Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 128 references

Data and Technology for Equitable Public Administration: Understanding City Government Employees' Challenges and Needs

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that city government employees' ability to put equity into practice is constrained less by technology than by organizational conditions—confusion over equity versus equality, informal equity roles, and an Equity Office…

desk verdict A transparent, carefully executed qualitative study of city employees' equity work that deserves refereeing; its selection-bias limits are real but honestly handled. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21682 v1 pith:NGRQJWF6 submitted 2025-05-27 cs.CY cs.HC

Angie Zhang , Madison Liao , Elizaveta (Lee) Kravchenko , Marshanah Taylor , Angela Haddad , Chandra Bhat , S. Craig Watkins , Min Kyung Lee This is my paper
classification cs.CYcs.HC
keywords publicadministrationequitygovernmenttechnologydataqualitativeinterviewscityalgorithmicfairnesssector
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that the biggest obstacles to equitable public-sector technology are organizational, not technical: city employees struggle to operationalize equity because they conflate equity with equality, because equity roles and responsibilities are often informal and optional, and because the central Equity Office lacks authority to compel departments to act. Those conditions, the authors argue, shape what data employees say they need—standardized, granular, centralized, representative, and proxy-based—and which technologies they will accept. The study is based on two rounds of semi-structured interviews with thirty-six employees across ten departments of one large U.S. city. A sympathetic reader would take the contribution to be a detailed, employee-sourced map of the equity context that any data system or AI tool must fit into.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the qualitative interview study itself, analyzed through deductive-inductive coding and axial coding to yield four themes: 'Operationalizing Equity', 'Equity Context', 'Data and Equity', and 'Tech and Equity'. Within that structure, the load-bearing mechanism is the concept of an employee's 'equity context'—the definitions, formal roles, and organizational authority that govern how equity is practiced—which the authors use as the lens for eliciting data needs and technology boundaries. The Equity Office's limited authority and the reliance on proxies are the specific organizational dynamics that connect equity context to data and technology choices.

What would settle it

A replication in another large U.S. city that recruits employees through channels wholly independent of any equity office and finds, for example, no relationship between formalized equity roles and employees' clarity about equity directives, or no tendency to equate equity with equality, would undercut the claim that these organizational conditions are what shape employees' data and technology needs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that employees' equity practices are the missing context for public-sector data and technology design. Employees across departments hold similar equity goals—fair hiring, targeted assistance, redressing systemic harm—but their ability to act on those goals is shaped by three organizational conditions: persistent confusion between equity and equality, weak formalization of equity roles (with formal roles creating clarity and informal roles creating reliance on volunteers), and an Equity Office whose only real tool is an assess-then-recommend process that departments can ignore. These conditions, not technical capability, determine the five data needs (standardized, granular, centralized, representative, proxy) and the six boundaries of acceptable technology (informing decisions, automating objective tasks, improving community presence, reducing subjectivity, improving public safety, clarifying government processes) that employees articulate.

Load-bearing premise

The interviewees were recruited partly through the Equity Office and in the first round interviewed with an Equity Office representative present, so their responses may reflect who felt comfortable volunteering and what they felt safe saying, rather than the full range of equity practices across the city's departments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If employees conflate equity with equality, any fairness metric or AI tool that optimizes for equal treatment will likely be accepted even when it entrenches disparate outcomes.
  • Because the Equity Office cannot compel action, the burden of equity work falls on individual volunteers, so data and technology interventions should be designed to reduce rather than increase that burden.
  • Data that is standardized, granular, centralized, and representative is a precondition employees themselves name for measuring long-term equity outcomes that span departments like housing and transportation.
  • Employees' boundaries on technology are internally consistent: they accept automation and AI for objective tasks, information retrieval, and bias-checking, but reject any replacement of human decision-making or customer service.
  • Design processes that begin with employees' equity practices, separate from any proposed system, are more likely to surface ideas employees would otherwise suppress as inefficient or costly.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the pattern holds, cities without an equity office may show even wider variation in how employees define equity, and the paper's own logic suggests equity work would then be carried even more heavily by individual champions—an implication the authors raise but do not test.
  • The proxy-based approach to racial equity is a pressure point: the paper reports employees' own frustration that proxies miss people who experienced harm, so a plausible extension is to test whether proxy-based targeting systematically under-delivers to the racial groups it is meant to represent.
  • A testable extension would be to turn the five data needs and six technology boundaries into a survey instrument administered across many cities, checking whether the same categories emerge where equity offices have more enforcement authority.
  • The finding that employees accept AI mainly for objective tasks and information retrieval suggests that procurement guidance emphasizing these uses, rather than predictive or decision-making automation, may face less worker resistance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a qualitative interview study of 36 employees across 10 departments of a large U.S. city government, examining how city employees define and operationalize equity, what data and technology needs and boundaries they identify for advancing equity, and how the organizational context shapes these. The data come from two rounds of semi-structured interviews (2021–2022), with deductive-inductive coding, axial coding, member checking, and a positionality statement. The central findings are that employees struggle with equity-versus-equality definitions and with weakly formalized equity roles; that the centralized Equity Office has limited formal authority and relies on relationships and proxies; that employees articulate five categories of data needs (standardized, granular, centralized, representative, and proxy data); and that employees describe six boundaries for acceptable government technology, together with concerns about AI procurement and vendor pressure. The discussion proposes foregrounding equity in technology design and considers how to support employees with or without an equity office.

Significance. If the findings hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to CSCW/HCI research on public-sector technology by centering employees' equity practices rather than technology features alone. Its methodological strengths are real: the two-round design, the inclusion of a follow-up round without the Equity Office present, explicit member checking, a reflective positionality statement, and detailed reporting of departments and participants. The paper also offers concrete, falsifiable design directions, such as tools for long-term equity measurement and for bridging siloed departmental data, and it candidly acknowledges the main limitations of recruitment and single-city scope. The study is exploratory rather than confirmatory, and its value lies in surfacing under-documented organizational dynamics for future research and design work.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2, §5.1.4, §7] The sampling strategy creates a real threat to the central descriptive claim. First-round recruitment was initiated by the Equity Office's email to department heads, an Equity Office representative attended first-round interviews, and second-round recruitment explicitly sought 'equity positions' via snowball referral. The resulting sample is therefore likely enriched with employees who are comfortable with, and invested in, equity discourse. The finding that equity work is voluntary and under-supported, and specifically that the Equity Office has limited authority, could be an artifact of who volunteered rather than a stable property of the organization. The Limitations section (Section 7) states this candidly, but the abstract and findings sections do not carry the same qualification. I recommend (a) explicitly framing the findings as the perspectives of a self-selected sample of equity-engaged employees rather than as organization-level facts, and (b) presenting the 'limited authority' of the Equity Office as P36's account (Section 5.1.4) unless corroborating evidence from other participants is available. This is a load-bearing issue for the paper's claims about organizational conditions shaping data and technology needs.
  2. [§6.2.1] The Discussion asserts that the Equity Office's existence and weakened authority 'actually appeared to be contributing factors to participants' sometimes unclear awareness around their accountability towards practicing equity.' This is a causal interpretation that goes beyond what the interview data can support: participants reported differences in formalization and accountability across departments, and P36 reported the office's limited authority, but no participant is quoted as describing a causal link between the office's existence or weak authority and their own confusion about accountability. The correlation observed across departments is consistent with the interpretation, but it is also consistent with other mechanisms, such as the novelty of equity initiatives or variation in managerial support. I recommend reframing this as an interpretive hypothesis or a design concern to be tested, rather than as a finding.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.3.2] The statement 'All employees were adamant against any replacement of human decision-making and customer service roles' reports an unqualified frequency without a count or a clear denominator, and not every participant was asked about AI. Please either provide the number of participants who expressed this view or qualify the claim to the subset who discussed AI.
  2. [§2.2] The citation lists contain duplicated reference numbers: '[66, 67, 67]' and '[64–66, 66, 67, 67, 101, 103]' should be cleaned up.
  3. [Table 1] It is not immediately obvious that some participants (e.g., P6, P8, P25, P26, P27) appear in both rounds; a footnote clarifying the count of unique participants would be helpful.
  4. [§5.1.1] The phrase 'Most employees confirmed alignment with City's definition' would benefit from a numerical detail, as the paper elsewhere reports counts of participants and departments.
  5. [§3] The novelty claim that 'such a qualitative study ... has not yet been undertaken' is hard to verify; the existing hedge 'To our understanding' helps, but a softer formulation such as 'to our knowledge' would be more precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: findings are thematic summaries of primary interview data, with no fitted inputs, predictions, or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

