GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE AT THE END OF A CRAZY SEMESTER. MY NAME IS JOY RODY. I'M THE INTERIM DIRECTOR OF THE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND PUBLIC POLICY PROGRAM HERE AT THE FORD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY. AND TODAY I HAVE THE GREAT PLEASURE OF INTRODUCING OUR GUEST SPEAKER. BUT FIRST I NEED TO THANK A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO MADE TODAY'S EVENT POSSIBLE. FIRST OF ALL THE FORD SCHOOL, THE POLICY TALKS PROGRAM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OUR TALK IS ALSO CO-SPONSORED BY THE SCHOOL OF INFORMATION, THE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY PROGRAM, AND POVERTY SOLUTIONS. AND SO ON BEHALF OF STPP, WE THANK THESE PROGRAMS FOR THEIR SUPPORT. TODAY'S TALK IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY OUR STPP GRADUATE CERTIFICATE STUDENTS WHO RUN A GROUP THAT IS OPEN TO STUDENTS ACROSS THE UNIVERSITY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE IN THE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLIC POLICY PROGRAM. BUT WHO ARE INTERESTED IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY THE GROUP IS CALLED INSPIRED THEY'RE AWESOME. THEY ARE ALSO CO-SPONSORS OF TODAY'S EVENT. NOW TO INTRODUCE OUR SPEAKER. PROFESSOR VIRGINIA EUBANKS IS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY SUNY. SHE'S THE AUTHOR OF AUTOMATING INEQUALITY: HOW HIGH-TECH TOOLS PROFILE POLICE AND PUNISH THE POOR. AND I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOKS I'VE READ IN THE PAST FEW YEARS. SHE'S ALSO THE AUTHOR OF DIGITAL DEADENDS: FIGHTING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE INFORMATION AGE. AND COEDITOR WITH ALETHIA JONES FOR AIN'T GONNA LET NOBODY TURN ME AROUND: FORTY YEARS OF MOVEMENT BUILDING WITH BARBARA SMITH. HER WRITING ABOUT TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE APPEARS NOT ONLY IN ACADEMIC PRINT, BUT IN THE AMERICAN PROSCPECT, THE NATION, HARPERS, WIRED, AND OTHER OUTLETS. FOR TWO DECADES, PROFESSOR EUBANKS HAS WORKED IN THE COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE MOVEMENTS. AND I THINK FOR THOSE OF US THAT ARE SCHOLARS WHO ALSO ASPIRE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE POLICY WORLD, HER WORK AND HER CAREER ARE GREAT MODELS FOR US. SHE'S A FELLOW NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION AND SHE'S ALSO A FOUNDING MEMBER OF THE OUR DATA BODIES PROJECT WHICH IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT WORKS IN COMMUNITIES TO DEMONSTRATE HOW DIGITAL DATA COLLECTION AND STORAGE SYSTEMS OF DIFFERENT TYPES IMPACT THINGS LIKE COMMUNITY RE-ENTRY, IMPACT ACCESS TO FAIR HOUSING, ACCESS TO PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. SO, JUST TO ORIENT YOU, FOLLOWING DOCTOR EUBANKS TALK, THERE WILL JUST BE A Q AND A AND LITTLE PENCILS AND NOTE CARDS GOING AROUND. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO SHARE YOUR QUESTIONS. THAT WAY STAFF WILL COME AROUND AND PICK THEM UP. IF YOU WANT TO DO IT VIA TWITTER, IT'S HASHTAG POLICY TALKS. TODAY WE HAVE 2 STUDENTS HELPING US WITH THE Q AND A. INSPIRE LEADERS, JACKSON ROSS AND LAURA GREER. THEY ARE ASSISTED BY MY RIGHT HAND, THE PROGRAM MANAGER DOCTOR MOLLY KLEINMAN. AFTER THE Q AND A WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO JOIN US IN THE GREAT HALL FOR A RECEPTION. THERE'S A BOOK SIGNING. LET'S JUST GET RIGHT TO IT. PLEASE JOIN ME IN GIVING A WARM WELCOME TO PROFESSOR RICHARD EUBANKS. [APPLAUSE] I AM VERY IMPRESSED. I AM INCREDIBLY FLATTERED AND GRATIFIED TO BE HERE TO BE PART OF THIS CONVERSATION. GREAT THANKS TO MOLLY AND JOY. AARON AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO NOT ONLY FOUGHT TO INVITE ME BUT SUPPORT THE INVITATION AND DID ALL THE HARD WORK TO GET MY PHYSICAL BODY HERE FROM UPSTATE NEW YORK AT THE MIDPOINT OF A WINTER NOW. WERE YOU WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE EARLY WINTER BUT THIS IS THE I JUST REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK THAT WENT INTO GETTING HERE. I WANT TO DATE SAY THANK YOU FOR THAT.MAYBE TO TALK FOR 40 MINUTES ABOUT THE GRAIN. I WILL ASSUME MANY PEOPLE DIDN'T READ THE BOOK. I WILL TRY TO DO THAT WITH A REAL FOCUS ON INTRODUCING YOU TO SOME OF THE FAMILIES WHO SHARE THEIR STORY WITH ME WHEN I WAS DOING THE REPORTING FOR THIS BOOK. IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE FOLKS WHO WENT ON THE RECORD WITH THEIR REAL NAME AND REAL EXPERIENCES DID SO AT A ENORMOUS PERSONAL RISK. MANY OF THEM WERE CURRENTLY RELYING ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FOR THE BASICALLY MATERIAL NEEDS. FOLKS ARE ON HOUSE OR CURRENTLY PART OF A CHILD WHERE FOR INVESTIGATION. FORTHEM TO TALK ON THE RECORD ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCES A GREAT GIFT . SO, I TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE STARTING FROM THEIR POINTS OF VIEW AND THAT I ACKNOWLEDGE HOW MUCH OF THIS WORK IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THEIR INCREDIBLE GENEROSITY AND COURAGE. SO, I WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HISTORY. I WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE 3 STORIESTHAT I TOLD THE BOOK . I WILL DRAW SOME COMMENTS Ã COMMON IDEAS THAT I THINK ARE WORTH TALKING ABOUT MORE OR IDEAS THAT ARE PORTABLE. THE STORIES THAT I TELL. WE WILL LEAVE PLENTY OF TIME FOR CONVERSATIONS FOR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. THAT IS MY GOAL. WE WILL HOPEFULLY START OUT WITH GOOD ENERGY. I ASKED WHEN EVERYONE'S ENERGY IS STILL GOOD TO GIVE ME TWINKLE FINGERS. WHEN YOU START TO FADE THE FINGERS COME DOWN. WHEN YOU REALLY NEED ME TO SHUT UP,HONESTLY, GIVE ME THE DOWNWARD TWINKLE FINGER. I WILL STOP . NOT RIGHT AWAY. I WILL TAKE IT INTO A KNOT INTO ACCOUNT. SO, THAT THE OVERALL PLAN. ARE WE OKAY?OKAY. THANK YOU. I ALWAYS LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF FEEDBACK. I AM HERE TO PROPOSE THAT WE ARE BUILDING A DIGITAL POORHOUSE. THAT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO DATA-DRIVEN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY HAS INCREDIBLE POTENTIAL TO LOWER THE BARRIERS AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCETO SPEED RESULTS AND CREATE EFFICIENCIES AND COST SAVINGS , WHAT WE ARE DOING IS BUILDING ANINVISIBLE INSTITUTION . IT'S MADE UP OF DECISION-MAKING ALGORITHMS, AUTOMATIC ELIGIBILITY'S PROCESSES AND STATISTICAL MODELS ACROSS SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE UNITED STATES. