Search

As the U.S. Census Bureau implements its controversial new disclosure avoidance system, researchers and policymakers debate the necessity of new privacy protections for public statistics. With experiments on both published statistics and synthetic data, we explore a particular privacy concern: respondents in subsidized housing may deliberately not mention unauthorized children and other household members for fear of being evicted. By combining public statistics from the Decennial Census and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, we demonstrate a simple, inexpensive reconstruction attack that could identify subsidized households living in violation of occupancy guidelines in 2010. Experiments on synthetic data suggest that a random swapping mechanism similar to the Census Bureau's 2010 disclosure avoidance measures does not significantly reduce the precision of this attack, while a differentially private mechanism similar to the 2020 disclosure avoidance system does. Our results provide a valuable example for policymakers seeking a trustworthy, accurate census.

Child welfare agencies across the United States are turning to data-driven predictive technologies (commonly called predictive analytics) which use government administrative data to assist workers' decision-making. While some prior work has explored impacted stakeholders' concerns with current uses of data-driven predictive risk models (PRMs), less work has asked stakeholders whether such tools ought to be used in the first place. In this work, we conducted a set of seven design workshops with 35 stakeholders who have been impacted by the child welfare system or who work in it to understand their beliefs and concerns around PRMs, and to engage them in imagining new uses of data and technologies in the child welfare system. We found that participants worried current PRMs perpetuate or exacerbate existing problems in child welfare. Participants suggested new ways to use data and data-driven tools to better support impacted communities and suggested paths to mitigate possible harms of these tools. Participants also suggested low-tech or no-tech alternatives to PRMs to address problems in child welfare. Our study sheds light on how researchers and designers can work in solidarity with impacted communities, possibly to circumvent or oppose child welfare agencies., Comment: 10 pages in main body; 4 pages in appendix; Published in the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT'22)

This is an extended analysis of our paper "How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Disparities in Algorithmic Decisions," which looks at racial disparities in the Allegheny Family Screening Tool, an algorithm used to help child welfare workers decide which families the Allegheny County child welfare agency (CYF) should investigate. On April 27, 2022, Allegheny County CYF sent us an updated dataset and pre-processing steps. In this extended analysis of our paper, we show the results from re-running all quantitative analyses in our paper with this new data and pre-processing. We find that our main findings in our paper were robust to changes in data and pre-processing. Particularly, the Allegheny Family Screening Tool on its own would have made more racially disparate decisions than workers, and workers used the tool to decrease those algorithmic disparities. Some minor results changed, including a slight increase in the screen-in rate from before to after the implementation of the AFST reported our paper.

AI-based decision support tools (ADS) are increasingly used to augment human decision-making in high-stakes, social contexts. As public sector agencies begin to adopt ADS, it is critical that we understand workers' experiences with these systems in practice. In this paper, we present findings from a series of interviews and contextual inquiries at a child welfare agency, to understand how they currently make AI-assisted child maltreatment screening decisions. Overall, we observe how workers' reliance upon the ADS is guided by (1) their knowledge of rich, contextual information beyond what the AI model captures, (2) their beliefs about the ADS's capabilities and limitations relative to their own, (3) organizational pressures and incentives around the use of the ADS, and (4) awareness of misalignments between algorithmic predictions and their own decision-making objectives. Drawing upon these findings, we discuss design implications towards supporting more effective human-AI decision-making., Comment: 2022 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems