Abstract
Child welfare agencies increasingly use machine learning models to predict outcomes and inform decisions. These tools are intended to increase accuracy and fairness but can also amplify bias. This systematic review explores how researchers addressed ethics, equity, bias, and model performance in their design and evaluation of predictive and prescriptive algorithms in child welfare. We searched EBSCO databases, Google Scholar, and reference lists for journal articles, conference papers, dissertations, and book chapters published between January 2010 and March 2020. Sources must have reported on the use of algorithms to predict child welfare-related outcomes and either suggested prescriptive responses, or applied their models to decision-making contexts. We calculated descriptive statistics and conducted Mann-Whitney U tests, and Spearman’s rank correlations to summarize and synthesize findings. Of 15 articles, fewer than half considered ethics, equity, or bias or engaged participatory design principles as part of model development/evaluation. Only one-third involved cross-disciplinary teams. Model performance was positively associated with number of algorithms tested and sample size. No other statistical tests were significant. Interest in algorithmic decision-making in child welfare is growing, yet there remains no gold standard for ameliorating bias, inequity, and other ethics concerns. Our review demonstrates that these efforts are not being reported consistently in the literature and that a uniform reporting protocol may be needed to guide research. In the meantime, computer scientists might collaborate with content experts and stakeholders to ensure they account for the practical implications of using algorithms in child welfare settings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abramovitz, M., & Zelnick, J. (2015). Privatization in the human services: Implications for direct practice. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(3), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-015-0546-1
Adusah, A. K., & Brooks, G. P. (2011). Type I error inflation of the separate-variances Welch t test with very small sample sizes when assumptions are met. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 10(1), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1304224320
Amrit, C., Paauw, T., Aly, R., & Lavric, M. (2017). Identifying child abuse through text mining and machine learning. Expert Systems with Applications, 88, 402–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.06.035
Baird, C., Wagner, D., Healy, T., & Johnson, K. (1999). Risk assessment in child protective services: Consensus and actuarial model reliability. Child Welfare, 78(6), 723–748.
Banerjee, A., Bandyopadhyay, T., & Acharya, P. (2013). Data analytics: Hyped up aspirations or true potential? Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 38(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920130401
Benesh, A. S. (2017). Predicting child welfare future placements for foster youth: An application of statistical learning to child welfare (Publication No. 10258386) [Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/predicting-child-welfare-future-placements-foster/docview/1915941568/se-2
Binns, R. (2018). Algorithmic accountability and public reason. Philosophy & Technology, 31(4), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0263-5
Bishop, C. M. (1995). Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford University Press.
Blatt, E., Clanton, S., Duggan, M., & Mann, J. (2016). From automated to comprehensive: What child welfare organizations need to succeed (White Paper No. ZZW03399-USEN-00). International Business Machines Watson Health for Social Programs. https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/N4QLPQEZ
Brauneis, R., & Goodman, E. P. (2018). Algorithmic transparency for the smart city. The Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 20(1–3), 103–176. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjolt/vol20/iss1/3
Brindley, M., Heyes, J., & Booker, D. (2018). Can machine learning create an advocate for foster youth? Journal of Technology in Human Services, 36(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2017.1416513
Camasso, M. J., & Jagannathan, R. (2019). Conceptualizing and testing the vicious cycle in child protective services: The critical role played by child maltreatment fatalities. Children and Youth Services Review, 103, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.05.024
Chouldechova, A., Benavides-Prado, D., Fialko, O., & Vaithianathan, R. (2018). A case study of algorithm-assisted decision making in child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency, 81, 134–148. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/chouldechova18a/chouldechova18a.pdf
Church, C. E., & Fairchild, A. J. (2017). In search of a silver bullet: Child welfare’s embrace of predictive analytics. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 68(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12086
Council on Social Work Education (2022). Educational policy and accreditation standards for Baccalaureate and Master’s social work programshttps://www.cswe.org/getmedia/94471c42-13b8-493b-9041-b30f48533d64/2022-EPAS.pdf
D’andrade, A., Austin, M. J., & Benton, A. (2008). Risk and safety assessment in child welfare: Instrument comparisons. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 5(1–2), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1300/J394v05n01_03
Daley, D., Bachmann, M., Bachmann, B. A., Pedigo, C., Bui, M. T., & Coffman, J. (2016). Risk terrain modeling predicts child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 62, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.09.014
Dare, T., & Gambrill, E. (2017). Ethical analysis: Predictive risk models at call screening for Allegheny County [Ethical Analysis]. Allegheny County Department of Human Services, Allegheny County Analytics. https://www.alleghenycountyanalytics.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Ethical-Analysis-16-ACDHS-26_PredictiveRisk_Package_050119_FINAL-2.pdf
Dataiku (2022). Clustering (unsupervised ML). https://doc.dataiku.com/dss/latest/machine-learning/unsupervised/index.html
Elgin, D. J. (2018). Utilizing predictive modeling to enhance policy and practice through improved identification of at-risk clients: Predicting permanency for foster children. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.05.030
Elgin, D. J., & Carter, D. P. (2020). Higher performance with increased risk of undesirable outcomes: The dilemma of U.S. child welfare services privatization. Public Management Review, 22(11), 1603–1623. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1637013
Eubanks, V. (2017). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
Fiesler, C., Garrett, N., & Beard, N. (2020). What do we teach when we teach tech ethics? A syllabi analysis. SIGCSE ’20: Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366825
Garcia, M. (2016). Racist in the machine: The disturbing implications of algorithmic bias. World Policy Journal, 33(4), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1215/07402775-3813015
Gillingham, P. (2019a). Can predictive algorithms assist decision-making in social work with children and families? Child Abuse Review, 28(2), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2547
Gillingham, P. (2019b). Decision support systems, social justice and algorithmic accountability in social work: A new challenge. Practice, 31(4), 277–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503153.2019.1575954
Gleeson, J. P. (1987). Implementing structured decision-making procedures at child welfare intake. Child Welfare, 66(2), 101–112.
Griffiths, A., Royse, D., Piescher, K., & LaLiberte, T. (2018). Preparing child welfare practitioners: Implications for Title IV-E education and training partnerships. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 12(3), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2017.1416325
Halimu, C., Kasem, A., & Newaz, S. H. S. (2019). Empirical comparison of area under ROC curve (AUC) and Mathew correlation coefficient (MCC) for evaluating machine learning algorithms on imbalanced datasets for binary classification. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Machine Learning and Soft Computing - ICMLSC 2019, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3310986.3311023
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009). The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction (2nd ed.). Springer.
Hawkins, D. M. (2004). The problem of overfitting. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 44(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci0342472
Horikawa, H., Suguimoto, S. P., Musumari, P. M., Techasrivichien, T., Ono-Kihara, M., & Kihara, M. (2016). Development of a prediction model for child maltreatment recurrence in Japan: A historical cohort study using data from a child guidance center. Child Abuse & Neglect, 59, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.07.008
Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied logistic regression (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Huggins-Hoyt, K. Y., Briggs, H. E., Mowbray, O., & Allen, J. L. (2019). Privatization, racial disproportionality and disparity in child welfare: Outcomes for foster children of color. Children and Youth Services Review, 99, 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.01.041
International Federation of Social Workers (2014, July). Global definition of social work. https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social-work/
Johnson, W., & L’Esperance, J. (1984). Predicting the recurrence of child abuse. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 20(2), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/swra/20.2.21
Jolley, J. M. (2012). Applying neural network models to predict recurrent maltreatment in child welfare cases with static and dynamic risk factors (UMI No. 3542505) [Doctoral dissertation, Washington University in St. Louis]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/applying-neural-network-models-predict-recurrent/docview/1152187850/se-2
Keddell, E. (2015). The ethics of predictive risk modelling in the Aotearoa/New Zealand child welfare context: Child abuse prevention or neo-liberal tool? Critical Social Policy, 35(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018314543224
Keddell, E. (2017). Comparing risk-averse and risk-friendly practitioners in child welfare decision-making: A mixed methods study. Journal of Social Work Practice, 31(4), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2017.1394822
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lanier, P., Rodriguez, M., Verbiest, S., Bryant, K., Guan, T., & Zolotor, A. (2020). Preventing infant maltreatment with predictive analytics: Applying ethical principles to evidence-based child welfare policy. Journal of Family Violence, 35(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00074-y
Lauritzen, C., Stein, A., & Fossum, S. (2018). Factors that determine decision making in child protection investigations: A review of the literature. Child & Family Social Work, 23(4), 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12446
Lupton, D. (2017). Digital health now and in the future: Findings from a participatory design stakeholder workshop. Digital Health, 3, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207617740018
McElduff, F., Cortina-Borja, M., Chan, S. K., & Wade, A. (2010). When t-tests or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests won’t do. Advances in Physiology Education, 34(3), 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00017.2010
Milton, A. C., Hambleton, A., Dowling, M., Roberts, A. E., Davenport, T., & Hickie, I. (2021). Technology-enabled reform in a nontraditional mental health service for eating disorders: Participatory design study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(2), Article e19532. https://doi.org/10.2196/19532
Mitchell, T. M. (2006). The discipline of machine learning (CMU-ML-06-108). Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Machine Learning Department. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tom/pubs/MachineLearning.pdf
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
National Association of Social Workers (2021). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workershttps://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English
Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, I. F., Smith, A. D., To, A., & Toyama, K. (2020). Critical race theory for HCI. Proceedings of the 2020 Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376392
Osher, C. N. (2018, November 1). “This has to get fixed”: Problems with $25.3 million upgrade to Colorado’s child-protection computer system leave children at risk, officials say. The Denver Post. https://www.denverpost.com/2018/11/01/colorado-child-protection-computer-system-failing-children/
Pattison, S., Ramos Montañez, S., Svarovsky, G., & Tominey, S. (2022). Engineering for equity: Exploring the intersection of engineering education, family learning, early childhood, and equity. TERC. https://blog.terc.edu/engineering-for-equity
Rodriguez, M. Y., DePanfilis, D., & Lanier, P. (2019). Bridging the gap: Social work insights for ethical algorithmic decision-making in human services. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 63(4–5), 8:1–88. https://doi.org/10.1147/JRD.2019.2934047
Ruscio, J. (2008). Constructing confidence intervals for Spearman’s rank correlation with ordinal data: A simulation study comparing analytic and bootstrap methods. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 7(2), 416–434. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1225512360
Saxena, D., Badillo-Urquiola, K., Wisniewski, P. J., & Guha, S. (2020). A human-centered review of algorithms used within the U.S. child welfare system. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376229
Schwartz, I. M., York, P., Nowakowski-Sims, E., & Ramos-Hernandez, A. (2017). Predictive and prescriptive analytics, machine learning and child welfare risk assessment: The Broward County experience. Children and Youth Services Review, 81(C), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.08.020
Sen, A. (2021, November 9). Ensemble modeling for neural networks using large datasets – Simplified! Analytics Vidhya Data Science Blogathon. https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2021/10/ensemble-modeling-for-neural-networks-using-large-datasets-simplified/
Shlonsky, A., & Wagner, D. (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, 27(4), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.11.007
Simsek, A. S. (2023). The power and type I error of Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, Welch’s t, and student’s t tests for likert-type data. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 10(1), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1183622
Stege, N., & Breitner, M. H. (2020). Hybrid intelligence with commonality plots: A first aid kit for domain experts and a translation device for data scientists [Paper presentation]. 15th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, Potsdam, Germany. https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_c7-stege
Thurston, H., & Miyamoto, S. (2018). The use of model based recursive partitioning as an analytic tool in child welfare. Child Abuse & Neglect, 79, 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.02.012
Trattner, W. I. (1999). From poor law to welfare state: A history of social welfare in America (6th ed.). The Free Press.
Vaithianathan, R., Maloney, T., Putnam-Hornstein, E., & Jiang, N. (2013). Children in the public benefit system at risk of maltreatment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45(3), 354–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.04.022
Vaithianathan, R., Rouland, B., & Putnam-Hornstein, E. (2018). Injury and mortality among children identified as at high risk of maltreatment. Pediatrics, 141(2), https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-2882. Article e20172882.
van der Put, C. E., Assink, M., & van Boekhout, N. F. (2017). Predicting child maltreatment: A meta-analysis of the predictive validity of risk assessment instruments. Child Abuse & Neglect, 73, 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.09.016
VanHeerwaarden, N., Ferguson, G., Abi-Jaoude, A., Johnson, A., Hollenberg, E., Chaim, G., Cleverley, K., Eysenbach, G., Henderson, J., & Levinson, A. (2018). The optimization of an eHealth solution (thought spot) with transition-aged youth in postsecondary settings: Participatory design research. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(3), Article e8102. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8102
Wald, M. S., & Woolverton, M. (1990). Risk assessment: The emperor’s new clothes? Child Welfare, 69(6), 483–511. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45394134
Walsh, M. C., Joyce, S., Maloney, T., & Vaithianathan, R. (2020). Exploring the protective factors of children and families identified at highest risk of adverse childhood experiences by a predictive risk model: An analysis of the growing up in New Zealand cohort. Children and Youth Services Review, 108, 104556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104556
Wang, T., Gu, H., Wu, Z., & Gao, J. (2020). Multi-source knowledge integration based on machine learning algorithms for domain ontology. Neural Computing and Applications, 32(1), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3806-5
Weber, M., & Sawilowsky, S. (2009). Comparative power of the independent t, permutation t, and wilcoxon tests. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8(1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1241136120
Weerts, H. J. P., van Ipenburg, W., & Pechenizkiy, M. (2019). Case-based reasoning for assisting domain experts in processing fraud alerts of black-box machine learning models. Proceedings of KDD Workshop on Anomaly Detection in Finance (KDD-ADF ’19). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.03334
Wilson, M. L., Tumen, S., Ota, R., & Simmers, A. G. (2015). Predictive modeling: Potential application in prevention services. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 48(5), 509–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.12.003
Zlotnik, J. L. (2003). The use of Title IV-E training funds for social work education. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 7(1–2), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1300/J137v07n01_02
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF Award #1939579).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of Interest
The authors report that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Ethics approval
This research does not involve human participants and therefore, no other concerns for ethical standards are applicable.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Hall, S.F., Sage, M., Scott, C.F. et al. A Systematic Review of Sophisticated Predictive and Prescriptive Analytics in Child Welfare: Accuracy, Equity, and Bias. Child Adolesc Soc Work J (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-023-00931-2
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-023-00931-2