Cited by 117Ethics and Social Impacts of AIChild Welfare and AdoptionArtificial Intelligence in Law

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 93 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Human-Centered Review of Algorithms used within the U.S. Child Welfare System

Open access
Saxena, Devansh, Badillo-Urquiola, Karla, Wisniewski, Pamela J., Guha, Shion·2020·Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

The U.S. Child Welfare System (CWS) is charged with improving outcomes for foster youth; yet, they are overburdened and underfunded. To overcome this limitation, several states have turned towards algorithmic decision-making systems to reduce costs and determine better processes for improving CWS outcomes. Using a human-centered algorithmic design approach, we synthesize 50 peer-reviewed publications on computational systems used in CWS to assess how they were being developed, common characteristics of predictors used, as well as the target outcomes. We found that most of the literature has focused on risk assessment models but does not consider theoretical approaches (e.g., child-foster parent matching) nor the perspectives of caseworkers (e.g., case notes). Therefore, future algorithms should strive to be context-aware and theoretically robust by incorporating salient factors identified by past research. We provide the HCI community with research avenues for developing human-centered algorithms that redirect attention towards more equitable outcomes for CWS.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3313831.3376229

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 93 references

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. 2018. Using Data To Help Protect Children and Families Act. 115th Congress, Senate of the United States.
  2. 2019. Child Welfare Goals, Legislation, and Monitoring. (2019). Retrieved April 2, 2019 from https://www.nccdglobal.org/what-we-do/children-s-research-center
  3. Leo Breiman and others. 2001. Statistical modeling: The two cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author). Statistical science 16, 3 (2001), 199--231.
  4. US Congress. 2008. Fostering connections to success and increasing adoptions act of 2008. (2008).
  5. Michael Corrigan. 2019. Building A Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System. (Jan 2019). https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/child-welfare-2/building-comprehensive-child-welfare-information-system/
  6. EW Danktert and Kristen Johnson. 2013. Risk assessment validation: A prospective study. Los Angeles: California Department of Social Services, Children and Family Services Division (2013).
  7. Administration for Children and Families. Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (106 ed.). Vol. 81. Federal Register: The Daily Journal of the United States.
  8. Patrick J Fowler, Katherine E Marcal, Saras Chung, Derek S Brown, Melissa Jonson-Reid, and Peter S Hovmand. 2019. Scaling up housing services within the child welfare system: policy insights from simulation modeling. Child maltreatment (2019), 1077559519846431.
  9. Robin Gregory, Lee Failing, Michael Harstone, Graham Long, Tim McDaniels, and Dan Ohlson. 2012. Structured decision making: a practical guide to environmental management choices. John Wiley & Sons.
  10. Luma Institute. 2012. Innovating for people: Handbook of human-centered design methods. LUMA Institute, LLC.
  11. David Jackson and Gary Marx. 2017. Data mining program designed to predict child abuse proves unreliable, DCFS says. (dec 2017). https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/ct-dcfs-eckerd-met-20171206-story.html
  12. K Johnson and D Wagner. 2003. California Structured Decision Making. Risk Assessment Revalidation: A Prospective Study. Children's Research Center. SAMSHA's National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP). (2003).
  13. Will Johnson. 2004. Effectiveness of California's child welfare structured decision making (SDM) model: a prospective study of the validity of the California Family Risk Assessment. Madison (Wisconsin, USA): Children's Research Center (2004).
  14. 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).
  15. Michael J MacKenzie, Jonathan B Kotch, and Li-Ching Lee. 2011. Toward a cumulative ecological risk model for the etiology of child maltreatment. Children and youth services review 33, 9 (2011), 1638--1647.
  16. Judge Michael Nash. 2017. Examination of using Structured Decision Making and Predictive Analytics in assessing Safety and Risk in Child Welfare. County of Los Angeles Office of Child Protection (May 2017).
  17. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2017. Child Maltreatment 2017. Children's Bureau (Ed.) (2017).
  18. US Department of Health, Human Services, and others. 2017. The AFCARS report: Preliminary FY 2016 estimates as of Oct 2017. Children's Bureau (Ed.) 21 (2017), 6.
  19. A James Schwab Jr, Michael E Bruce, and Ruth G McRoy. 1984. Matching children with placements. Children and youth services review 6, 2 (1984), 125--133.
  20. Susan Leigh Star and Anselm Strauss. 1999. Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work. Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) 8, 1--2 (1999), 9--30.
  21. Rebecca Tushnet. 2018. The Difference Engine: Perpetuating Poverty through Algorithms. Jotwell: J. Things We Like (2018), 1.
  22. Rhema Vaithianathan, Emily Putnam-Hornstein, Nan Jiang, Parma Nand, and Tim Maloney. 2017. Developing predictive models to support child maltreatment hotline screening decisions: Allegheny County methodology and implementation. Center for Social data Analytics (2017).
  23. D Wagner, K Johnson, and W Johnson. 1998. Using actuarial risk assessment to target service nterventions in pilot California Counties. 13th National Roundtable on CPS Risk Assessment, San Francisco, CA (1998).
  24. Jacob O Wobbrock and Julie A Kientz. 2016. Research contributions in human-computer interaction. interactions 23, 3 (2016), 38--44.
  25. Susan J Zuravin. 1999. Child neglect. Neglected children: Research, practice, and policy (1999), 24--46.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 117

Metadata

Authors
Saxena, D., Badillo-Urquiola, K., Wisniewski, P. J., & Guha, S.
Affiliations
  • Marquette University (US)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
  • University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
Venue
Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-04-21
Pages
1-15
OpenAlex
W3009647070
Cited by
116
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 3
FWCI
15.56
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • e-Publications@Marquette (Marquette University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Facebook Computational Social Science Methodology Research Award
  • Northwestern Mutual Data Science Institute
  • William T. Grant Foundation (1067525)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Social Sciences › Law › Artificial Intelligence in Law
Keywords
child welfare system, algorithmic decision-making, human-centered design, risk assessment model, foster youth, case law commentary, algorithmic fairness, predictive modeling, child welfare casework

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review