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE RISE OF THIS DIGITAL POORHOUSE AND HOW IT RESPONDS TO AND RE-CREATES A NARRATIVE. THE IDEA THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE AND WE HAVE TO MAKE REALLY TOUGH CHOICES ABOUT WHO DESERVES TO ATTAIN THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. TALKING ABOUT DISRUPTORS. THE TOOLS I TALK ABOUT INEQUALITY ARE REALLY MORE EVOLUTION THAN REVOLUTION. THERE ARE HISTORICAL ROOTS THAT GO REALLY FAR BACK IN HISTORY. AT LEAST TO THE 1820S. HERE'S THE MOMENT WHERE I ALWAYS TAKE A 2ND TO NOTE THAT MY WONDERFUL EDITOR, ELIZABETH, CONTINUE TO TELL ME I DID NOT NEED TO GO BACK TO 1600 TO START THE HISTORY AND WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY A 95 PAGE HISTORY CHAPTER. GETTING IT DOWN TO A 200 YEAR OF POLICY WAS PROBABLY ENOUGH AIRE FAIRMOUNT IN THE BOOK. I WILL JUST TALK ABOUT ONE MOMENT IN THE HISTORY TODAY. AROUND 1819 THERE WAS A VERY GOOD CRUSHING ECONOMIC DEPRESSION IN THE UNITED STATES. AND, ECONOMIC ELITES GOT VERY NERVOUS. THE ECONOMIC CRISIS AND BECAUSE OF SOME REALLY FEARLESS ORGANIZING. THE POOR AND WORKING PEOPLE WERE DOING IT TO PROTECT THEIR FAMILIES AND RIGHTS. SO, AS ECONOMIC ELITES DO, THEY RESPONDED BY A SERIES OF STUDIES. ASKED WHAT'S THE REAL CAUSE OF SUFFERING HERE? IS IT POVERTY OR LACK OF ACCESS TO RESOURCES OR PAUPERISM. THIS IS HOW THE STUDY IS SET UP. WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?IS IT POVERTY OR DEPENDENCE? WHAT YOU THINK? WHAT WAS THE ANSWER TO THE STUDIES? DEPENDENCE. IT DOESN'T SURPRISE US BECAUSE WE ARE STILL DOING THE SAME STUDIES WITH THE SAME RESULTS. NOW, THE SOLUTION FOR THEM WAS THEN TO CREATE A SET OF BRICK AND MORTAR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS THAT BASICALLY RAISED THE BARRIERS TO RECEIVE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE SO HIGH THAT NO ONE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABSOLUTELY MOST DESPERATE PEOPLE WOULD POSSIBLY APPLY OR ASK FOR HELP. SO WHAT THEY DID WAS BUILD WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO BE A NETWORK OF PUBLIC POORHOUSES IN EVERY COUNTY OF THE UNITED STATES. THEY REQUIRED AS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF RECEIPT OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ENTERING INTO THIS INSTITUTION. IT'S NO EASY CHOICE. THEY WERE TECHNICALLY VOLUNTARY EVEN THOUGH YOU COULD BE SENTENCED TO A POORHOUSE AS WELL. SO MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE WERE TRULY INMATES IN THE REAL SENSE. THEY WERE ALL REFERRED TO AS INMATES. FOLKS WHO ARE ENTERING VOLUNTARILY OR FOLKS WHO WERE SENTENCED TO THE POORHOUSE WERE REQUIRED TO GIVE UP ESTABLISHED RIGHTS. THIS IS THE 1820S SO, NOT EVERYONE SHARED THE RIGHTS BUT SOME OF THE RIGHTS THAT YOU LOST WERE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, TO HOLD OFFICE, THE RIGHT TO MARRY, ALSO THE RIGHT TO FAMILY INTEGRITY. FOLKS ENTERING THE POORHOUSE OFTEN LOST THEIR CHILDREN BECAUSE THE IDEA AT THE TIME WAS THAT POOR CHILDREN COULD BE REHABILITATED BY INTERACTING MORE WITH WEALTHY FAMILIES AND BY INTERACTION THEY MEANT WORKING FOR FREE AS AGRICULTURAL DOMESTIC LABORERS. DEATH RATES WERE OFTEN ASTRONOMICAL, AS HIGH AS 30% ANNUALLY MEETING ABOUT ONE THIRD OF PEOPLE EVERY YEAR. PEOPLE WERE LITERALLY TAKING THEIR LIVES IN THEIR HANDS . YOURS, BY THE WAY, WAS ON WASHTENAW AVENUE NEAR PLATT. IT'S NOW WHERE THE COUNTY FARM PARK IS. THIS IS A KEYWORD. COUNTY FARM MEANS THAT'S WHERE THE POORHOUSE WAS. IF YOU HAVE A COUNTY FORM ROAD OR PARK, THAT'S TRUE. IT BECAME A COUNTY INFIRMARY AFTER THE RISE IN WELFARE IN THE 30S. CLOSED TO 1971. THERE IS ACTUALLY A VERY STRONG UM CONNECTION. THOUGH IT'S UNFORTUNATE WITCHES AFTER 1880, UNCLAIMED BODIES WERE GIVEN TO THE RECEIPT OF MICHIGAN FOR DISSECTION. IF THE FAMILIES DID NOT CLAIM THAT WITHIN 24 HOURS. SO, THIS IS ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS I GET TO DO IN EVERY NEW TOWN I GO TO. LOOKING UP WHERE YOUR POORHOUSE WAS AND WHAT THE STORY WAS. YOU HAVE SOME PRETTY GOOD RECORDS, BY THE WAY. YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY THEY HAD GOOD RECORDS FROM THE POORHOUSE. OKAY ÃI USE THIS METAPHOR OF THE DIGITAL POORHOUSE. ILLUSTRATES WHAT I THINK OF AS THE DEEP SOCIAL PROGRAMMING OR FOR THE TECHNICALLY MINDED, THE LEGACY PROGRAMMING. IT IS OF TODAY'S DIGITAL TOOLS AND SOCIAL SERVICES. AT THE HEART IS THIS DECISION THAT WE MADE BACK IN THE 1820S. IT IS PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS ACTING MORE AS MORAL THERMOMETERS SEPARATING THE DESERVING FROM THE UNDESERVING AND DIVERTING THE ABLE OR ENFORCING WORK. RATHER THAN AS A UNIVERSAL FLOOR UNDER EVERYONE. SO, I DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT HISTORY BUT THIS POLITICAL MOMENT. WHY THESE TOOLS HAVE BECOME POPULAR AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME. I THINK THESE HIGH TECH TOOLS THAT ARE INTENDED TO ESTABLISH ELIGIBILITY AND PREDICT BEHAVIOR AND MEASURE EFFECTIVENESS HAVE RISEN TO PROMISE NOW FOR 3 REASONS. RE-CREATE A POLITICS. THIS IDEA THAT THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH RESOURCES AND WE HAVE TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS. THE 2ND, THEY PROMISE TO ADDRESS BIAS BUT IN FACT, THEY JUST REALLY HIDE IT. OVERRIDE.IT EASES THE EMOTIONAL BURDEN. MAKING INHUMANLY DIFFICULT DECISIONS. IT'S ABOUT WHO AMONG AMERICANS SUPPORT. I WILL USE EACH OF THE POINTS IN THE BOOK. I WILL INTRODUCE BOTH OF THE FAMILIES I SPOKE TO END THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT I WRITE ABOUT. POORHOUSE ASSUMING AUSTERITY AND BECAUSE IT ASSUMES AUSTERITY IT RE-CREATES IT. WITH THE QUALITY TO SEVERELY DISABLED YOUNG GIRL NAMED SOPHIE SNIPES. WHEN SOPHIE WAS 6, SHE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA THAT TOLD HER THAT SHE WOULD BE LOSING HER MEDICAID BECAUSE SHE HAD FAILED TO COOPERATE IN ESTABLISHING ELIGIBILITY FOR THE PROGRAM. THIS HAPPENED JUST AS SHE WAS GAINING WEIGHT FOR THE 1ST TIME IN HER LIFE. SHE HAD A FEEDING TUBE IMPLANTED. SHE WAS GOING TO WALK FOR THE THE FAMILY WAS CAUGHT UP IN AN ATTEMPT TO AUTOMATE ALL THE ELIGIBILITY PROCESSES FOR THE STATE WELFARE SYSTEM. SO, THAT'S FOR CASH ASSISTANCE AND MEDICAID OR MEDICAL INSURANCE. FOR WHAT WAS CALLED FOOD STAMPS AT THETIME THAT'S NOW CALLED SNAP . IN 2006, THEN GOVERNOR MITCH DANIELS SIGNED WHAT WOULD BE A WITH A BUNCH OF COMPANIES INCLUDING IBM AND ACS AFFILIATED COMPUTER SYSTEMS TO CREATE A SYSTEM THAT REPLACE THE HANDS-ON WORK OF LOCAL COUNTY WELFARE CASEWORKERS WITH ONLINE APPLICATIONS AND PRIVATE REGIONAL CALL CENTERS. THE RESULT WAS A MILLION BENEFIT DENIALS IN THE 1ST 3 YEARS OF THE PROJECT OF THE EXPERIMENT. MOSTLY FOR THIS CATCHALL REASON ÃFAILURE TO COOPERATE. IT MEANT THAT SOMEONE SOMEWHERE IN THE PROCESS HADMADE A MISTAKE . THEY COULD HAVE SIGNED PAGE 34 OR FORGOT AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE FAULT OF THE CALL CENTER WORKER WHO MISAPPLIED POLICY AND GAVE SOMEONE BAD ADVICE. IT COULD BE THE DOCUMENT SCANNING THAT COULD'VE SCANNED THAT. DROPPING SOMETHING BEHIND THE DESK. THE NOTICES THAT SOPHIE RECEIVED SIMPLY SAID THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR.NOT WHAT THE ERROR WAS. BECAUSE IT'S SEVERING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE APPLICANTS FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND THE FOLKS WHO HAD IN THE PAST CASEWORKERS WHO RESPONSIBLE FOR CASES AND NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR A LIST OF COMPUTERIZED TASKS RATHER THAN FAMILIES. BECAUSE THAT RELATIONSHIP COULD'VE BEEN SEVERED, THE SYSTEM VIRTUALLY GUARANTEED THAT THE BURDEN OF FINDING AND FIXING ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE APPLICATION PROCESS FELL SQUARELY AND SOLELY ON THE SHOULDERS OF APPLICANTS WHO WERE SOME OF THE MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN THE STATE. JUST WANT TO TELL YOU ONE STORY. SOMEONE WHO LOST THEIR BENEFITS. IT WAS DURING THE ATTEMPTED INAUGURATION. IN FALL 2008, MISSING AN APPOINTMENT TO RECERTIFY FOR MEDICAID BECAUSE SHE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL SUFFERING FROM TERMINAL CANCER. THE CANCER THAT BEGAN IN HER OVARIES AND SPREAD TO HER KIDNEYS, BREAST AND