mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 2107.03487 ↗First posted 7 Jul 2021cs.HC cs.CYcited by 23

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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 textithuman discretion, textitbureaucratic processes, and textitalgorithmic 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 the 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 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.

Key facts. Cited by 23 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 7 Jul 2021.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 3; 2023: 5; 2024: 6; 2025: 3; 2026: 5.

23 papers.

Sort:

  1. 2023The Participatory Turn in AI Design: Theoretical Foundations and the Current State of Practicecited by 86
  2. 2022Improving Human-AI Partnerships in Child Welfare: Understanding Worker Practices, Challenges, and Desires for Algorithmic Decision Supportcited by 37
  3. 2022A Validity Perspective on Evaluating the Justified Use of Data-driven Decision-making Algorithmscited by 30
  4. 2023Understanding Frontline Workers' and Unhoused Individuals' Perspectives on AI Used in Homeless Servicescited by 29
  5. 2021Stakeholder Participation in AI: Beyond "Add Diverse Stakeholders and Stir"cited by 26
  6. 2023Toward General Design Principles for Generative AI Applicationscited by 20
  7. 2022Imagining new futures beyond predictive systems in child welfare: A qualitative study with impacted stakeholderscited by 15
  8. 2025AI Mismatches: Identifying Potential Algorithmic Harms Before AI Developmentcited by 10
  9. 2023Contestable Camera Cars: A Speculative Design Exploration of Public AI That Is Open and Responsive to Disputecited by 9
  10. 2023Training Towards Critical Use: Learning to Situate AI Predictions Relative to Human Knowledgecited by 6
  11. 2024"This is not a data problem": Algorithms and Power in Public Higher Education in Canadacited by 6
  12. 2024Studying Up Public Sector AI: How Networks of Power Relations Shape Agency Decisions Around AI Design and Usecited by 6
11 more
  1. 2024(Beyond) Reasonable Doubt: Challenges that Public Defenders Face in Scrutinizing AI in Courtcited by 3
  2. 2024Thoughtful Adoption of NLP for Civic Participation: Understanding Differences Among Policymakerscited by 3
  3. 2024Analysing and Organising Human Communications for AI Fairness-Related Decisions: Use Cases from the Public Sectorcited by 2
  4. 2025Talking About the Assumption in the Roomcited by 2
  5. 2026Key Considerations for Domain Expert Involvement in LLM Design and Evaluation: An Ethnographic Studycited by 1
  6. 2026"Is This Not Enough?": Asymmetries in Institutional Accountability and Collective Sensemaking in the Case of Canada's Algorithmic Visa Triage Systemcited by 1
  7. 2024Beyond Predictive Algorithms in Child Welfarecited by 0
  8. 2025Toward AI Matching Policies in Homeless Services: A Qualitative Study with Policymakerscited by 0
  9. 2026Bureaucratic Silences: What the Canadian AI Register Reveals, Omits, and Obscurescited by 0
  10. 2026Fairness Audits of Institutional Risk Models in Deployed ML Pipelinescited by 0
  11. 2026A Global Comparison of Schemas, Transparency, and Interoperability in Public-Sector AI Registers and Inventoriescited by 0