skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

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

Published:18 October 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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. doi: 10.3389/fdata (2020).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Solon Barocas and Andrew D Selbst. 2016. Big data's disparate impact. Calif. L. Rev. 104 (2016), 671.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Eric PS Baumer. 2017. Toward human-centered algorithm design. Big Data & Society 4, 2 (2017), 2053951717718854.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Herman L Boschken. 1994. Organizational performance and multiple constituencies. Public Administration Review 54, 3 (1994), 308--312.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Evelyn Z Brodkin. 2008. Accountability in street-level organizations. Intl Journal of Public Administration 31, 3 (2008), 317--336.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Urie Bronfenbrenner. 1975. Reality and research in the ecology of human development. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 119, 6 (1975), 439--469.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Justin B Bullock. 2019. Artificial intelligence, discretion, and bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administration 49, 7 (2019), 751--761.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Paul Chalekian. 2013. POSDCORB: Core patterns of administration. In Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs. The Hillside Group, 17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Angèle Christin, Alex Rosenblat, and Danah Boyd. 2015. Courts and predictive algorithms. Data & CivilRight (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Victoria Clarke, Virginia Braun, and Nikki Hayfield. 2015. Thematic analysis. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (2015), 222--248.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Phoebe C Ellsworth. 2005. Legal Reasoning (The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, KJ Holyoak and RG Morrison Jr.(eds),(New York).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. K Anders Ericsson and Jacqui Smith. 1991. Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Ali Farazmand. 2009. Bureaucracy and administration. CRC Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. H George Frederickson, Kevin B Smith, Christopher W Larimer, and Michael J Licari. 2015. The public administration theory primer. Westview Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Batya Friedman, Peter Kahn, and Alan Borning. 2002. Value sensitive design: Theory and methods. University of Washington technical report 2--12 (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. David J Fritzsche. 1991. A model of decision-making incorporating ethical values. Journal of Business Ethics 10, 11 (1991), 841--852.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Eileen Gambrill and Aron Shlonsky. 2000. Risk assessment in context.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Gerd Gigerenzer and Wolfgang Gaissmaier. 2011. Heuristic decision making. Annual review of psychology 62 (2011), 451--482.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Philip Gillingham. 2019. Decision Support Systems, Social Justice and Algorithmic Accountability in Social Work: A New Challenge. Practice 31, 4 (2019), 277--290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Kenneth R Hammond. 1996. Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. Oxford University Press on Demand.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Rob Kitchin and Tracey Lauriault. 2014. Towards critical data studies: Charting and unpacking data assemblages and their work. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Jan-Erik Lane. 2000. New public management. Taylor & Francis US.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Per LEgreid. 2017. Transcending new public management: the transformation of public sector reforms. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Jill Levenson. 2017. Trauma-informed social work practice. Social Work 62, 2 (2017), 105--113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Michael Lipsky. 2010. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Linda Lobao, Mia Gray, Kevin Cox, and Michael Kitson. 2018. The shrinking state? Understanding the assault on the public sector.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. John S Lyons. 2009. Communimetrics: A communication theory of measurement in human service settings. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  82. Azhar Manzoor. 2014. A look at efficiency in public administration: Past and future. Sage Open 4, 4 (2014), 2158244014564936.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  83. Steven Maynard-Moody and Michael Musheno. 2003. Cops, teachers, counselors: Narratives of street-level judgment. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Gary B Melton. 2005. Mandated reporting: A policy without reason. Child abuse & neglect 29, 1 (2005), 9--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Michael E Milakovich and George J Gordon. 2013. Public administration in America. Cengage Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  87. Shabnam Mousavi and Gerd Gigerenzer. 2014. Risk, uncertainty, and heuristics. Journal of Business Research 67, 8 (2014), 1671--1678.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. Stephen P Osborne and Louise Brown. 2013. Handbook of innovation in public services. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. Samir Passi and Phoebe Sengers. 2020. Making data science systems work. Big Data & Society 7, 2 (2020), 2053951720939605.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  95. John W Payne, James R Bettman, and Eric J Johnson. 1993. The use of multiple strategies in judgment and choice. (1993).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. Rik Peeters. 2020. The agency of algorithms: Understanding human-algorithm interaction in administrative decision-making. Information Polity Preprint (2020), 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. B Guy Peters. 2014. Accountability in public administration. The Oxford handbook of public accountability (2014), 211--225.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  98. Hitendra Pillay and Andrea R McCrindle. 2005. Distributed and relative nature of professional expertise. Studies in Continuing Education 27, 1 (2005), 67--88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. Joanna Redden, Lina Dencik, and Harry Warne. 2020. Datafied child welfare services: unpacking politics, economics and power. Policy Studies (2020), 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  111. Craig Schwalbe. 2004. Re-visioning risk assessment for human service decision making. Children and Youth Services Review 26, 6 (2004), 561--576.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  112. Nick Seaver. 2017. Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society 4, 2 (2017), 2053951717738104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  114. Ravi Shroff. 2017. Predictive Analytics for City Agencies: Lessons from Children's Services. Big data 5, 3 (2017), 189--196.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  115. Elizabeth A Smith. 2001. The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal of knowledge Management (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  116. Michael R Sosin. 2010. Discretion in human service organizations. Human services as complex organizations (2010), 381--403.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  117. Megan Stevenson. 2018. Assessing risk assessment in action. Minn. L. Rev. 103 (2018), 303.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  125. Melody Williams. 2014. Child welfare in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  127. C Wilson. 2014. Integrating safety, permanency, and well-being: A view from the field. Integrating safety, permanency and well-being series (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  129. Kristen M Zgoba and Nishi P Dayal. 2015. Recidivism. The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment (2015), 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  131. Marc A Zimmerman. 2013. Resiliency theory: A strengths-based approach to research and practice for adolescent health.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

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

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

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

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • 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
        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 about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader