Beyond Predictive Algorithms in Child Welfare
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Caseworkers in the child welfare (CW) sector use predictive decision-making algorithms built on risk assessment (RA) data to guide and support CW decisions. Researchers have highlighted that RAs can contain biased signals which flatten CW case complexities and that the algorithms may benefit from incorporating contextually rich case narratives, i.e. - casenotes written by caseworkers. To investigate this hypothesized improvement, we quantitatively deconstructed two commonly used RAs from a United States CW agency. We trained classifier models to compare the predictive validity of RAs with and without casenote narratives and applied computational text analysis on casenotes to highlight topics uncovered in the casenotes. Our study finds that common risk metrics used to assess families and build CWS predictive risk models (PRMs) are unable to predict discharge outcomes for children who are not reunified with their birth parent(s). We also find that although casenotes cannot predict discharge outcomes, they contain contextual case signals. Given the lack of predictive validity of RA scores and casenotes, we propose moving beyond quantitative risk assessments for public sector algorithms and towards using contextual sources of information such as narratives to study public sociotechnical systems.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 114 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Feb 2024.
Builds on
21 of 114 references.
References · 21
- 2016Imbalanced-learn: A Python Toolbox to Tackle the Curse of Imbalanced Datasets in Machine Learningcited by 193
- 2022The Fallacy of AI Functionalitycited by 88
- 2018Fairness and Accountability Design Needs for Algorithmic Support in High-Stakes Public Sector Decision-Makingcited by 66
- 2019Roles for Computing in Social Changecited by 49
- 2022Improving Human-AI Partnerships in Child Welfare: Understanding Worker Practices, Challenges, and Desires for Algorithmic Decision Supportcited by 37
- 2022A Validity Perspective on Evaluating the Justified Use of Data-driven Decision-making Algorithmscited by 30
- 2020A Human-Centered Review of the Algorithms used within the U.S. Child Welfare Systemcited by 23
- 2021A Framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed through a Case Study of Child-Welfarecited by 23
- 2022Imagining new futures beyond predictive systems in child welfare: A qualitative study with impacted stakeholderscited by 15
- 2020What If I Don't Like Any Of The Choices? The Limits of Preference Elicitation for Participatory Algorithm Designcited by 14
- 2023Algorithmic Harms in Child Welfare: Uncertainties in Practice, Organization, and Street-level Decision-Makingcited by 12
- 2019How we do things with words: Analyzing text as social and cultural datacited by 11
9 more
- 2021Modeling Assumptions Clash with the Real World: Transparency, Equity, and Community Challenges for Student Assignment Algorithmscited by 11
- 2023Rethinking "Risk" in Algorithmic Systems Through A Computational Narrative Analysis of Casenotes in Child-Welfarecited by 10
- 2023The Misuse of AUC: What High Impact Risk Assessment Gets Wrongcited by 10
- 2022Unpacking Invisible Work Practices, Constraints, and Latent Power Relationships in Child Welfare through Casenote Analysiscited by 8
- 2024A Human-Centered Review of Algorithms in Homelessness Researchcited by 7
- 2023Examining risks of racial biases in NLP tools for child protective servicescited by 6
- 2022How to Train a (Bad) Algorithmic Caseworker: A Quantitative Deconstruction of Risk Assessments in Child-Welfarecited by 4
- 2023A Human-Centered Review of Algorithms in Decision-Making in Higher Educationcited by 4
- 2024Towards a Non-Ideal Methodological Framework for Responsible MLcited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.