LIVER.THE CHEMOTHERAPY LEFT HER WEAK AND EMACIATED.YOUNG MOTHER OF 2 GROWN SONS SCHEDULED TO MEET THE NEW SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS. SHE CALLED HER LOCAL HEALTH CENTER AND LET THEM KNOW SHE COULD NOT MAKE THIS RECERTIFICATION APPOINTMENT AND SHE WOULD BE IN THE HOSPITAL BUT HER MEDICAL BENEFITS AND FOOD STAMPS WERE STILL CUT OFF FOR FAILURE TO COOPERATE. BECAUSE SHE LOST HER BENEFITS, SHE WAS UNABLE TO AFFORD HER MEDICATIONS, STRUGGLED TO PAY RENT , LOST ACCESS TO FREE TRANSPORTATION. ON MARCH 2, SHE WON AN APPEAL FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION. ALL OF HER BENEFITS WERE RESTORED. THAT'S THE INDIANA ELIGIBILITY APPLICATION. THE 2ND POINT THAT I WANT TO RAISE IS THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THE NEW DIGITAL TOOLS ARE OBJECTIVE AND NEUTRAL. THEY OFTEN JUST HIDE BIAS. IN THIS CASE, I WANT TO START WITH A FAMILY AND TALK ABOUT THE SYSTEM. I WANT TO TALK TO YOU JUST BRIEFLY ABOUT PATRICK REED AND ANGEL SHEPPARD. SO, I MET PATRICK AND ANGEL AT THE SUPPORT CENTRAL LEICA COMMUNITY HUG WHERE FAMILIES ARE ON WELFARE AND INVOLVED IN THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM ATTEND PROGRAMS AND ACCESS RESOURCES AND CONNECT WITH OTHER FAMILIES TO PROVIDE PEER SUPPORT. IT STANDS OUT AS INTERESTING PEOPLE TO REPORT ON. BECAUSE THEY ARE EXPERIENCING THINGS THAT ARE SO AVERAGE. IT WAS ALMOST MUNDANE. CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS ROUTINE AND DIGNITY THAT IS EXPERIENCED BY WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE. THEY STRUGGLED WITH LOW RAGE DANGEROUS WORK AND POOR QUALITY SCHOOLS AND PREPARATORY EDUCATION, POOR HEALTH COMMUNITY VIOLENCE. THROUGH IT ALL THEY REMAIN CREATIVE AND INVOLVED PARENTS. I TALK ABOUT HIM AS A BUDDHIST X BIKER. IT'S A RECTANGLE OF A MAN. A REALLY LARGE MAN WITH A REALLY ELABORATE FACIAL HAIR. IT'S A SENSE OF INCREDIBLE CALM. ONE OF THEIR TECHNIQUES IS HELPING TO RAISE 2 YOUNG GIRLS. ANGEL'S DAUGHTER HARRIET AND PATRICK'S DAUGHTER'S DAUGHTER DESIREE. BECAUSE THEY ARE SO CLOSE TO PEOPLE THEY BICKER A LOT. WHEN THEY ARE BICKERING TOO MUCH, WHAT THEY DO IS PUT THEM IN WHAT THEY REFERRED TO AS THE GET ALONG SHIRT. BUTTON-DOWN SHIRTS.THEY SHOW BOTH THE GIRLS INTO THE GET ALONG SHIRT. EACH GIRL PUTS ONE ARM THROUGH ONE OF THE ARMS OF THE SHIRT AND THE OTHER ARM AROUND THE WAIST OF THE OTHER GIRL. THEY BUTTON THE SHIRT BACK UP. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GET OUT OF THE GET ALONG SHIRT UNTIL THE STOP FIGHTING. EVEN IF THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM. AS SOON AS THEY START TO P SOMEONE STOPS FIGHTING. DESPITE THIS ANGEL AND PATRICK HAD REALLY WRAPPED UP WITH A LIFETIME OF INTERACTION. CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES WHICH IS WHAT THEY ARE CALLED. PATRICK WAS AN INVESTIGATOR FOR MEDICAL NEGLECT IN THE EARLY AFFORD ANTIBIOTIC PRESCRIPTION. AFTER HIS DAUGHTER'S VISIT TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM.WHEN HARRIET STARTED WAS 5, SOMEONE FOUND IN A STRING OF REPORTS TO THE CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT HOTLINE. THIS IS AN ANONYMOUS TIPSTER AND EXPLAINED HARRIET WAS RUNNING AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNSUPERVISED AND DOWN THE BLOCK TEASING THE DOG AND NOT BEING PROPERLY CLOTHED, FED OR BREATHE AND NOT GETTING NEEDED INFORMATION. FOR EACH CALL, THE INVESTIGATOR CAME UP TO THE HOUSE AND INTERVIEWED HARRIET AND TABITHA AND ANGEL AND PATRICK LOOKED UNDER THE BEDS AND READ ACQUIRED ACCESS TO THEIR MEDICAL RECORDS. EACH TIME FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF MALTREATMENT THEY CLOSE THE CASE. EACH INTERACTION WAS ENTERED INTO THE DIGITAL CASE FILE WHICH WAS HELD IN A DATA WAREHOUSE IN THE COUNTY. IT IS FEEDING MORE THAN THE SCREENING TOOL. IT'S THE TOOL THAT I REPORT ON. HERE IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY WHICH IS WHERE IT IS IN PENNSYLVANIA. THEY ARE AWARE THAT EACH INTERACTION THEY HAD WITH THE WIDE RARITY ARRAY OF SERVICES THEY RECEIVE FROM THE COUNTY COULD POTENTIALLY RAISE THE SCORE IN THIS MODEL. THEY DESCRIBE FEELING LIKE THEY LIVE IN THE STATE OF LOW-GRADE CONSTANT TERROR. THERE WOULD BE NO CALL ON THE FAMILY AND THE ALGORITHM WOULD TARGET THEIR DAUGHTER OR GRANDDAUGHTER FOR INVESTIGATION AND POSSIBLY FOR REMOVAL TO FOSTER CARE. ANGEL SAID TO ME, IF YOU LIKE A PRISONER. YOU FEEL TRAPPED. IT'S A MARK NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.MY DAUGHTER IS NOW 9. I'M STILL AFRAID. THEY WILL COME UP ONE DAY AND SEE HER OUT BY YOURSELF AND PICK HER UP AND SAY, YOU CAN'T HAVE HER ANYMORE. SO, THE ALLEGHENY FAMILY SCREENING TOOL IS BUILT ON TOP OF A DATA WAREHOUSE THAT WAS CREATED IN 1989. IT HOLDS A BILLION RECORDS. THE WAREHOUSE DOES NOT COLLECT DATA OR INFORMATION ON EVERY MEMBER. IN EVERY COUNTY RESIDENT EQUALLY. IN FACT, THE DATA EXTRACTS MOSTLY COME FROM COUNTY AND STATE PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS AND AGENCIES THAT INTERACT A LOT WITH POOR AND WORKING-CLASS FAMILIES. THE SYSTEM GETS REGULAR DATA EXTRACTS FROM ADULT AND JUVENILE PROBATION AND THE JAILS AND PRISONS AND COUNTY MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND COUNTY OFFICE OF DRUGS AND ALCOHOL AND ADDICTION RECOVERY. THE STATE OFFICE OF INCOME MAINTENANCE WHICH IS THE STATE'S VERSION OF WELFARE. THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND ANOTHER NUMBER OF AGENCIES.THE LIMIT OF THE DATA SET REALLY SHAPE WHAT THE MODEL IS ABLE TO PREDICT. ABLE TO SEE . BECAUSE IT RELIES ALMOST ENTIRELY ON INFORMATION THAT IS ONLY COLLECTED ABOUT POOR AND WORKING-CLASS IN THE WAYS THAT IT SEES THEM ARE SHAPE BY THE KINDS OF EXPERIENCES THAT POOR AND WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE HAVE WITH THE STATE. OF COURSE PROFESSIONAL AND MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES NEED HELP WITH THEIR PARENTING. EVERYONE NEEDS HELP WITH PARENTING. THEY PROBABLY REQUEST EQUAL AMOUNTS OF SUPPORT BUT OFTEN THEY PAY FOR IT PRIVATELY. IF YOU NEED ADDICTION RECOVERY SUPPORT AND YOU ARE A PROFESSIONAL MIDDLE CLASS YOU WILL LIKELY GET THAT THROUGH EMPLOYER-PROVIDED INSURANCE. IF YOU ARE GETTING IT THROUGH PRIVATE INSURANCE, THE INFORMATION DOESN'T END UP IN THE DATA WAREHOUSE. INFORMATION ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR THAT COULD BE DESCRIBED AS MISSING. IF YOU NEED HELP WITH YOUR CHILDCARE BUT YOU COULD AFFORD TO PAY A NEIGHBORING NANNY OR BABYSITTER, INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR FAMILY WON'T END UP IN THE DATA WAREHOUSE. SO, THOSE LIMITATIONS IN THE DATA SET ITSELF, THEY REALLY CAUSE ENORMOUS CONCERN WHEN I DID MY REPORTING. PARENTS MOSTLY SAW FALSE POSITIVES PROBLEMS. PROBLEMS THAT FALSE POSITIVE JUST MEANS SEEING RISK OF HARM WHERE NO HARM ACTUALLY EXISTS. THIS MAKES SENSE FOR PARENTS. PARENTS SAY THEY FELT LIKE THE SYSTEM CONFUSES PARENTING WHILE POOR. IT'S WITH POOR PARENTING. THEY FELT LIKE IT WAS CREATING A SYSTEM OF POVERTY PROFILING. BECAUSE IT SPENT SO MUCH TIME INVESTIGATING AND RISKING FAMILY AND THE COMMUNITY IS CREATING A FEEDBACK LOOP OF INJUSTICE THAT BEGAN WITH FAMILIES HAVING MORE DATA COLLECTED ABOUT THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE INTERACTING WITH COUNTY SYSTEMS. HAVING MORE INTERACTIONS MEETING THE SCORES HIGHER BECAUSE IT WAS HIGHER THERE WAS INVESTIGATIONS MORE OFTEN. MORE DATA WAS COLLECTED.BACK AROUND. SO IT BECAME A FEEDBACK LOOP ON THE SAME WAY THAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERNS THAT CREATES FEEDBACK LOOPS. FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF INTAKE ALL SCREENERS WHO ARE THE FRONT LINE OF THE SOCIAL SERVICE SYSTEM IN CHILD WELFARE, THE PEOPLE WHO PICK UP THE PHONE. MAKING A DECISION WHICH CASES FOR FULL INVESTIGATION. WHICH TO SCREEN OUT. THE FRONTLINE CALL CENTER WORKERS AND INTAKE SCREENING WORKERS WERE REALLY CONCERNED WITH FALSE NEGATIVES. THE SAME WAY THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH FALSE POSITIVES. INTAKE ALL SCREENERS THOUGHT THAT IN THE DATA WAREHOUSE, KINDS OF BEHAVIOR THAT MIGHT LEAD TO THE ABUSE AND THOSE FAMILIES WOULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED BY THIS PREDICTIVE ALGORITHM AND THEY MIGHT MISS REALLY KEY INFORMATION ABOUT THE KINDS OF HARM THAT HAPPENS IN MORE GEOGRAPHICALLY ISOLATED PLACES OR IN THE SUBURBS. THAT INFORMATION WOULD NOT BE. THE MODELS SAY PART OF THIS POINT OF THIS SYSTEM IS TO ROOT OUT BIAS. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO BE DIRECT. BIAS IN CHILD WELFARE IS A PROFOUND ISSUE IN ALMOST EVERY COUNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. THE WAY THAT MOST PEOPLE TALK ABOUT IT IS AROUND RACIAL DISPROPORTIONALITY.IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY, JUST ABOUT EVERY COUNTY IN THE UNITED STATES HAS A SERIOUS ISSUE WITH RACIAL DISPROPORTIONALITY IN THE WELFARE SYSTEM. SOMETHING LIKE 30% OF CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY ARE BLACK OR BIRACIAL WHILE THEY ONLY MAKE UP 19% OF THE YOUTH POPULATION. ABOUT TWICE AS LIKELY TO END UP IN FOSTER CARE AS THEY SHOULD BE BASED ON THE PROPORTION OF THE POPULATION. IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY, IT'S BEEN VERY SERIOUS ABOUT ADDRESSING THIS DISPROPORTIONALITY.PART OF THAT MOVE IS TO TRY TO KEEP A CLOSER EYE ON THE PATTERN OF DECISION-MAKING.THIS TOOL IS INTENDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE DECISION-MAKING. THEY MAKE TO CLINICAL DECISIONS AND PUT IN THE SYSTEM AND RUN THIS TOOL. THE RISK SURE AT THE TIME I WAS REPORTING, IF YOU GOT A SCORE OF 18 OR ABOVE, THE SYSTEM AUTOMATICALLY LAUNCHED THE INVESTIGATION. SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THE BOOK, THEY HAVE DROPPED THAT THRESHOLD NOW IF YOU'RE A SCORE , SYSTEMATICALLY LAUNCHES WHAT THE MINISTERS TOLD ME WAS THAT THEY DON'T THINK THIS TOOL NECESSARILY CAN SOLVE RACIAL DISPROPORTIONALITY BUT IT CAN HELP THEM IDENTIFY EARLIER. TRYING TO ADDRESS EARLIER. THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS THE COUNTY SHOWS DISCRIMINATION. THE LION SHARES ENTERING THE SYSTEM AS A POINT WHICH THE COMMUNITY CALLS ON FAMILIES. BLACK AND BIRACIAL FAMILIES ARE CALLED ON 3 AND A HALF TIMES MORE OFTEN THAN WHITE FAMILIES. AT 350% DIFFERENCE.ONCE THE CASE TO A SCREENERS DISPROPORTION AT THAT MOMENT. SO, THE SCREEN AND 69% OF CASES INVOLVING BLACK AND BIRACIAL FAMILIES. ONLY 65% OF CASES INVOLVING WHITE FAMILIES. IT'S A 4% DIFFERENCE RATHER THAN A 350%. THIS IS IMPORTANT. IT'S ONLY A SOPHISTICATED AND EXPENSIVE TOOL AIMED AT THE POINT IN WHICH THE PROBLEM IS NOT ENTERING THE SYSTEM. THE PROBLEM IS ENTERING THE SYSTEM AT THE POINT OF REFERRAL. IT IS MORE ABOUT CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A GOOD, HEALTHY FAMILY LOOKS LIKE. HETEROSEXUAL AND RICH. ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THAT MOVING DISCRETION FROM THE WORKERS COULD REMOVE A STOP TO THE MASSIVE AMOUNT OF DISCRIMINATION. IT ENTERING EARLY IN THE PROCESS. ACCORDING WORSENED AND MAKE IT BETTER. OKAY ÃI WILL TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THIS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS IS THE WAY THAT FOLKS TALK ABOUT IT AS REMOVING DISCRETION. REMOVING BIAS FROM THE SYSTEM. HE SAYS DISCRETION IS LIKE ENERGY. IT'S NEVER CREATED OR DESTROYED BUT IT'S MOVED. SO, I THINK THE INTERESTING QUESTION TO ASK ABOUT THE SYSTEM IS, NOT TO FRAME THE QUESTION AS OUR REMOVING DISCRETION OR MOVING BIAS FROM THE SYSTEM BUT WHO ARE WE TAKING DISCRETION AWAY FROM? WHO ARE WE GIVING IT TO? HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT BIAS? REMOVING IT FROM THE FRONTLINE SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS IN THESE ARE SOME OF THE MOST DIVERSE WORKING-CLASS FEMALE PARTS OF THE LABOR FORCE IN CHILD WELFARE. WE ARE GIVING IT TO SOCIAL SCIENCES BUILDING MODELS. I THINK IT CREATES NEW ISSUES AND BIAS BECAUSE THEY ARE MUCH FURTHER AWAY FROM THE PROBLEM THAT THE TOOLS MEANT TO HELP ADDRESS. LOTS MORE TO SAY BUT I WILL MOVE ON.ASKED ME ABOUT PROXIES IN THE SYSTEM IF WE HAVE TIME BUT MAKE SURE WE HAVE TIME TO TALK ABOUT THE SYSTEM REPORTED ON IN LOS ANGELES. HOW ARE WE DOING? ARE WE HERE? MIDDLE? DOWN. PEOPLE WON'T TELL ME ÃWE WILL GO FAST THROUGH THIS. GETTING TO QUESTIONS. SO, MY FINAL POINT IS THAT THESE TOOLS, AFTERWARDS WILL OUTSOURCE TO COMPUTERS OR ALLOW US TO OUTSOURCE TO COMPUTERS AND SOME OF THE MOST DIFFICULT DECISIONS THAT WE FACE AS A SOCIETY SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE SYSTEM I REPORTED ON IN LOS ANGELES WHICH IS THE COORDINATED ENTRY SYSTEM. WIDELY USED ACROSS THE COUNTRY. RESPONSE TO THE COUNTIES EXTRAORDINARY HOUSING CRISIS. SO, AS OF 2017, 2000 AND HOMES PEOPLE. THAN THE LIVING MY WHOLE CITY. IT'S A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE OF ASTONISHING PROPORTION. SOMETHING LIKE 75% OF ON HOUSE PEOPLE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY HAVE NO SHELTER AT ALL. NO EMERGENCY SHELTERS. THEY LIVE IN TENTS ON THE SIDEWALK. SO THE SYSTEM WORKS BY ASSIGNING EACH ON HOUSE PERSON THAT THEY MANAGED TO SURVEY. A SCORE ON A SPECTRUM OF VULNERABILITY. TO DO IF THEY USE A SURVEY WITH A TERRIBLE ACRONYM. THE VULNERABILITY INDEX ASSISTANCE TOOL. THE TOOL SERVES THEM AT THE TOP OF THE SCALE PRETTY WELL. PEOPLE WHO ARE CHRONICALLY HOMELESS FOR THE KIND OF SUPPORT IS PROVIDED BY SUPPORT OF HOUSING ÃIT ALSO SERVES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCALE YOU FOLKS WERE CRISIS HOMELESS AND WOULD BE ABLE TO RECOVER WITH A LIMITED TIME AND RESOURCE. SO, AS OF THE WRITING OF THE BOOK, THEY HAD MANAGED TO SURVEY AND RANK 35,000 ON HOUSE PEOPLE. THEY MANAGED TO SERVE 9000 OF THEM AS SOME KIND OF RESOURCE. NOT HOUSING BUT THAT COULD BE THE MORE LIMITED RESOURCES. HELP WITH AN EVICTION OR MOVING EXPENSES OR SOMETHING WITH A SMALLER AMOUNT OF RESOURCES. ALL OF THOSE THINGS COUNTED AS A MATCH IN THE SYSTEM. THEN THERE IS THE 30,000 PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SURVEYED BUT HAVE NEVER RECEIVED A RESOURCE FROM COORDINATED ENTRY. PEOPLE LIKE GARY BOATWRIGHT. STRONG ENOUGH TO SURVIVE BUT NOT ABLE TO GET BACK ON THEIR FEET BY THEMSELVES. WHEN YOU ARE CLASSIFIED AS NOT BEING IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE BUT NOT SERVED BY THE TIME LIMITED RESOURCES, THIS CAN END UP LEAVING PEOPLE FEELING LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE SYSTEM HAS ASKED HIM TO INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES FOR A SLIGHTLY HIGHER LOTTERY NUMBER. IT'S NOT A TERRIBLE ANALYSIS OF HOW IT WORKS. THE SYSTEM USES A SURVEY TO ASK PEOPLE VERY INTERESTING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THEY SPEND THEIR DAYS AND WHATTHEIR EXPERIENCES ARE . QUESTIONS ARE PRETTY GOOD