Preventing Eviction-Caused Homelessness through ML-Informed Distribution of Rental Assistance

Rental assistance programs provide individuals with financial assistance to prevent housing instabilities caused by evictions and avert homelessness. Since these programs operate under resource constraints, they must decide who to prioritize. Typically, funding is distributed by a reactive or first-come-first serve allocation process that does not systematically consider risk of future homelessness. We partnered with Allegheny County, PA to explore a proactive allocation approach that prioritizes individuals facing eviction based on their risk of future homelessness. Our ML system that uses state and county administrative data to accurately identify individuals in need of support outperforms simpler prioritization approaches by at least 20% while being fair and equitable across race and gender. Furthermore, our approach would identify 28% of individuals who are overlooked by the current process and end up homeless. Beyond improvements to the rental assistance program in Allegheny County, this study can inform the development of evidence-based decision support tools in similar contexts, including lessons about data needs, model design, evaluation, and field validation.

Toward Operationalizing Pipeline-aware ML Fairness: A Research Agenda for Developing Practical Guidelines and Tools

While algorithmic fairness is a thriving area of research, in practice, mitigating issues of bias often gets reduced to enforcing an arbitrarily chosen fairness metric, either by enforcing fairness constraints during the optimization step, post-processing model outputs, or by manipulating the training data. Recent work has called on the ML community to take a more holistic approach to tackle fairness issues by systematically investigating the many design choices made through the ML pipeline, and identifying interventions that target the issue's root cause, as opposed to its symptoms. While we share the conviction that this pipeline-based approach is the most appropriate for combating algorithmic unfairness on the ground, we believe there are currently very few methods of \emph{operationalizing} this approach in practice. Drawing on our experience as educators and practitioners, we first demonstrate that without clear guidelines and toolkits, even individuals with specialized ML knowledge find it challenging to hypothesize how various design choices influence model behavior. We then consult the fair-ML literature to understand the progress to date toward operationalizing the pipeline-aware approach: we systematically collect and organize the prior work that attempts to detect, measure, and mitigate various sources of unfairness through the ML pipeline. We utilize this extensive categorization of previous contributions to sketch a research agenda for the community. We hope this work serves as the stepping stone toward a more comprehensive set of resources for ML researchers, practitioners, and students interested in exploring, designing, and testing pipeline-oriented approaches to algorithmic fairness.

A Conceptual Framework for Using Machine Learning to Support Child Welfare Decisions

Human services systems make key decisions that impact individuals in the society. The U.S. child welfare system makes such decisions, from screening-in hotline reports of suspected abuse or neglect for child protective investigations, placing children in foster care, to returning children to permanent home settings. These complex and impactful decisions on children's lives rely on the judgment of child welfare decisionmakers. Child welfare agencies have been exploring ways to support these decisions with empirical, data-informed methods that include machine learning (ML). This paper describes a conceptual framework for ML to support child welfare decisions. The ML framework guides how child welfare agencies might conceptualize a target problem that ML can solve; vet available administrative data for building ML; formulate and develop ML specifications that mirror relevant populations and interventions the agencies are undertaking; deploy, evaluate, and monitor ML as child welfare context, policy, and practice change over time. Ethical considerations, stakeholder engagement, and avoidance of common pitfalls underpin the framework's impact and success. From abstract to concrete, we describe one application of this framework to support a child welfare decision. This ML framework, though child welfare-focused, is generalizable to solving other public policy problems.

On the Importance of Application-Grounded Experimental Design for Evaluating Explainable ML Methods

Machine Learning (ML) models now inform a wide range of human decisions, but using ``black box'' models carries risks such as relying on spurious correlations or errant data. To address this, researchers have proposed methods for supplementing models with explanations of their predictions. However, robust evaluations of these methods' usefulness in real-world contexts have remained elusive, with experiments tending to rely on simplified settings or proxy tasks. We present an experimental study extending a prior explainable ML evaluation experiment and bringing the setup closer to the deployment setting by relaxing its simplifying assumptions. Our empirical study draws dramatically different conclusions than the prior work, highlighting how seemingly trivial experimental design choices can yield misleading results. Beyond the present experiment, we believe this work holds lessons about the necessity of situating the evaluation of any ML method and choosing appropriate tasks, data, users, and metrics to match the intended deployment contexts.

