Abstract
Infant maltreatment is a devastating social and public health problem. Birth Match is an innovative policy solution to prevent infant maltreatment that leverages existing data systems to rapidly predict future risk through linkage of birth certificate and child welfare data then initiate a child protection response. Birth Match is one example of child welfare policy that capitalizes on recent advances in computing technology, predictive analytics, and algorithmic decision making. We apply frameworks from business and computer science as a case study in ethical decision-making in child welfare policy. Current Birth Match policy applications appear to lack key aspects of transparency and accountability identified in the frameworks. Although technology holds promise to help solve intractable social problems such as fatal infant maltreatment, the decision to deploy such policy innovations must consider ethical questions and tradeoffs. Technological advances hold great promise for prevention of fatal infant maltreatment, but numerous ethical considerations are lacking in current implementation and should be considered in future applications.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baltimore City Child Fatality Review Team, Subcommittee on Child Abuse and Neglect. (2017). Eliminating child abuse and neglect fatalities in Baltimore City. Retrieved from http://healthybabiesbaltimore.com/uploads/files/Initiatives/Baltimore%20City%20CFR%20Child%20Abuse%20Report%20January%202017.pdf
Banerjee, A., Bandyopadhyay, T., & Acharya, P. (2013). Data analytics: Hyped up aspirations or true potential? Vikalpa, 38(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920130401.
Barth, R. P., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Shaw, T. V., & Dickinson, N. S. (2016). Safe children: Reducing severe and fatal maltreatment (grand challenges for social work initiative working paper no. 17). Cleveland: American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare Retrieved from http://grandchallengesforsocialwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/WP17-with-cover.pdf.
Brauneis, R., & Goodman, E. P. (2018). Algorithmic transparency for the smart city. Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 20, 103–176 Retrieved from https://yjolt.org/sites/default/files/20_yale_j._l._tech._103.pdf.
Brynjolfsson, E., & Mitchell, T. (2017). What can machine learning do? Workforce implications. Science, 358(6370), 1530–1534. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8062.
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 Machine Learning Research, 81, 1–18.
Christian, B., & Griffiths, T. (2016). Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Chu, X., Ilyas, I. F., Krishnan, S., & Wang, J. (2016). Data cleaning: Overview and emerging challenges. In Proceedings of the 2016 international conference on Management of Data (pp. 2201–2206). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2882903.2912574.
Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse, & Fatalities, N. (2016). Within our reach: A national strategy to eliminate child abuse and neglect fatalities. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Cook, T. D., Tang, Y., & Seidman Diamond, S. (2014). Causally valid relationships that invoke the wrong causal agent: Construct validity of the cause in policy research. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 5(4), 379–414. https://doi.org/10.1086/679289.
County of Los Angeles Office of Child Protection. (2017). Examination of using structured decision making and predictive analytics in assessing safety and risk in child welfare (item no. 490A, agenda of September 20th, 2016). Retrieved from http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/bc/1023048_05.04.17OCPReportonRiskAssessmentTools_SDMandPredictiveAnalytics_.pdf
Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Foust, R., Vaithianathan, R., & Putnam-Hornstein, E. (2017). Risk assessment and decision making in child protective services: Predictive risk modeling in context. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.027.
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.
de Haan, I., & Connolly, M. (2014). Another Pandora's box? Some pros and cons of predictive risk modeling. Children and Youth Services Review, 47, 86–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.07.016.
Doyle, J. J., Jr. (2013). Causal effects of foster care: An instrumental-variables approach. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 1143–1151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.03.014.
DuBois, J. M. (2008). Ethics in mental health research: Principles, guidance, cases. New York: Oxford University Press.
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Foster, E. M., & McCombs-Thornton, K. (2013). Child welfare and the challenge of causal inference. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 1130–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.03.012.
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.
Gershenfeld, N., Krikorian, R., & Cohen, D. (2004, October). The internet of things. Scientific American, 291(4), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1004-76.
Gilbert, R., Widom, C. S., Browne, K., Fergusson, D., Webb, E., & Janson, S. (2009). Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries. Lancet, 373(9657), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61706-7.
Google. (2018). How search works. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/
Guyon, I., & Elisseeff, A. (2003). An introduction to variable and feature selection. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 1157–1182.
Harcourt, B. E. (2007). Against prediction: Profiling, policing, and punishing in an actuarial age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Humphreys, K. L., Gleason, M. M., Drury, S. S., Miron, D., Nelson, C. A., 3rd, Fox, N. A., & Zeanah, C. H. (2015). Effects of institutional rearing and foster care on psychopathology at age 12 years in Romania: Follow-up of an open, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry, 2(7), 625–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00095-4.
