Algorithms and Decision-making
<h3>Abstract</h3> Around 40% of children experience maltreatment (Finkelhor et al. 2013), with harmful outcomes and high social costs. Child protection decisions are complex, and potentially biased and/or prone to errors due to underfunding and overload. Our randomized controlled trial showed algorithmic tools sped up decision-making but didn9t significantly change child outcomes, perhaps because COVID disruptions limited outcome analysis. Results are suggestive that risk aversions played a role: high-risk cases flagged by the tool were more likely screened in, while low-risk cases weren’t more likely screened out. Time savings from the tool could enable caseworkers to spend more time directly with families.
Authors
- Maria Fitzpatrick (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5341-1629)
- Christopher Wildeman (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2584-7809)
- Katharine Sadowski
Institutions
- National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
- Cornell University (US)
- Center for Child and Family Health (US)
- Katharinenhospital (DE)
Publication Details
- Journal
- The Journal of Human Resources
- Published
- 2025-08-08
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.0224-13437r2
- Primary Topic
- Big Data and Business Intelligence
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00
Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Conrad N. Hilton Foundation
- W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research
- Sage Foundation
- Texas Education Agency
- Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy
- Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung
- Colorado Department of Human Services
- Rockwool Fonden