Faking feature importance: A cautionary tale on the use of differentially-private synthetic data

Synthetic datasets are often presented as a silver-bullet solution to the problem of privacy-preserving data publishing. However, for many applications, synthetic data has been shown to have limited utility when used to train predictive models. One promising potential application of these data is in the exploratory phase of the machine learning workflow, which involves understanding, engineering and selecting features. This phase often involves considerable time, and depends on the availability of data. There would be substantial value in synthetic data that permitted these steps to be carried out while, for example, data access was being negotiated, or with fewer information governance restrictions. This paper presents an empirical analysis of the agreement between the feature importance obtained from raw and from synthetic data, on a range of artificially generated and real-world datasets (where feature importance represents how useful each feature is when predicting a the outcome). We employ two differentially-private methods to produce synthetic data, and apply various utility measures to quantify the agreement in feature importance as this varies with the level of privacy. Our results indicate that synthetic data can sometimes preserve several representations of the ranking of feature importance in simple settings but their performance is not consistent and depends upon a number of factors. Particular caution should be exercised in more nuanced real-world settings, where synthetic data can lead to differences in ranked feature importance that could alter key modelling decisions. This work has important implications for developing synthetic versions of highly sensitive data sets in fields such as finance and healthcare.

An Empirical Comparison of Bias Reduction Methods on Real-World Problems in High-Stakes Policy Settings

Applications of machine learning (ML) to high-stakes policy settings -- such as education, criminal justice, healthcare, and social service delivery -- have grown rapidly in recent years, sparking important conversations about how to ensure fair outcomes from these systems. The machine learning research community has responded to this challenge with a wide array of proposed fairness-enhancing strategies for ML models, but despite the large number of methods that have been developed, little empirical work exists evaluating these methods in real-world settings. Here, we seek to fill this research gap by investigating the performance of several methods that operate at different points in the ML pipeline across four real-world public policy and social good problems. Across these problems, we find a wide degree of variability and inconsistency in the ability of many of these methods to improve model fairness, but post-processing by choosing group-specific score thresholds consistently removes disparities, with important implications for both the ML research community and practitioners deploying machine learning to inform consequential policy decisions.

Machine learning for public policy: Do we need to sacrifice accuracy to make models fair?

Growing applications of machine learning in policy settings have raised concern for fairness implications, especially for racial minorities, but little work has studied the practical trade-offs between fairness and accuracy in real-world settings. This empirical study fills this gap by investigating the accuracy cost of mitigating disparities across several policy settings, focusing on the common context of using machine learning to inform benefit allocation in resource-constrained programs across education, mental health, criminal justice, and housing safety. In each setting, explicitly focusing on achieving equity and using our proposed post-hoc disparity mitigation methods, fairness was substantially improved without sacrificing accuracy, challenging the commonly held assumption that reducing disparities either requires accepting an appreciable drop in accuracy or the development of novel, complex methods.

Explainable Machine Learning for Public Policy: Use Cases, Gaps, and Research Directions

In Machine Learning (ML) models used for supporting decisions in high-stakes domains such as public policy, explainability is crucial for adoption and effectiveness. While the field of explainable ML has expanded in recent years, much of this work does not take real-world needs into account. A majority of proposed methods use benchmark ML problems with generic explainability goals without clear use-cases or intended end-users. As a result, the effectiveness of this large body of theoretical and methodological work on real-world applications is unclear. This paper focuses on filling this void for the domain of public policy. We develop a taxonomy of explainability use-cases within public policy problems; for each use-case, we define the end-users of explanations and the specific goals explainability has to fulfill; third, we map existing work to these use-cases, identify gaps, and propose research directions to fill those gaps in order to have practical policy impact through ML.

Bandit Data-driven Optimization: AI for Social Good and Beyond

The use of machine learning (ML) systems in real-world applications entails more than just a prediction algorithm. AI for social good applications, and many real-world ML tasks in general, feature an iterative process which joins prediction, optimization, and data acquisition happen in a loop. We introduce bandit data-driven optimization, the first iterative prediction-prescription framework to formally analyze this practical routine. Bandit data-driven optimization combines the advantages of online bandit learning and offline predictive analytics in an integrated framework. It offers a flexible setup to reason about unmodeled policy objectives and unforeseen consequences. We propose PROOF, the first algorithm for this framework and show that it achieves no-regret. Using numerical simulations, we show that PROOF achieves superior performance over existing baseline.