Virginia Eubanks: Automating inequality

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.