算法辅助决策与住房方面的种族差异:阿勒格尼住房评估工具研究

Lingwei Cheng, Cameron Drayton, Alexandra Chouldechova, Rhema Vaithianathan
{"title":"算法辅助决策与住房方面的种族差异:阿勒格尼住房评估工具研究","authors":"Lingwei Cheng, Cameron Drayton, Alexandra Chouldechova, Rhema Vaithianathan","doi":"arxiv-2407.21209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The demand for housing assistance across the United States far exceeds the\nsupply, leaving housing providers the task of prioritizing clients for receipt\nof this limited resource. To be eligible for federal funding, local\nhomelessness systems are required to implement assessment tools as part of\ntheir prioritization processes. The Vulnerability Index Service Prioritization\nDecision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) is the most commonly used assessment tool\nnationwide. Recent studies have criticized the VI-SPDAT as exhibiting racial\nbias, which may lead to unwarranted racial disparities in housing provision.\nSuch criticisms have led certain jurisdictions to develop alternative tools.\nUsing data from one such prioritization tool, called the Allegheny Housing\nAssessment (AHA), we use descriptive and quantitative analysis to assess\nwhether the replacement of the VI-SPDAT with the AHA impacts racial disparities\nin housing allocation. We find that the VI-SPDAT tended to assign higher risk\nscores to white clients and lower risk scores to Black clients, and that white\nclients were served at a higher rates pre-AHA deployment. While post-deployment\nservice decisions became better aligned with the AHA score, and the\ndistribution of AHA scores is similar across racial groups, we do not find\nevidence of a corresponding decrease in disparities in service rates. We\nattribute the persistent disparity to the use of Alt-AHA, a survey-based tool\nthat is used in cases of low data quality, as well as group differences in\neligibility-related factors, such as chronic homelessness and veteran status.\nWe discuss the implications for housing service systems seeking to reduce\nracial disparities in their service delivery.","PeriodicalId":501273,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - ECON - General Economics","volume":"96 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Algorithm-Assisted Decision Making and Racial Disparities in Housing: A Study of the Allegheny Housing Assessment Tool\",\"authors\":\"Lingwei Cheng, Cameron Drayton, Alexandra Chouldechova, Rhema Vaithianathan\",\"doi\":\"arxiv-2407.21209\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The demand for housing assistance across the United States far exceeds the\\nsupply, leaving housing providers the task of prioritizing clients for receipt\\nof this limited resource. To be eligible for federal funding, local\\nhomelessness systems are required to implement assessment tools as part of\\ntheir prioritization processes. The Vulnerability Index Service Prioritization\\nDecision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) is the most commonly used assessment tool\\nnationwide. Recent studies have criticized the VI-SPDAT as exhibiting racial\\nbias, which may lead to unwarranted racial disparities in housing provision.\\nSuch criticisms have led certain jurisdictions to develop alternative tools.\\nUsing data from one such prioritization tool, called the Allegheny Housing\\nAssessment (AHA), we use descriptive and quantitative analysis to assess\\nwhether the replacement of the VI-SPDAT with the AHA impacts racial disparities\\nin housing allocation. We find that the VI-SPDAT tended to assign higher risk\\nscores to white clients and lower risk scores to Black clients, and that white\\nclients were served at a higher rates pre-AHA deployment. While post-deployment\\nservice decisions became better aligned with the AHA score, and the\\ndistribution of AHA scores is similar across racial groups, we do not find\\nevidence of a corresponding decrease in disparities in service rates. We\\nattribute the persistent disparity to the use of Alt-AHA, a survey-based tool\\nthat is used in cases of low data quality, as well as group differences in\\neligibility-related factors, such as chronic homelessness and veteran status.\\nWe discuss the implications for housing service systems seeking to reduce\\nracial disparities in their service delivery.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv - ECON - General Economics\",\"volume\":\"96 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv - ECON - General Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/arxiv-2407.21209\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - ECON - General Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2407.21209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国各地对住房援助的需求远远超过了供应量,因此住房提供者的任务就是对接受这一有限资源的客户进行优先排序。为了有资格获得联邦资助,当地的无家可归者系统必须使用评估工具,作为其优先排序程序的一部分。脆弱性指数服务优先决策辅助工具(VI-SPDAT)是全国范围内最常用的评估工具。最近的一些研究批评 VI-SPDAT 有种族偏见,可能会导致在住房供应方面出现不必要的种族差异。我们利用其中一个名为 "阿勒格尼住房评估"(AHA)的优先排序工具的数据,通过描述性分析和定量分析来评估用 AHA 取代 VI-SPDAT 是否会影响住房分配中的种族差异。我们发现,VI-SPDAT 倾向于为白人客户分配较高的风险分值,而为黑人客户分配较低的风险分值。虽然部署后的服务决定与 AHA 分数更加一致,而且不同种族群体的 AHA 分数分布也相似,但我们并未发现服务率差距相应缩小的证据。我们将持续存在的差异归因于 Alt-AHA 的使用,这是一种基于调查的工具,用于数据质量较低的情况,以及与资格相关因素(如长期无家可归和退伍军人身份)的群体差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Algorithm-Assisted Decision Making and Racial Disparities in Housing: A Study of the Allegheny Housing Assessment Tool
The demand for housing assistance across the United States far exceeds the supply, leaving housing providers the task of prioritizing clients for receipt of this limited resource. To be eligible for federal funding, local homelessness systems are required to implement assessment tools as part of their prioritization processes. The Vulnerability Index Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) is the most commonly used assessment tool nationwide. Recent studies have criticized the VI-SPDAT as exhibiting racial bias, which may lead to unwarranted racial disparities in housing provision. Such criticisms have led certain jurisdictions to develop alternative tools. Using data from one such prioritization tool, called the Allegheny Housing Assessment (AHA), we use descriptive and quantitative analysis to assess whether the replacement of the VI-SPDAT with the AHA impacts racial disparities in housing allocation. We find that the VI-SPDAT tended to assign higher risk scores to white clients and lower risk scores to Black clients, and that white clients were served at a higher rates pre-AHA deployment. While post-deployment service decisions became better aligned with the AHA score, and the distribution of AHA scores is similar across racial groups, we do not find evidence of a corresponding decrease in disparities in service rates. We attribute the persistent disparity to the use of Alt-AHA, a survey-based tool that is used in cases of low data quality, as well as group differences in eligibility-related factors, such as chronic homelessness and veteran status. We discuss the implications for housing service systems seeking to reduce racial disparities in their service delivery.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信