ESTABLISHING ACTUAL VULNERABILITY. ARE YOU CURRENTLY HAVING UNPROTECTED SEX OR TREATING SEXUAL MONEY OR DRUGS? DOES SOMEONE THINK YOU ALL THE MONEY? IS THERE A WARRANT ON YOU? HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT HARMING YOURSELF? WHERE CAN BE FOUND IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE DAY AND ASKED THE PERSON DOING THE SURVEY TO TAKE A PICTURE OF YOU. FOLKS HAVE TO SIGN A COMPREHENSIVE'S CONSENT FORM TO DO THE SURVEY BUT IT'S HARD TO SAY IS TRULY VOLUNTARY BECAUSE CHORDATE INJURY HAS REALLY BECOME THE FRONT DOOR TO ALMOST ALL HOUSING SERVICES IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY. THE CHOICES, AND GIVE SOCIAL DATA AND HOPE IT MEETS WITH YOUR HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OR CLOSE YOURSELF OUT FOR HOUSING RESOURCES IN THE COUNTY. SO, ONCE YOU FILL OUT THE CONSENT, PART OF IT SAYS THERE IS INFORMATION AVAILABLE ABOUT WHICH SHARED WITH. THE 2ND PROCESS THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO GET IT, IF YOU DO REQUEST AND MANAGED TO RECEIVE IT, THAT DOCUMENT SAYS IT SHARES IT WITH 161 DIFFERENT AGENCIES. BECAUSE OF REGULATIONS AND THE FACT THAT IT'S HELD WITH INFORMATION SYSTEM, ONE OF THOSE AGENCIES IS WITH THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT. ANY INFORMATION OUT OF THE SYSTEM ÃRUNNING A QUERY ON THE SYSTEM WITH SEX FOR DRUGS Ã GIVE US A LIST. IT'S NOT THE KIND OF INFORMATION THEYCAN GET . BUT, THEY ARE ABLE TO REQUEST INFORMATION OUT OF THE INFORMATION SYSTEM BASED ONLY ON THE ORAL REQUEST. THERE IS NO WARRANTING SYSTEM OR OVERSIGHT. THERE'S NOT EVEN A PAPER TRAIL. HE CAN JUST WALK IN AND ASK FOR INFORMATION OF THE SYSTEM. THE WORKERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE IT TO THEM. IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE IT TO THEM BUT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO GIVE IT TO THEM. JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU AT ONE OF THE PEOPLE. THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO BIG IDEAS. I TALKED TO A GUY NAMED UNCLE GARY. GARY BOATWRIGHT. WHEN I MET HIM IN 2016, HE WAS LIVING IN A TENT. IT WAS IN THINNING WHITE HOT HAIR AND SANTA CLAUS BLUE EYES. A DOZEN CAREERS. WELDER,MASON, PARALEGAL, DOOR TO DOOR , LAW STUDENT AND DOCUMENT PROCESSOR FOR WHOLESALE MORTGAGE LENDER WHICH COMES WITH A NUMBER OF INCREDIBLE IRONIES.HE HAS FILLED OUT 3 TIMES. HE REALLY LOST PATIENCE WITH THE PROCESS. HE DOESN'T THINK HE SCORED HIGH ON HIS VULNERABILITY SCALE. HE IS 64. OTHER THAN A LITTLE BIT OF HYBRID PLEASURE AND HEARING PROBLEMS, HE IS MOSTLY HEALTHY. HIS SUBSTANCE USE DID NOT SEEM DEBILITATING. AS A MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSIS. HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT IT IS BECAUSE HE JUST FOUND OUT HE HAD A MENTAL HEALTH FILE WHEN HE WENT TO COURT IN ORANGE COUNTY BUT NO ONE'S EVER SHARED THE DIAGNOSIS WITH HIM NGUYEN THERE'S NOT ENOUGH HOUSING FOR THE COUNTIES FOR THE ON HOUSE PEOPLE. PEOPLELIKE ME WHO ARE SOMEWHAT HIGHER FUNCTIONING , ARE NOT GETTING HOUSING. KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD. TO HOUSE THE HOMELESS YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE AVAILABLE UNITS. OTHERWISE YOU'RE JUST LYING. AND $0.99 STORE BROOM. IT'S PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. HE HAD LOST EVERYTHING. THE 10, PAPERWORK, RELATIONSHIPS WITH LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS. HE SCORED LOWER BECAUSE IT COUNTS INCARCERATION AS BEING HOUSE. I WAS A SKEPTIC FOR THE BOOK. EVEN NOW. IN VIRGINIA, YOU CHERRY PICK THE WORST CASE SCENARIO. TELLING THIS REALLY FRIGHTENING STORY. NO I DON'T KNOW THE SOUL OF GOVERNOR MITCH DANIELS. I CANNOT HIS INTENTIONS. ONE OF MY SOURCES SAID, YOU KNOW, IF WE BUILT A SYSTEM TO DIVERT PEOPLE FROM PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ON PURPOSE, IT WOULD NOT WORK ANY BETTER THAN THIS ADMINISTRATORS, CASEWORKERS WERE VERY BRIGHT. I CARE DEEPLY FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE AGENCY THAT THEY SERVED. THE REALITY IS, GOOD INTENTIONS CAN STILL PRODUCE BAD OUTCOMES. THE TIME IS REALLY CALM TO STOP TALKING ABOUT INTENTIONS IN THE DESIGN OF THESE TOOLS. TO START TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACT THAT THEY ARE HAVING ON PEOPLE IN THEIR DAY-TO-DAY LIVES RIGHT NOW. IN FACT, IN BOTH OF THESE CASES IN LOS ANGELES OR ALLEGHENY COUNTY, DESIGNERS DID MANY OF THE THINGS THAT WAS ABOUT THIS DISCRIMINATION AND THEY ASKED TO HIT THE MARKS. THEY WERE LARGELY TRANSPARENT. NOTENTIRELY TRANSPARENT . THEY RELEASED MOST OF THE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE MODELS WORK. THEY WERE MOSTLY ACCOUNTABLE IN THAT THE TOOLS ARE HELD IN PUBLIC AGENCIES OR PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS. THEY EVEN ENGAGED IN SOME KIND OF PARTICIPATORY DESIGN THAT HELP BRING USERS OF THE SYSTEM INTO THE DESIGN OF THE TOOLS. IN OTHER WORDS, THESE WERE SOME OF THE BEST SYSTEMS ÃNOT SOME OF THE WORST. HERE'S A CHALLENGING QUESTION I HOPE THE BUS BOOK ASKS. WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS OF THE COMING AGE OF AI AND MACHINE LEARNING ARE NOT BROKEN SYSTEMS. THEY ARE NOT LACK OF ACCURACY. OR EVEN LACK OF FAIRNESS. I COULD TALK ABOUT THAT A MINUTE. CARRYING OUT THE DEEP SOCIAL PROGRAM AND THE DIGITAL POORHOUSE. SYSTEMS OF A MORAL DIAGNOSIS DIVERTING PEOPLE FROM RESOURCES THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO AND DESERVE. BUT IF THEY CARRY OUT THE IMPERATIVES TO WELL RATHER THAN JUST BREAKING. THE DESIGNERS OF ALL THE SYSTEMS THAT I STUDY FOR THE BOOK REALLY AGREED ON ONE THING. DATA ANALYTICS, MATCHING ALGORITHMS, AUTOMATED DECISION-MAKING ALL THESE TOOLS ARE PERHAPS REGRETTABLE BUT NECESSARY SYSTEMS FOR DOING A DIGITAL TRIAGE. FOR DECIDING WHOSE LIFE IS IMMEDIATELY THREATENED BY A ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND WHO CAN WAIT. THE DECISION TO TRIAGE IS ACTUALLY A POLITICAL CHOICE. THE IDEA THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES WE HAVE TO MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS IS JUST THAT. IT'S AN IDEA. I THINK USING LANGUAGE HIDES THE FACT THAT WE ARE MAKING A POLITICAL CHOICE.TRIAGE IS ONLY APPROPRIATE WHEN THERE'S MORE RESOURCES COMING. IF THERE ARE MORE COMING, WHAT WE DO IS NOT TRIAGE. IF THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DOING WE SHOULDTALK ABOUT IT . WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT. WEDESERVE BETTER . THAT'S WHY I WROTE THE BOOK. I THINK WE DESERVE BETTER AND THE PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER IN THE COMMUNITIES DESERVE BETTER. THE FUNDAMENTAL DANGER OF THE DIGITAL POORHOUSE IS THAT IT DEMANDS THAT WE THINK SMALL. THAT WE STAY WITHIN THESE ARBITRARILY IMPOSED LIMITS TO THE RESOURCES AND OUR IMAGINATION ABOUT HOW WE SOLVE FOR ECONOMIC INEQUALITY. THIS POLITICAL MOMENT THAT WE ARE IN NOW, JUST JUSTICE ITSELF DEMANDS THAT WE THINK BIG AND WE PUSH BACK AGAINST THIS IDEA OF AUSTERITY. I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITHOUT A COUPLE OF NOTES ON POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS. I KNOW THAT OFTEN WHAT AUDIENCES WANT ME TO DO IS WALK INTO A ROOM AND GIVE THEM A FIVE-POINT PLAN FOR BUILDING BETTER TECHNOLOGY. OR FOR CREATING MORE ETHICAL DATA POLICY. I AM SORRY AND YOU ARE WELCOME. IT WON'T DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS. I