IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v8y2019i10p281-d274114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Algorithmic Justice in Child Protection: Statistical Fairness, Social Justice and the Implications for Practice

Author

Listed:
  • Emily Keddell

    (Social and Community Work Programme, School of Social Science, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, Aotearoa, New Zealand)

Abstract

Algorithmic tools are increasingly used in child protection decision-making. Fairness considerations of algorithmic tools usually focus on statistical fairness, but there are broader justice implications relating to the data used to construct source databases, and how algorithms are incorporated into complex sociotechnical decision-making contexts. This article explores how data that inform child protection algorithms are produced and relates this production to both traditional notions of statistical fairness and broader justice concepts. Predictive tools have a number of challenging problems in the child protection context, as the data that predictive tools draw on do not represent child abuse incidence across the population and child abuse itself is difficult to define, making key decisions that become data variable and subjective. Algorithms using these data have distorted feedback loops and can contain inequalities and biases. The challenge to justice concepts is that individual and group rights to non-discrimination become threatened as the algorithm itself becomes skewed, leading to inaccurate risk predictions drawing on spurious correlations. The right to be treated as an individual is threatened when statistical risk is based on a group categorisation, and the rights of families to understand and participate in the decisions made about them is difficult when they have not consented to data linkage, and the function of the algorithm is obscured by its complexity. The use of uninterpretable algorithmic tools may create ‘moral crumple zones’, where practitioners are held responsible for decisions even when they are partially determined by an algorithm. Many of these criticisms can also be levelled at human decision makers in the child protection system, but the reification of these processes within algorithms render their articulation even more difficult, and can diminish other important relational and ethical aims of social work practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily Keddell, 2019. "Algorithmic Justice in Child Protection: Statistical Fairness, Social Justice and the Implications for Practice," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-22, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:8:y:2019:i:10:p:281-:d:274114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/8/10/281/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/8/10/281/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rouland, B. & Vaithianathan, R., 2018. "Cumulative prevalence of maltreatment among New Zealand children, 1998–2015," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 108(4), pages 511-513.
    2. Shlonsky, Aron & Wagner, Dennis, 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, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 409-427, April.
    3. Gambrill, Eileen D., 2005. "Decision making in child welfare: Errors and their context," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 347-352, April.
    4. Gambrill, Eileen & Shlonsky, Aron, 2000. "Risk assessment in context," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(11-12), pages 813-837.
    5. Fluke, John D. & Corwin, Tyler W. & Hollinshead, Dana M. & Maher, Erin J., 2016. "Family preservation or child safety? Associations between child welfare workers' experience, position, and perspectives," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 210-218.
    6. Swahn, M.H. & Whitaker, D.J. & Pippen, C.B. & Leeb, R.T. & Teplin, L.A. & Abram, K.M. & McClelland, G.M., 2006. "Concordance between self-reported maltreatment and court records of abuse or neglect among high-risk youths," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(10), pages 1849-1853.
    7. Klein, Sacha & Merritt, Darcey H., 2014. "Neighborhood racial & ethnic diversity as a predictor of child welfare system involvement," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 95-105.
    8. Emily Keddell, 2014. "Current Debates on Variability in Child Welfare Decision-Making: A Selected Literature Review," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-25, November.
    9. Veale, Michael & Brass, Irina, 2019. "Administration by Algorithm? Public Management meets Public Sector Machine Learning," SocArXiv mwhnb, Center for Open Science.
    10. Boyd, Reiko, 2014. "African American disproportionality and disparity in child welfare: Toward a comprehensive conceptual framework," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 15-27.
    11. Rostad, Whitney L. & Rogers, Tia McGill & Chaffin, Mark J., 2017. "The influence of concrete support on child welfare program engagement, progress, and recurrence," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 26-33.
