Search for: All records

AI-powered scarce resource allocation policies rely on predictions to target either specific individuals (e.g., high-risk) or settings (e.g., neighborhoods). Recent research on individual-level targeting demonstrates conflicting results; some models show that targeting is not useful when inequality is high, while other work demonstrates potential benefits. To study and reconcile this apparent discrepancy, we develop a stylized framework based on the Mallows model to understand how the spatial distribution of inequality affects the effectiveness of door-to-door outreach policies. We introduce the RENT (Relative Efficiency of Non-Targeting) metric, which we use to assess the effectiveness of targeting approaches compared with neighborhood-based approaches in preventing tenant eviction when high-risk households are more versus less spatially concentrated. We then calibrate the model parameters to eviction court records collected in a medium-sized city in the USA. Results demonstrate considerable gains in the number of high-risk households canvassed through individually targeted policies, even in a highly segregated metro area with concentrated risks of eviction. We conclude that apparent discrepancies in the prior literature can be reconciled by considering 1) the source of deployment costs and 2) the observed versus modeled concentrations of risk. Our results inform the deployment of AI-based solutions in social service provision that account for particular applications and geographies. 

A surge of recent work explores the ethical and societal implications of large-scale AI models that make moral judgments. Much of this literature focuses either on alignment with human judgments through various thought experiments or on the group fairness implications of AI judgments. However, the most immediate and likely use of AI is to help or fully replace the so-called street-level bureaucrats, the individuals deciding to allocate scarce social resources or approve benefits. There is a rich history underlying how principles of local justice determine how society decides on prioritization mechanisms in such domains. In this paper, we examine how well LLM judgments align with human judgments, as well as with socially and politically determined vulnerability scoring systems currently used in the domain of homelessness resource allocation. Crucially, we use real data on those needing services (maintaining strict confidentiality by only using local large models) to perform our analyses. We find that LLM prioritizations are extremely inconsistent in several ways: internally on different runs, between different LLMs, and between LLMs and the vulnerability scoring systems. At the same time, LLMs demonstrate qualitative consistency with lay human judgments in pairwise testing. Findings call into question the readiness of current generation AI systems for naive integration in high-stakes societal decision-making. 

Abstract Objective The study tests a community- and data-driven approach to homelessness prevention. Federal policies call for efficient and equitable local responses to homelessness. However, the overwhelming demand for limited homeless assistance is challenging without empirically supported decision-making tools and raises questions of whom to serve with scarce resources. Materials and Methods System-wide administrative records capture the delivery of an array of homeless services (prevention, shelter, short-term housing, supportive housing) and whether households reenter the system within 2 years. Counterfactual machine learning identifies which service most likely prevents reentry for each household. Based on community input, predictions are aggregated for subpopulations of interest (race/ethnicity, gender, families, youth, and health conditions) to generate transparent prioritization rules for whom to serve first. Simulations of households entering the system during the study period evaluate whether reallocating services based on prioritization rules compared with services-as-usual. Results Homelessness prevention benefited households who could access it, while differential effects exist for homeless households that partially align with community interests. Households with comorbid health conditions avoid homelessness most when provided longer-term supportive housing, and families with children fare best in short-term rentals. No additional differential effects existed for intersectional subgroups. Prioritization rules reduce community-wide homelessness in simulations. Moreover, prioritization mitigated observed reentry disparities for female and unaccompanied youth without excluding Black and families with children. Discussion Leveraging administrative records with machine learning supplements local decision-making and enables ongoing evaluation of data- and equity-driven homeless services. Conclusions Community- and data-driven prioritization rules more equitably target scarce homeless resources. 

Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and algorithmic techniques in general, provide two crucial abilities with the potential to improve decision-making in the context of allocation of scarce societal resources. They have the ability to flexibly and accurately model treatment response at the individual level, potentially allowing us to better match available resources to individuals. In addition, they have the ability to reason simultaneously about the effects of matching sets of scarce resources to populations of individuals. In this work, we leverage these abilities to study algorithmic allocation of scarce societal resources in the context of homelessness. In communities throughout the United States, there is constant demand for an array of homeless services intended to address different levels of need. Allocations of housing services must match households to appropriate services that continuously fluctuate in availability, while inefficiencies in allocation could “waste” scarce resources as households will remain in-need and re-enter the homeless system, increasing the overall demand for homeless services. This complex allocation problem introduces novel technical and ethical challenges. Using administrative data from a regional homeless system, we formulate the problem of “optimal” allocation of resources given data on households with need for homeless services. The optimization problem aims to allocate available resources such that predicted probabilities of household re-entry are minimized. The key element of this work is its use of a counterfactual prediction approach that predicts household probabilities of re-entry into homeless services if assigned to each service. Through these counterfactual predictions, we find that this approach has the potential to improve the efficiency of the homeless system by reducing re-entry, and, therefore, system-wide demand. However, efficiency comes with trade-offs - a significant fraction of households are assigned to services that increase probability of re-entry. To address this issue as well as the inherent fairness considerations present in any context where there are insufficient resources to meet demand, we discuss the efficiency, equity, and fairness issues that arise in our work and consider potential implications for homeless policies.