Devansh Saxena

Devansh Saxena, Ji-Youn Jung, Jodi Forlizzi et al.

AI systems are often introduced with high expectations, yet many fail to deliver, resulting in unintended harm and missed opportunities for benefit. We frequently observe significant "AI Mismatches", where the system's actual performance falls short of what is needed to ensure safety and co-create value. These mismatches are particularly difficult to address once development is underway, highlighting the need for early-stage intervention. Navigating complex, multi-dimensional risk factors that contribute to AI Mismatches is a persistent challenge. To address it, we propose an AI Mismatch approach to anticipate and mitigate risks early on, focusing on the gap between realistic model performance and required task performance. Through an analysis of 774 AI cases, we extracted a set of critical factors, which informed the development of seven matrices that map the relationships between these factors and highlight high-risk areas. Through case studies, we demonstrate how our approach can help reduce risks in AI development.

Erina Seh-Young Moon, Devansh Saxena, Tegan Maharaj et al. · mila

Caseworkers in the child welfare (CW) sector use predictive decision-making algorithms built on risk assessment (RA) data to guide and support CW decisions. Researchers have highlighted that RAs can contain biased signals which flatten CW case complexities and that the algorithms may benefit from incorporating contextually rich case narratives, i.e. - casenotes written by caseworkers. To investigate this hypothesized improvement, we quantitatively deconstructed two commonly used RAs from a United States CW agency. We trained classifier models to compare the predictive validity of RAs with and without casenote narratives and applied computational text analysis on casenotes to highlight topics uncovered in the casenotes. Our study finds that common risk metrics used to assess families and build CWS predictive risk models (PRMs) are unable to predict discharge outcomes for children who are not reunified with their birth parent(s). We also find that although casenotes cannot predict discharge outcomes, they contain contextual case signals. Given the lack of predictive validity of RA scores and casenotes, we propose moving beyond quantitative risk assessments for public sector algorithms and towards using contextual sources of information such as narratives to study public sociotechnical systems.

Devansh Saxena, Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Pamela Wisniewski et al.

Algorithms have permeated throughout civil government and society, where they are being used to make high-stakes decisions about human lives. In this paper, we first develop a cohesive framework of algorithmic decision-making adapted for the public sector (ADMAPS) that reflects the complex socio-technical interactions between \textit{human discretion}, \textit{bureaucratic processes}, and \textit{algorithmic decision-making} by synthesizing disparate bodies of work in the fields of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Science and Technology Studies (STS), and Public Administration (PA). We then applied the ADMAPS framework to conduct a qualitative analysis of an in-depth, eight-month ethnographic case study of the algorithms in daily use within a child-welfare agency that serves approximately 900 families and 1300 children in the mid-western United States. Overall, we found there is a need to focus on strength-based algorithmic outcomes centered in social ecological frameworks. In addition, algorithmic systems need to support existing bureaucratic processes and augment human discretion, rather than replace it. Finally, collective buy-in in algorithmic systems requires trust in the target outcomes at both the practitioner and bureaucratic levels. As a result of our study, we propose guidelines for the design of high-stakes algorithmic decision-making tools in the child-welfare system, and more generally, in the public sector. We empirically validate the theoretically derived ADMAPS framework to demonstrate how it can be useful for systematically making pragmatic decisions about the design of algorithms for the public sector.

Devansh Saxena, Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Pamela J. Wisniewski et al.

The U.S. Child Welfare System (CWS) is charged with improving outcomes for foster youth; yet, they are overburdened and underfunded. To overcome this limitation, several states have turned towards algorithmic decision-making systems to reduce costs and determine better processes for improving CWS outcomes. Using a human-centered algorithmic design approach, we synthesize 50 peer-reviewed publications on computational systems used in CWS to assess how they were being developed, common characteristics of predictors used, as well as the target outcomes. We found that most of the literature has focused on risk assessment models but does not consider theoretical approaches (e.g., child-foster parent matching) nor the perspectives of caseworkers (e.g., case notes). Therefore, future algorithms should strive to be context-aware and theoretically robust by incorporating salient factors identified by past research. We provide the HCI community with research avenues for developing human-centered algorithms that redirect attention towards more equitable outcomes for CWS.