    12. McLaughlin, Michael & Jonson-Reid, Melissa, 2017. "The relationship between child welfare financing, screening, and substantiation," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 407-412.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yan, Jason & Hall, Seventy F. & Sage, Melanie & Du, Yuhao & Joseph, Kenneth, 2024. "A computational social science approach to understanding predictors of Chafee service receipt," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    2. Lisa Merkel-Holguin & Ida Drury & Colleen Gibley-Reed & Adrian Lara & Maleeka Jihad & Krystal Grint & Kendall Marlowe, 2022. "Structures of Oppression in the U.S. Child Welfare System: Reflections on Administrative Barriers to Equity," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Antwi-Boasiako, Kofi & Fallon, Barbara & King, Bryn & Trocmé, Nico & Fluke, John, 2021. "Examining decision-making tools and child welfare involvement among Black families in Ontario, Canada," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emily Keddell & Gabrielle Davie, 2018. "Inequalities and Child Protection System Contact in Aotearoa New Zealand: Developing a Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Keddell, Emily & Cleaver, Kerri & Fitzmaurice, Luke, 2021. "The perspectives of community-based practitioners on preventing baby removals : Addressing legitimate and illegitimate factors," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    3. Keddell, Emily & Davie, Gabrielle & Barson, Dave, 2019. "Child protection inequalities in Aotearoa New Zealand: Social gradient and the ‘inverse intervention law’," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Storhaug, Anita Skårstad, 2023. "The decision-making ecology of child welfare emergency placements," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    5. van der Put, Claudia E. & Assink, Mark & Stams, Geert Jan J.M., 2016. "Predicting relapse of problematic child-rearing situations," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 288-295.
    6. Allan, Heather & Harlaar, Nicole & Hollinshead, Dana & Drury, Ida & Merkel-Holguin, Lisa, 2017. "The impact of worker and agency characteristics on FGC referrals in child welfare," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 229-237.
    7. Vanderfaeillie, Johan & Van Holen, Frank & Verheyden, Camille & Van Puyenbroeck, Bert & Benbenishty, Rami, 2023. "Decision-making on out-of-home care: The case of Flanders," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    8. Robichaud, Marie-Joëlle & Pullen Sansfaçon, Annie & Poirier, Marie-Andrée, 2020. "Decision making at substantiation in cases involving racialized families: Child protection workers’ perceptions of influential factors," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    9. Lisa Merkel-Holguin & Ida Drury & Colleen Gibley-Reed & Adrian Lara & Maleeka Jihad & Krystal Grint & Kendall Marlowe, 2022. "Structures of Oppression in the U.S. Child Welfare System: Reflections on Administrative Barriers to Equity," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, February.
    10. Mansell, James & Ota, Rissa & Erasmus, Ricus & Marks, Kip, 2011. "Reframing child protection: A response to a constant crisis of confidence in child protection," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(11), pages 2076-2086.
    11. Kim, Hyunil & Jonson-Reid, Melissa & Kohl, Patricia & Chiang, Chien-jen & Drake, Brett & Brown, Derek & McBride, Tim & Guo, Shenyang, 2020. "Latent class analysis risk profiles: An effective method to predict a first re-report of maltreatment?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    12. Keddell, Emily & Hyslop, Ian, 2018. "Role type, risk perceptions and judgements in child welfare: A mixed methods vignette study," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 130-139.
    13. Smith, Brenda D. & Li, Qingyi & Wang, Kun & Smith, Angela M., 2021. "A national study of child maltreatment reporting at the county level: Interactions among race/ethnicity, rurality and poverty," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    14. Jill R. McTavish & Christine McKee & Masako Tanaka & Harriet L. MacMillan, 2022. "Child Welfare Reform: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-24, October.
    15. Bywaters, Paul & Brady, Geraldine & Sparks, Tim & Bos, Elizabeth & Bunting, Lisa & Daniel, Brigid & Featherstone, Brid & Morris, Kate & Scourfield, Jonathan, 2015. "Exploring inequities in child welfare and child protection services: Explaining the ‘inverse intervention law’," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 98-105.
    16. Emily Keddell, 2022. "Mechanisms of Inequity: The Impact of Instrumental Biases in the Child Protection System," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, May.
    17. Lavi, Iris & Katz, Carmit, 2016. "Neglected voices: Lessons from forensic investigation following neglect," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 171-176.
    18. König, Pascal D. & Wenzelburger, Georg, 2021. "The legitimacy gap of algorithmic decision-making in the public sector: Why it arises and how to address it," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    19. Harden, Brenda Jones & D'Amour Meisch, Allison & Vick, Jessica E. & Pandohie-Johnson, Lisa, 2008. "Measuring parenting among foster families: The development of the Foster Parent Attitudes Questionnaire (FPAQ)," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(8), pages 879-892, August.
    20. de Kwaadsteniet, Leontien & Bartelink, Cora & Witteman, Cilia & ten Berge, Ingrid & van Yperen, Tom, 2013. "Improved decision making about suspected child maltreatment: Results of structuring the decision process," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 347-352.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:8:y:2019:i:10:p:281-:d:274114. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.