Jonson-Reid, M., Kohl, P. L., & Drake, B. (2012). Child and adult outcomes of chronic child maltreatment. Pediatrics, 129(5), 839–845. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2529.
Kenton, W. (2017). Black swan. Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blackswan.asp
Kim, H., Drake, B., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2018). An examination of class-based visibility bias in national child maltreatment reporting. Children and Youth Services Review, 85, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.12.019.
Kulkarni, S. J., Barth, R. P., & Messing, J. T. (2016). Policy recommendations for meeting the Grand Challenge to Stop Family Violence (grand challenges for social work initiative policy brief no. 3). Cleveland: American Academy of Social Work & Social Welfare Retrieved from https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1794&context=csd_research.
Lawrence, C. R., Carlson, E. A., & Egeland, B. (2006). The impact of foster care on development. Development and Psychopathology, 18(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579406060044.
Marr, B. (2018, May). How much data do we create everyday? The mind-blowing stats everyone should read. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2018/05/21/how-much-data-do-we-create-every-day-the-mind-blowing-stats-everyone-should-read/#2667f3d460ba.
Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.3.
Mendoza, N. S., Rose, R. A., Geiger, J. M., & Cash, S. J. (2016). Risk assessment with actuarial and clinical methods: Measurement and evidence-based practice. Child Abuse & Neglect, 61, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.09.004.
Meyer, A. S., & Moore, A. A. (2015). The future of termination of parental rights research and practice: A commentary on ben-David. Journal of Family Social Work, 18(4), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2015.1079585.
Newell, S., & Marabelli, M. (2015). Strategic opportunities (and challenges) of algorithmic decision-making: A call for action on the long-term societal effects of “datification”. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2015.02.001.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York: NYU Press.
Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. New York: Basic Books.
Protect Our Kids Act of 2012. U.S.C. 42 §1305 [Page 126 STAT. 2460; Pub. L.112–275]. (2013).
Prudente, T. & Calvert, S. (2018). For the second time, Baltimore man is charged in the death of a child. The Baltimore Sun, retrieved from https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-baby-murder-charges-20180723-story.html
Putnam-Hornstein, E. (2011). Report of maltreatment as a risk factor for injury death: A prospective birth cohort study. Child Maltreatment, 16(3), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559511411179.
Rose, R. A. (2018). Frameworks for credible causal inference in observational studies of family violence. Journal of Family Violence, advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-0011-3.
Rose, R. A., & Stone, S. I. (2011). Instrumental variable estimation in social work research: A technique for estimating causal effects in nonrandomized settings. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 2, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.5243/jsswr.2011.4.
Rubin, D. M., O'Reilly, A. L., Luan, X., & Localio, A. R. (2007). The impact of placement stability on behavioral well-being for children in foster care. Pediatrics, 119(2), 336–344. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-1995.
Russell, J. (2015). Predictive analytics and child protection: Constraints and opportunities. Child Abuse & Neglect, 46, 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.05.022.
Sankaran, V. S. (2017). Child welfare's scarlet letter: How a prior termination of parental rights can permanently brand a parent as unfit. N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change, 41(4), 685–705 Retrieved from https://socialchangenyu.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/sankaran.pdf.
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, 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.08.020.
Shaw, T. V., Barth, R. P., Mattingly, J., Ayer, D., & Berry, S. (2013). Child welfare birth match: Timely use of child welfare administrative data to protect newborns. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 7(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2013.766822.
Sobočan, A. M., Bertotti, T., & Strom-Gottfried, K. (2018). Ethical considerations in social work research. European Journal of Social Work, advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2018.1544117.
Taleb, N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2018). Child maltreatment 2016. Available from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment
Vaithianathan, R., Rouland, B., & Putnam-Hornstein, E. (2018). Injury and mortality among children identified as at high risk of maltreatment. Pediatrics, 141(2), e20172882. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-2882.
Wickham, H., & Grolemund, G. (2016). R for data science: Import, tidy, transform, visualize, and model data. Sebastopol: O'Reilly Media.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lanier, P., Rodriguez, M., Verbiest, S. et al. Preventing Infant Maltreatment with Predictive Analytics: Applying Ethical Principles to Evidence-Based Child Welfare Policy. J Fam Viol 35, 1–13 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00074-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00074-y