Ringel,et al.  Improving Child Welfare Outcomes: Balancing Investments in Prevention and Treatment. , 2017, Rand health quarterly.

[47]  M. Kearns,et al.  Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art , 2017, Sociological Methods & Research.

[48]  Helle Zinner Henriksen,et al.  Digital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion , 2018, Inf. Polity.

[49]  Nick Seaver Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems , 2017, Big Data Soc..

[50]  A. Farazmand Governance Reforms: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly; and the Sound: Examining the Past and Exploring the Future of Public Organizations , 2017 .

[51]  Ravi Shroff,et al.  Predictive Analytics for City Agencies: Lessons from Children's Services , 2017, Big Data.

[52]  Paul Voigt,et al.  The Eu General Data Protection Regulation (Gdpr): A Practical Guide , 2017 .

[53]  Emily Putnam-Hornstein,et al.  Risk assessment and decision making in child protective services: Predictive risk modeling in context , 2017 .

[54]  Eric Ps Baumer,et al.  Toward human-centered algorithm design , 2017 .

[55]  Pamela J. Wisniewski,et al.  Abandoned but Not Forgotten: Providing Access While Protecting Foster Youth from Online Risks , 2017, IDC.

[56]  Pamela J. Wisniewski,et al.  Adolescent Online Safety: Moving Beyond Formative Evaluations to Designing Solutions for the Future , 2017, IDC.

[57]  J. Levenson Trauma-Informed Social Work Practice. , 2017, Social work.

[58]  M. Maciejewski To do more, better, faster and more cheaply: using big data in public administration , 2017 .

[59]  Pamela J. Wisniewski,et al.  Understanding the Unique Online Challenges Faced by Teens in the Foster Care System , 2017, CSCW Companion.

[60]  Steven J. Jackson,et al.  Data Vision: Learning to See Through Algorithmic Abstraction , 2017, CSCW.

[61]  Paul Voigt,et al.  The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) , 2017 .

[62]  Vernon Gayle,et al.  The role of administrative data in the big data revolution in social science research. , 2016, Social science research.

[63]  Agnieszka Leszczynski Speculative futures: Cities, data, and governance beyond smart urbanism , 2016 .

[64]  Terry D. Moore,et al.  Assessing Risk of Placement Instability to Aid Foster Care Placement Decision Making , 2016 .

[65]  Ben Williamson,et al.  Digital education governance: data visualization, predictive analytics, and ‘real-time’ policy instruments , 2016 .

[66]  D. Weisberg Risk Assessment in Context , 2016 .

[67]  Ganesh Chandra Deka Big Data Predictive and Prescriptive Analytics , 2016 .

[68]  Andrew D. Selbst,et al.  Big Data's Disparate Impact , 2016 .

[69]  Jonathan A. Smith Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods , 2006, QMiP Bulletin.

[70]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Heuristics as adaptive decision strategies in management , 2015 .

[71]  A. Manzoor A Look at Efficiency in Public Administration , 2014 .

[72]  Rob Kitchin,et al.  Towards Critical Data Studies: Charting and Unpacking Data Assemblages and Their Work , 2014 .

[73]  R. Goodin,et al.  The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability , 2014 .

[74]  J. Lyons,et al.  Measurement as Communication in Outcomes Management: The Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) , 2014 .

[75]  B. Taylor,et al.  Perspectives of Foster Parents and Social Workers on Foster Placement Disruption , 2014 .

[76]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Risk, Uncertainty, and Heuristics , 2014 .

[77]  Sandra Payette,et al.  The policy knot: re-integrating policy, practice and design in cscw studies of social computing , 2014, CSCW.

[78]  Melody Williams Child welfare in Milwaukee ,Wisconsin , 2014 .

[79]  Spencer Chainey,et al.  Examining the influence of cell size and bandwidth size on kernel density estimation crime hotspot maps for predicting spatial patterns of crime , 2014 .

[80]  Paul Chalekian,et al.  POSDCORB: core patterns of administration , 2013 .

[81]  Marc A Zimmerman,et al.  Resiliency Theory , 2013, Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education.

[82]  Andrew B. Whitford,et al.  Assessing the Effects of Organizational Resources on Public Agency Performance: Evidence from the US Federal Government , 2013 .