ACTUALLY THINK THIS IS REALLY BIG WORK ARE DEEP AND PROFOUND LEVEL. IT'S AN ABERRATION THAT SOMETHING THAT JUST HAPPENS TO A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE MAYBE PATHOLOGICAL TO BEGIN WITH. THE REALITY IS THAT 51% OF US AT SOME POINT BETWEEN THE AGES OF 20/64 WILL BE BELOW THE POVERTY LINE. WE WILL BE BELOW THE POVERTY LINE AT SOME POINT . THE MAJORITY OF US. NEARLY 2/3 OF US WILL RECEIVE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. THAT'S NOT REDUCED PRICE SCHOOL LUNCHES OR SOCIAL SECURITY. THAT IS WELFARE IN THE ADULT LIVES ALMOST 2/3 WILL RECEIVE WELFARE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE ARE EQUALLY VULNERABLE. THAT IS UNTRUE. IF YOU ARE PERSON OF COLOR OR PERSON THAT CARES OF OTHER PEOPLE, BORN POOR, PHYSICAL MOBILITY LIMITATIONS. IF YOU ARE A MINOR, YOU ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE POOR AND TO STAY POOR ONE SURE THEY ARE. THE REALITY IS THAT POVERTY IS A MAJORITY CONDITION. SPENDING ALL OF OUR TIMES AND RESOURCES OF MORAL DIAGNOSIS. WITH THE MORAL FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE REAL PROBLEM. IF WE CAN CHANGE THE STORIES IN POVERTY THEN WE CAN SHIFT THE POLITICS OF POVERTY AWAY FROM THIS DIAGNOSTIC AND UNIVERSAL FORCE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S BEEN PROFOUND ABOUT TALKING ABOUT THIS BOOK OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES IS THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY RECOGNIZE IT AS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. INCREASINGLY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THEM AS A SYSTEM ENGINEERING PROBLEM AND I THINK IT SHOULD GIVE US SOME DEEP PAUSE AND NATIONAL SOUL. YOU CAN DECIDE AS A COUNTRY THAT THERE IS A LINE BELOW WHICH IS ALLOWED TO GO FOR ANY REASON. NO ONE LIVES IN A TENT ON THE SIDEWALK . IT'S IN THE MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION. AS WE DO THE CULTURAL AND POLITICAL WORK IN CHANGING THE STORY IN THE POLITICS, TECHNOLOGY WILL NOT JUST STOP AND TWIDDLE ITS ROBOT FINDS WAITING FOR US TO GET TOGETHER. IN THE MEANTIME, WE ALSO HAVE TO TALK ABOUT WAYS TO CREATE TECHNOLOGY THAT DOES LESS HARM. THE WAY WE TALK ABOUT DESIGN FOR JUSTICE IS OFTEN BY TALKING ABOUT TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE DESIGNED TO BE OBJECTIVE AND NEUTRAL. MORE OBJECTIVE DECISION-MAKING IN HUMAN BEINGS. THE REALITY IS BUILDING AND DESIGNING TECHNOLOGY TO BE OBJECTIVE OR NEUTRAL JUST MEANS THAT WE BUILD THEM TO SUPPORT THE STATE . AND, THE METAPHOR OFTEN USE TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND IS THE METAPHOR OF LOADING A CAR. IT'S IN A PLACE THAT'S OFTEN WHERE THE LANDSCAPE IS VERY HILLY AND TWISTY AND TURNING. A LANDSCAPE LIKE SAN FRANCISCO. THERE IS LOTS OF HILLS AND TWISTS AND TURNS. IT'S LIKE BUILDING A CAR AND WITH NO GEARS. SETTING IT ON TOP OF ONE OF THESE HILLS AND BEING SURPRISED WHEN SOMEHOW IT ROCKETS DOWN TO THE BOTTOM. THE REALITY IS WE HAVE TO BUILD THE TOOLS WITH EQUITY GEARS INSTALLED. DESIGNING THE TECHNOLOGY THROUGH ALL THE VALUES IN MIND. EFFICIENCY AND COST SAVINGS ARE IMPORTANT ÃOF COURSE THEY ARE. THEY HAVE TO BE BALANCED WITH COLLECTIVE GOALS. AUTONOMY, DIGNITY, EQUITY AND DUE PROCESS. IF WERE TO HAVE A JUST FUTURE WE WILL HAVE TO BUILD IT ON PURPOSE BITE BY BUT. IF WE OUTSOURCE THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO CARE FOR EACH OTHER AND TO COMPUTERS, WE HAVE NO ONE BUT OURSELVES TO BLAME.THEY SUPERCHARGE THE DISCRIMINATION AND AUTOMATE AUSTERITY. I THANK YOU FOR THIS CONVERSATION. I AM HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT IF IT COMES UP THANK YOU SO I WILL LEAVE THIS HERE FOR NOW. WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE. I'M EXCITED TO HEAR YOUR QUESTIONS. [APPLAUSE] ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU HEAR ME? AWESOME. I EVERYONE. MY NAME IS JACKSON. I AM A MASTER STUDENT HERE AT THE SCHOOL. I AM HERE WITH THE PROGRAM AND A MASTER STUDENT. WE WILL KICKOFF THE Q AND A SESSION WITH SEVERAL QUESTIONS FROM OUR AUDIENCE FOR YOU. WHAT WE WILL START OUT WITH IS CAN YOU START WITH PROXIES IN THE SYSTEM? IT REALLY IS RELATED TO THIS WORK. I WILL START HERE AND MOVE BACKWARDS. DOES ANYONE WANT TO FESS UP WITH THIS BEING THE QUESTION? I LIKE TO MAKE EYE CONTACT. NICE TO MEET YOU. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S INTERESTING, WHEN I WROTE THE BOOK I REALLY THOUGHT I HAD TO AUDIENCES. ONE WAS FOLKS THAT EXPERIENCE THE SYSTEMS IS TARGET. OFTEN WE NEED OUR EXPERIENCE CONFIRMED BY HEARING THAT WE ARE NOT THE ONLY PERSON THAT IT'S EVER HAPPENED TO. WE NEED SO MUCH STIGMA IN THE PROGRAMS EVERYONE THINKS THEY ARE THE ONLY PERSON TO EVER HAVE ONE OF THESE EXPERIENCES THEY ARE OFTEN SURPRISED. I WAS THINKING ABOUT FOLKS OF THE TARGET AND THE DAY TO DAY ASSIGNMENTS.FOLKS THAT BUILD THE MODELS. THE PEOPLE I WASN'T THINKING ABOUT AND I AM NOW REALLY HAD THIS FASCINATING CONVERSATION WITH HIS ORGANIZATIONS ON THE GROUND. THEY ARE SERVING PEOPLE IN TERMS OF BEING IN THE BASIC NEED AND SEEING THESE TOOLS COME UP THROUGH THE SYSTEMS. OFTEN BEING ASKED TO CONSULT ABOUT THE SYSTEMS. THEY DON'T ALWAYS KNOW EXACTLY WHAT QUESTIONS TO ASK. I GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND PHONE CALLS FROM ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE BRONX BRONX DEFENDERS WHO SAY HEY, ÃTHEY WILL MOVE TO POLITICAL ANALYST X AND THEY WANT US TO CONSULT WHAT WE ASK. THIS IS THE MODEL INSPECTION QUESTION. IT'S A COUPLE OF UNDER THE HOOD QUESTIONS. DISCRIMINATORY IMPACTS ON THE SYSTEM. IF IT'S ONLY CORRECTED OR OVER COLLECTED, THE OTHER ISSUE IS SOMETHING PEOPLE SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO. THE ISSUE PROXIES. IT'S NOT ENOUGH DATA TO MODEL THE ACTUAL PHENOMENON THAT THEY ARE INTERESTED IN CHANGING. FOR EXAMPLE, IN CHILD WELFARE, THE ACTUAL HARM TO CHILDREN ON THE REPORT CALLED THE FATALITY AND NEAR FATALITY CHILD FATALITY REPORTS. LUCKILY, FOR THE CHILDREN ALLEGHENY COUNTY, THERE AREN'T THAT MANY OF THESE REPORTS FILED. JUST A HANDFUL. SOME YEARS THERE'S NONE. THAT'S GOOD NEWS FOR KIDS. IT'S BAD NEWS FOR DATA SCIENTISTS. DOESN'T ACTUALLY PROVIDE ENOUGH DATA TO BUILD A RIGOROUS MODEL. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, THEY HAD TO CHOOSE PROXIES WHICH ARE STANDING LIKE PUPPETS THAT STAND IN FOR THE THING THAT YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO MEASURE. IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY, THEY ORIGINALLY CHOSE TO PROXIES THAT STOOD IN FOR ACTUAL CHILD HARM IN THE MODEL. ONE WAS CALLED CHILD REFERRAL. IT'S A CALLER REPORT THAT WAS SCREENED OUT. IT WAS NOT THEY WERE INVESTIGATED IN THE 2ND CALL ON THE SAME CHILD WITHIN TWO YEARS. THE 2ND PROXY WAS CALLED CHILD PLACEMENT. IN CHILD PLACEMENT, IT MEANS THERE'S A COLONY CHILD AND THEY DECIDE TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION AND THE CARETAKER IS INDICATED FOR MALTREATMENT. WE NEVER TALK ABOUT GUILT IN CHILD WELFARE BECAUSE OF THE STANDARD OR EVIDENCE OF SOLO THAT IT'S JUST WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS EVIDENCE INDICATES SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED. SO, THE PARENT HAS INDICATED IN CHILD WELFARE AND THE COURT DECIDE TO TAKE THE CHILD OUT OF THE HOUSE AND PUT THEM IN FOSTER CARE OR AN INSTITUTION. SO, THAT IS CHILD PLACEMENT. NOW, THESE ARE NOT TERRIBLE PROXIES NECESSARILY BUT THEY ARE VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. ACTUAL MALTREATMENT AND HAVING OCCURRED. THE ONE I WAS MOST CONCERNED WITH ÃWHEN I WAS WRITING THE BOOK WAS THIS CALL REFERRAL PROXY. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE DESIGNERS WERE REALLY OUT OF TOUCH. IT'S WITH WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS AROUND CHILD PROTECTIVE. THEY DID NOT KNOW THE NUISANCE CALLING IS A THING THAT HAPPENS. VENDETTA CALLING. IT'S LIKE COMMON. UNFORTUNATELY COMMON THAT PEOPLE USE CALLS TO CHILD WELFARE TO HARASS EACH OTHER LIKE NEIGHBORS OR SOMEONE HAD A PARTY AND THEY GET MAD AND CALL CHILD PROTECTIVE OR THERE IS A COUPLE THAT'S BREAKING UP AND THEY CALL CHILD PROTECTIVE AT EACH OTHER OR FAMILY STRIFE. THIS IDEA THAT TO CALLS ON ONE CHILD MEANS HARM HAS HAPPENED IS ACTUALLY TROUBLING. INCREDIBLY TROUBLING. I THINK INTRODUCING THIS STRUCTURAL SYSTEMIC INEQUALITY THAT BECOMES INVISIBLE BECOMES PART OF THE MODEL BECAUSE IT'S OBJECTIVE AND NEUTRAL. THAT WAS A REAL CONCERN. I THINK YOU COULD ALSO HAVE SIMILAR CONCERNS ABOUT WHICH CHILDREN GET PLACED IN FOSTER CARE. PARTICULARLY CONCERNS ABOUT THE SYSTEM MODELING CHILDREN YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES DECISION-MAKING. THERE IS A COURT SYSTEM IN THERE SO IT'S NOT QUITE THAT SIMPLE. THERE CAN BE REAL CONCERNS ABOUT IT MODELING THE DECISION-MAKING IN CREATING THE FEEDBACK THERE. SINCE THE BOOK WAS PUBLISHED THEY STOPPED USING THE REFERRAL PROXY. NO CALLS OR RELATIONSHIP. THEY ARE STILL USING 1 PROXY. IT'S CHILD PLACEMENT. SO, THE PROXIES ARE THESE LENSES THAT MIGHT ALLOW YOU TO SEE BETTER IF THEY ARE GOOD. IF THEY ARE NOT, I MIGHT DISTORT YOUR VISION. IT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO CHANGE YOU HAVE TO REALLY BE THOUGHTFUL AND TAKE APART THE PIECES OF THE SYSTEM TO KNOW WHETHER IT WILL COME TO A CONCERN TO THINK ABOUT IT. THE NEXT QUESTION IS, WHY IS THE US CONCEPTION POWER THE MORE BIAS TOWARDS JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT COMPARED TO OTHER COUNTRIES? Virginia EubanksTHAT'S A FASCINATING QUESTION. SOMEONE ELSE WANT TO TAKE THIS SO, AT THE MOMENT WE MOVE TOWARDS POORHOUSES. THE MUCH OF THE REST OF THE WORLD WAS MOVING TOWARDS UNIVERSAL PROGRAMS AND YOU KNOW, MY ADMITTEDLY HYPOTHETICAL ANSWER TO THAT FOR MY IDIOSYNCRATIC ANSWER IS A MIX OF THE REAL SUSTAINING HATRED HISTORICALLY SHOWING TOWARDS POOR AND WORKING PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY COMBINED WITH RACISM AND THE HISTORY OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. IT MEANS WE CREATE SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS THAT ARE INTENDED TO BLOCK PEOPLE OF COLOR FROM RECEIVING HELP. BECAUSE WE HAVE WHITE PEOPLE THAT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN, WE ALSO SUFFER UNDER THE SAME PROGRAMS. I THINK IT'S A GREAT POINT OF POSSIBLE POLITICAL IMMOBILIZATION PARTICULARLY NOW. WE COULD FIND A WAY TO WORK ACROSS SOME OF THE EXPERIENCES. IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS REALLY POTENTIALLY A POINT OF HOPE AND OPTIMISM AROUND THE SYSTEMS. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO GET A POORHOUSE IN EVERY SINGLE COUNTY AND THE UNITED STATES. DIDN'T WORK OUT THAT WAY. PARTIALLY BECAUSE THEY ENDED UP BEING WAY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN ECONOMICALLY THOUGHT BUT THEY SAID STOP. INSTITUTION THE THAT HAD HUGE GROUPS OF WORKING PEOPLE TOGETHER FOR LONG GROUPS OF TIME WHERE THEY SAT AND ATE MEALS AND TOOK CARE OF EACH OTHER'S KIDS AND NURSED EACH OTHER ONE THEY WERE SICK AND ALSO DID HORRIBLE THINGS TO EACH OTHER BUT THE REALITY WAS THEY BECAME THESE PLACES THAT BECAME PLACES OF RESISTANCE. THAT WAS LIKELY A REASON. ONE OF MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE DIGITAL POORHOUSE RATHER THAN THE ORIGINAL INSTITUTION IS THAT IT COULD CONSERVE MANY OF THE SAME DISCIPLINARY AND PUNITIVE PURPOSES OF A PHYSICAL INSTITUTION WITHOUT ACTUALLY GATHERING PEOPLE TOGETHER IN THE SAME SPACE IN A WAY THAT MIGHT CREATE SOLIDARITY. THE RAY OF HOPE HERE IS THAT THESE SYSTEMS SCALE SO QUICKLY AND OUR NETWORK SO DEEPLY THAT THEY TOUCH OUR LIVES VERY QUICKLY. SO, I THINK THEY MIGHT ALSO OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO SEE OUR EXPERIENCES MIRRORED WITH EACH OTHER AND USING THAT AS A WAY TO DO POLITICAL ORGANIZING. IT COULD ON CDS DEEP CULTURAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF POVERTY. I THINK IT'S HARD WORK. IT'S A GREAT QUESTION, THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT QUESTION. THIS QUESTION IS REGARD TO DATA THAT WE GATHERED IN THE PRE-AUTOMATED SYSTEM. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DATA THAT WE GENERATED IN THE EARLY ÃMID IS THERE A TURN TO THAT SORT OF STRONG CASE. IS IT AN OPTION OR DESIRABLE RELATIVE TO THE NEW SYSTEM? THERE IS 2 QUESTIONS IN THERE. I WILL ANSWER THE 1ST 1 FAST AND TAKE A TINY BIT MORE TIME WITH THE 2ND 1. SO, MASSIVE DATA COLLECTIONS ON POOR PEOPLE IS NOT NEW WITH DIGITAL DATA. ONE OF THE THINGS I TALKED ABOUT THE BOOK IS LIKE THE MOVEMENT WHICH WAS PART OF ITS SPECIFIC GOAL TO GATHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS SOCIAL DISEASE OF POOR WHITE FAMILIES. IT'S A DEEPLY RACIST PROJECT OF TRYING TO CLEANSE THE WHITE RACE FROM WITHIN BY IDENTIFYING THE DEGENERATE WHITE FAMILIES. ONE OF THE THINGS I SAY IN THE BOOK IS THAT THE OFFICE IN COLD SPRING NEW YORK WAS PROBABLY THE 1ST BIG DATA CENTER FOR THE POOR IN THE UNITED STATES. THIS IS NOT NEW. WHAT IS NEW IS THE POTENTIAL FOR THIS DATA TO LAST FOREVER. LIBRARIANS ROLLED HER EYES BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT IF YOU HAVE A JAZZ DISC SOMEWHERE IN YOUR HOME, YOU KNOW THAT BECAUSE IS DIGITAL IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN ACCESS IT LATER BUT THE REALITY IS THAT PAPER RECORDS OR PHOTOGRAPHIC SLIDES TAKE UP SPACE. EVENTUALLY THEY HAVE TO GET PUT AWAY SOMEWHERE FAR AWAY. THEY ARE NOT AS INTEGRATED OR EASY TO ACCESS AS DIGITAL DATA IS. THE 2ND PART THAT'S ALSO REALLY INTERESTING IS THE SOLUTION A RETURN TO STRONG CASEWORK.I THINK IT GETS TO SOME OF THE DEEP TENSION AT THE HEART OF THIS WORK.THERE IS TO ALMOST IRRECONCILABLE TENSIONS. ONE IS RUN INTEGRATION WHICH IS AROUND HOW TO CONNECT DATA ACROSS DIFFERENT SYSTEMS CAN BOTH HELP AND HURT POOR AND WORKING PEOPLE. BUT, MY CASEWORKER USES THEM A WAY TO TRACK ALL OF MY PURCHASES. I MUST'VE HAD THIS SUPER SHOCKED LOOK BECAUSE SHE KIND OF POINTED AT ME AND LAUGHED FOR LIKE 3 MINUTES. I KIND OF CRIED A LITTLE BIT AND PATTED MY KNEE FOR A WHILE LIKE OH, PUMPKIN. AND THEN SHE GOT A LITTLE BIT MORE QUIET AND SAID, OH, VIRGINIA, YOU ALL, PROFESSIONAL MIDDLE-CLASS PEOPLE, YOU SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT'S HAPPENING TO US, PEOPLE ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BECAUSE THEY COME FOR YOU NEXT AND THIS IS I FEEL LIKE, THIS IS WHY DOROTHY'S IN THE BACK OF MY HEAD. IT'S LIKE A REMARKABLE PRESENCE I AM ALWAYS LOOKING FOR THE FOLKS WHO ARE TARGETED IN THE SYSTEM TO SPEAK 1ST. NOT THE ONLY STORIES I TELL BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT STORIES I TELL. THESE ARE FOLKS WHO ARE ALREADY LIVING IN THE FUTURE OF TECHNOLOGIES. THEY ARE EXPERTS AND HOW THEY WORK. IT'S ABOUT EVERYTHING IN THE FUTURE. I'M NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD ONLY CARE ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT MIGHT IMPACT YOU BUT THERE'S A MORAL ARGUMENT TO CARE ABOUT IF IT'S ONLY HAPPENING TO POOR FOLKS. WE STILL CARE. REALLY, I THINK DOROTHY IS RIGHT. ONE OF THE THINGS I STRUGGLING THIS YEAR IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE CLEARLY THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PLANS TO SAVE $88 BILLION OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS AND MIDDLE-CLASS ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. SOCIAL SECURITY BY USING THE SAME TOOLS. DEEPLY CONCERNING THAT BOTH OF THESE TOOLS HAVE BEEN TESTED ON FOLKS WHO LIVE IN WHAT YOU CAN CONSIDER AS AN ENVIRONMENT AND ARE ESPECIALLY VULNERABLE. AND THAT THE TOOLS ARE BEING RAMPED UP FOR EVERYONE. THIS IS DEEPLY CONCERNING. SO I THINK IT'S NOT AN ACCIDENT THAT THIS STUFF IS ALL HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME. WE ARE GETTING THIS EXPANSION OF WORK REQUIREMENTS THAT WE GET THIS EXPANSION OF SANCTIONS INTO THE NONTARIFF PROGRAMS THAT WE BUILD TECHNOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY TO DO IT SO EFFICIENTLY. IN THE POLITICAL MOMENT THAT WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW WHICH IS THE MOMENT THAT'S CHARACTERIZED BY DEEP ECONOMIC SUFFERING , ETHNIC AND RACIAL NATIONALISM AND DEEP DISTRUST OF GOVERNMENT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS SO FASCINATING IS THAT THEY HAVE THIS INCREDIBLE TRUST FOR THE GOVERNMENT.OH NO, ONE CAR THAT HAS EVERYTHING ON IT. MEDICAL RECORDS, PUBLIC Ã VOTING, PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, SCHOOLING. I JUST KEPT GETTING MORE AND MORE PASSION AND I SAID, I AM BOTH SUPER JEALOUS OF YOU ALL FOR TRUSTING YOUR GOVERNMENT THAT MUCH AND I FEEL LIKE YOU ARE A TODDLER WHOSE HAND I NEED TO SMACK AWAY FROM A FIRE. YOU SHOULD STOP GIVING THIS DATA TO THE GOVERNMENT. WHY DID YOU INVITE ME HERE? WHY AM I HEAR? DO YOU WANT TO FEEL MORALLY SUPERIOR? WELL, A LITTLE. YES, I KNOW. THANK YOU FOR THE FLIGHT TO HELSINKI.THEY ALSO SAID, LOOK, WE THINK OUR TOOLS ARE COMING EVERYWHERE. WHEN YOU TRUST THE GOVERNMENT ENOUGH AND THERE IS REGIME CHANGE. WE KNOW A LOT ABOUT THIS. LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS. LIKE THE DOCCA DATABASE. UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DEFERRING THE DEPORTATION OF THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE LEGAL STATUS. SOMETHING LIKE 800,000 YOUTH AND YOUNG PEOPLE AND YOUNG ADULTS. GAVE THEIR INFORMATION TO THE DATABASE. IN 2016, SUDDENLY IT TURNED INTO A DATABASE THAT COULD BE USED DIRECTLY FOR DEPORTATION. SO ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS THAT I ASK AND I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR IS THAT I AM REALLY INTERESTED IN HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. IS THERE A WAY TO BUILD THESE TOOLS TO HAVE UNINHABITABLE VALUES? YOU CAN'T LOSE THEM AGAINST THE ORIGINAL INTENT. AFTER THE LARGER VALUES WITH THE EQUITY AND SELF-DETERMINATION BUILT-IN IN A WAY THAT YOU CAN'T UNDO THEM. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT I'M INTERESTED IN HAVING THAT CONVERSATION. THE LONG ANSWER BUT A GOOD QUESTION. GREAT IT'S THE LAST QUESTIONS WE HAVE TIME FOR. WE KNOW FROM THE SOCIOLOGICAL LITERATURE THAT THERE ARE CLASS DIFFERENCES IN PARENTING. TO WHAT DEGREE ARE WE CRIMINALIZING WORKING-CLASS PARENTING USING THE STANDARDS OF CULTIVATION? SAY WHAT THE LAST THING IS? TO WHAT DEGREE ARE WE CRIMINALIZING WORKING-CLASS PARENTING USING THE STANDARDS OF CONCERTED CULTIVATION. Virginia EubanksI DON'T KNOW WHAT CONCERTED CULTIVATION IS SO I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. [SPEAKING WAFER MICROPHONE] IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. NOT ONE THAT I KNOW I AM PREPARED TO DEFINITIVELY ANSWER BUT WHAT I CAN SAY IS ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS ABOUT MY TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEM. IT'S WHAT WE THINK OF THEM AS THE SIMPLE ADMINISTRATIVE UPGRADES. NOT AS POLITICAL DECISION-MAKING MACHINES. IN FACT, THEY ARE POLITICAL DECISION-MAKING MACHINES. YOU CAN EASILY PROGRAM THEM IN WAYS THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND OURSELVES TO UPHOLD A STANDARD FOR PARENTING OR WORK BEHAVIOR AND DISABILITY OR WHATEVER. IN WAYS THAT PRODUCE THESE AUTOMATED INEQUALITIES. IT'S REALLY A BIG CONCERN I'M WRITING ABOUT THE BOOK. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT UNDERSTANDING A SYSTEMS AS POLITICAL DECISION-MAKING HELPS US DO IS RECOGNIZING THAT THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF EXPERTISE THAT NEED TO BE IN THE ROOM WE TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS.WE TEND TO SAY, ANY DATA SCIENTISTS, ECONOMISTS, SOCIAL SCIENTIST. WHAT MIGHT BE A DATA EMPHASIS Ã MAYBE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. THE REALITY IS, IF YOU DON'T KNOW FROM THE GROUND, ABOUT COMMUNITY VALUES AND COMMUNITY CULTURE THEN YOU MIGHT WELL BUILD INTO THESE TOOLS AND THE KINDS OF DECISIONS AND MODELS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE FOR PEOPLE ON THE GROUND. WHAT I WILL SAY IS KATHY WHO WORK FOR AN ORGANIZATION IN PITTSBURGH THAT HELP SUPPORT PARENTS THAT ARE ACCUSED OF MALTREATMENT. ONCE YOU GET IN THE DOOR, WE RAISE THE STANDARD ON YOUR PARENTING SO HIGH THAT FAILURE WELL IT DOES BECOME INEVITABLE, BECOMES MUCH MORE LIKELY. WE RAISE THE STANDARD ON YOUR PARENTING SO HIGH THAT WE CAN'T OFFER YOU THE RESOURCES TO KEEP YOUR PARENTING UP THERE. THAT IS REALLY ONE OF THE MAJOR PROBLEMS IN THE SYSTEM. ONE OF THE MAJOR PROBLEMS IN THE SYSTEM IS BECAUSE WE HAVE SHREDDED THE CHILD CARE SYSTEM WITH THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET AND OTHER PLACES. THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM WOULD BECOME THE RESOURCE SUPPLIER OF LAST RESORT'S FOR POOR FAMILIES. THAT MEANS THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE HORRIBLE TRADE-OFF OF A REQUEST TO SUPPORT TO KEEP YOUR FAMILY HEALTHYAND SAFE BUT IN REQUESTING IT , AGREEING THAT THE STATE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REMOVE YOUR KIDS. SO, CHILD WELFARE IS NOT MEANS TESTED. YOU COULD BE ANY CLASS AND USE THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM BUT, FAMILIES THAT HAVE IT AVOIDED. BECAUSE THAT TRADE-OFF IS AN UNFAIR THING TO ASK. I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE IS THAT OUR CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM MIXES THE 2 GOALS OF PROTECTING FAMILIES AND PROSECUTING MALTREATMENT. I THINK THERE'S A BIGGER LESSON IN THAT FOR THE SYSTEMS. THERE IS A WAY THAT THESE SYSTEMS INCREASE THE POLICING IMPERATIVE OF SOCIAL SERVICE SYSTEMS AND INTEGRATE SOCIAL SERVICE SYSTEMS WERE DEEPLY WITH PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS AND PLACING. THAT'S WHY I THINK MANY OF THEM CAN BE SEEN AS PROFOUNDLY CRIMINALIZING. YES. IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE. THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR QUESTIONS AND THANK YOU PROFESSOR EUBANKS FOR COMING IN TO US AT THE FORD SCHOOL. Virginia EubanksTHANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. [APPLAUSE] WE INVITE EVERYONE TO JOIN US IN THE GREAT HALL FOR THE RECEPTION AND TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATIONS AND HAVE SOME SNACKS. Virginia Eubanks: THANK YOU SO MUCH.