Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Extended Analysis of "How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Disparities in Algorithmic Decisions"

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2204.13872 v1 pith:A3YS4FLQ submitted 2022-04-29 cs.HC

Extended Analysis of "How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Disparities in Algorithmic Decisions"

Logan Stapleton , Hao-Fei Cheng , Anna Kawakami , Venkatesh Sivaraman , Yanghuidi Cheng , Diana Qing , Adam Perer , Kenneth Holstein
show 2 more authors
Zhiwei Steven Wu Haiyi Zhu
This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords workersalleghenychilddisparitieswelfarealgorithmicanalysisdecisions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

This is an extended analysis of our paper "How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Disparities in Algorithmic Decisions," which looks at racial disparities in the Allegheny Family Screening Tool, an algorithm used to help child welfare workers decide which families the Allegheny County child welfare agency (CYF) should investigate. On April 27, 2022, Allegheny County CYF sent us an updated dataset and pre-processing steps. In this extended analysis of our paper, we show the results from re-running all quantitative analyses in our paper with this new data and pre-processing. We find that our main findings in our paper were robust to changes in data and pre-processing. Particularly, the Allegheny Family Screening Tool on its own would have made more racially disparate decisions than workers, and workers used the tool to decrease those algorithmic disparities. Some minor results changed, including a slight increase in the screen-in rate from before to after the implementation of the AFST reported our paper.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Evaluating Actionability in Explainable AI

    cs.HC 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0

    From 14 interviews in medicine and education, the authors derive a catalog mapping 12 information categories to 60 user actions across three action dimensions.