Abstract:Governments are increasingly turning to algorithmic risk assessments when making important decisions, such as whether to release criminal defendants before trial. Policymakers assert that providing public servants with algorithmic advice will improve human risk predictions and thereby lead to better (e.g., fairer) decisions. Yet because many policy decisions require balancing risk-reduction with competing goals, improving the accuracy of predictions may not necessarily improve the quality of decisions. If risk assessments make people more attentive to reducing risk at the expense of other values, these algorithms would diminish the implementation of public policy even as they lead to more accurate predictions. Through an experiment with 2,140 lay participants simulating two high-stakes government contexts, we provide the first direct evidence that risk assessments can systematically alter how people factor risk into their decisions. These shifts counteracted the potential benefits of improved prediction accuracy. In the pretrial setting of our experiment, the risk assessment made participants more sensitive to increases in perceived risk; this shift increased the racial disparity in pretrial detention by 1.9%. In the government loans setting of our experiment, the risk assessment made participants more risk-averse; this shift reduced government aid by 8.3%. These results demonstrate the potential limits and harms of attempts to improve public policy by incorporating predictive algorithms into multifaceted policy decisions. If these observed behaviors occur in practice, presenting risk assessments to public servants would generate unexpected and unjust shifts in public policy without being subject to democratic deliberation or oversight.

Rethinking "Risk" in Algorithmic Systems Through A Computational Narrative Analysis of Casenotes in Child-Welfare

How to Train a (Bad) Algorithmic Caseworker: A Quantitative Deconstruction of Risk Assessments in Child-Welfare

Beyond Predictive Algorithms in Child Welfare

Unpacking Invisible Work Practices, Constraints, and Latent Power Relationships in Child Welfare through Casenote Analysis

Examining risks of racial biases in NLP tools for child protective services

Algorithmic Harms in Child Welfare: Uncertainties in Practice, Organization, and Street-level Decision-Making

Designing Human-Centered Algorithms for the Public Sector: A Case Study of the U.S. Child-Welfare System

Flipping the Script on Criminal Justice Risk Assessment: An actuarial model for assessing the risk the federal sentencing system poses to defendants

Child welfare predictive risk models and legal decision making

Moonstone: a novel natural language processing system for inferring social risk from clinical narratives

Counterfactual risk assessments, evaluation, and fairness

Algorithmic Risk Assessments Can Alter Human Decision-Making Processes in High-Stakes Government Contexts

Heterogeneity in Algorithm-Assisted Decision-Making: A Case Study in Child Abuse Hotline Screening

Risks and NLP Design: A Case Study on Procedural Document QA

Uncertainty in Criminal Justice Algorithms: simulation studies of the Pennsylvania Additive Classification Tool

A Framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed through a Case Study of Child-Welfare

Ghosting the Machine: Judicial Resistance to a Recidivism Risk Assessment Instrument

AI & Racial Equity: Understanding Sentiment Analysis Artificial Intelligence, Data Security, and Systemic Theory in Criminal Justice Systems

Predicting risk in criminal procedure: actuarial tools, algorithms, AI and judicial decision-making

Interventions over Predictions: Reframing the Ethical Debate for Actuarial Risk Assessment

SafeAR: Safe Algorithmic Recourse by Risk-Aware Policies