[83]  Stephen P. Osborne,et al.  Handbook of Innovation in Public Services , 2013 .

[84]  Michael J Austin,et al.  Achieving Placement Stability , 2013, Journal of evidence-based social work.

[85]  Per Lægreid Transcending New Public Management: The Transformation of Public Sector Reforms , 2013 .

[86]  Geraldine Kennett The impact of training practices on individual, organisation, and industry skill development , 2013 .

[87]  Becci A. Akin,et al.  IntegratIng Safety, Permanency and Well-BeIng SerIeS , 2013 .

[88]  I. Beeri,et al.  Change-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Public Administration: The Power of Leadership and the Cost of Organizational Politics , 2012 .

[89]  Joan Marie Blakey,et al.  A review of how states are addressing placement stability , 2012 .

[90]  M. Six Silberman,et al.  When the implication is not to design (technology) , 2011, CHI.

[91]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Heuristic decision making. , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[92]  A. Hendricks,et al.  Creating trauma-informed child welfare systems using a community assessment process. , 2011, Child welfare.

[93]  Farhad Nejadirani Accountability in public Administration , 2011 .

[94]  J. Olivet,et al.  Shelter from the Storm: Trauma-Informed Care in Homelessness Services Settings , 2010, The Open Health Services and Policy Journal.

[95]  Kim Loyens,et al.  Toward a Theoretical Framework for Ethical Decision Making of Street-Level Bureaucracy , 2010 .

[96]  M. Testa,et al.  Propensity Score Matching of Children in Kinship and Nonkinship Foster Care: Do Permanency Outcomes Still Differ? , 2008 .

[97]  E. Brodkin,et al.  Accountability in Street-Level Organizations , 2008 .

[98]  S. K. Welch A metasynthesis of the transition from novice to expert: Can instructional interventions shorten the process? , 2008 .

[99]  Aron Shlonsky,et al.  The next step: Integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management , 2005 .

[100]  H. Pillay,et al.  Distributed and relative nature of professional expertise , 2005 .

[101]  K. Holyoak,et al.  The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning , 2005 .

[102]  Gary B Melton,et al.  Mandated reporting: a policy without reason. , 2005, Child abuse & neglect.

[103]  C. Schwalbe,et al.  Re-visioning risk assessment for human service decision making , 2004 .

[104]  Christopher W. Larimer,et al.  The public administration theory primer , 2003 .

[105]  M. Bovens,et al.  From Street‐Level to System‐Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control , 2002 .

[106]  Eran Vigoda New Public Management , 2007 .

[107]  Alan Borning,et al.  Value Sensitive Design: Theory and Methods , 2002 .

[108]  Elizabeth A. Smith The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace , 2001, J. Knowl. Manag..

[109]  E. Gambrill,et al.  The need for comprehensive risk management systems in child welfare , 2001 .

[110]  Eileen D. Gambrill,et al.  Risk assessment in context , 2000 .

[111]  Kenneth R. Hammond,et al.  Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice , 2000 .

[112]  Jodi R. Sandfort,et al.  Moving Beyond Discretion and Outcomes: Examining Public Management from the Front Lines of the Welfare System , 2000 .

[113]  Patricia J. Fredericksen,et al.  Disconnect in the Hollow State: The Pivotal Role of Organizational Capacity in Community‐Based Development Organizations , 2000 .

[114]  Wim H. Gijselaers,et al.  Expertise Development in Managerial Sciences: The Use of Knowledge Types in Problem-Solving. , 2000 .

[115]  Jeevan S Nair,et al.  Bureaucracy and administration , 2000 .

[116]  J. Wyatt Decision support systems. , 2000, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[117]  Herman L. Boschken Organizational Performance and Multiple Constituencies , 1994 .

[118]  James W. Dean,et al.  PROCEDURAL RATIONALITY IN THE STRATEGIC DECISION‐MAKING PROCESS* , 1993 .

[119]  Margaret Ferley,et al.  The American Review of Public Administration , 1993 .

[120]  David J. Fritzsche,et al.  A model of decision-making incorporating ethical values , 1991 .

[121]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Toward a general theory of expertise : prospects and limits , 1991 .

[122]  M. Lipsky,et al.  Street-Level Bureaucracy: The Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service , 1983 .

[123]  George J. Gordon Public administration in America , 1982 .