This is an empirical qualitative interview study with no fitted parameters, no predictive model, and no derivation chain. The central claims—employees face challenges operationalizing equity, articulate five data needs (standardized, granular, centralized, representative, proxies), and define boundaries for acceptable technology—are thematic summaries of semi-structured interviews with 36 employees, coded deductively and inductively from transcripts (Section 4.3). None of these findings is defined into existence: the paper's working definition of equity comes from the city's Equity Office and public administration scholarship (Section 4.1), independently of the interview themes. The only author self-citation is reference [128], used in Section 5.3.1 ('This falls in line with [128]'s findings that participants wanted AI tools that act as "bias checkers"'), a corroborative aside about a prior empirical study; it does not load-bear the paper's central claims about equity practices or data needs. The second-round interviews were used for member-checking interpretations (Section 4.3), not for fitting a parameter that later reappears as a finding. The acknowledged recruitment-through-the-Equity-Office and self-selection concerns (Sections 4.2 and 7) are sample-validity threats, not circularity: they bear on whether the participants are representative of the broader workforce, not on whether the reported outputs are presupposed by the study's inputs. No equation, definition, or self-citation chain reduces any reported result to its own premises. Verdict: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative empirical study with no fitted parameters or invented entities. The central claims rest on domain assumptions from public administration literature (equity as a pillar) and method assumptions (interview self-reports and thematic coding validly capture practices). No ad hoc axioms are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Social equity is a legitimate foundational objective of U.S. public administration, alongside economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.
    Adopted from public administration literature in Sections 1 and 3 (ASPA, NAPA, Frederickson) and used to frame the research questions.
  • domain assumption Participants' self-reports in semi-structured interviews accurately reflect their departments' equity goals, practices, and challenges.
    The findings in Section 5 are built on what employees said; the paper acknowledges in Limitations that comfort, Equity Office presence, and self-selection may have shaped responses.
  • domain assumption Deductively and inductively coded interview transcripts, combined via axial coding, yield themes that represent the range of employee perspectives.
    Section 4.3 describes the qualitative analysis method; the validity of thematic interpretation is assumed rather than externally verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data and Technology for Equitable Public Administration: Understanding City Government Employees' Challenges and Needs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NGRQJWF6

@misc{pith2026250521682,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data and Technology for Equitable Public Administration: Understanding City Government Employees' Challenges and Needs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NGRQJWF6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21682}
}
read the original abstract

City governments in the United States are increasingly pressured to adopt emerging technologies. Yet, these systems often risk biased and disparate outcomes. Scholars studying public sector technology design have converged on the need to ground these systems in the goals and organizational contexts of employees using them. We expand our understanding of employees' contexts by focusing on the equity practices of city government employees to surface important equity considerations around public sector data and technology use. Through semi-structured interviews with thirty-six employees from ten departments of a U.S. city government, our findings reveal challenges employees face when operationalizing equity, perspectives on data needs for advancing equity goals, and the design space for acceptable government technology. We discuss what it looks like to foreground equity in data use and technology design, and considerations for how to support city government employees in operationalizing equity with and without official equity offices.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [128]

    Angie Zhang, Olympia Walker, Kaci Nguyen, Jiajun Dai, Anqing Chen, and Min Kyung Lee. 2023. Deliberating with AI: improving decision-making for the future through participatory AI design and stakeholder deliberation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–32. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2025

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    https://napawash.org/grand-challenges-blog/roundtable-on-social-equity

    2020. https://napawash.org/grand-challenges-blog/roundtable-on-social-equity

    2020

  3. [2]

    https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2021/02/local-governments-aim-to-improve- racial-equity-and-social-justic/

    2021. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2021/02/local-governments-aim-to-improve- racial-equity-and-social-justic/

    2021

  4. [3]

    https://www.smeinc.com/news-events/article/what-is-placemaking/

    2022. https://www.smeinc.com/news-events/article/what-is-placemaking/

    2022

  5. [4]

    Repository of city racial equity policies and decisions

    2022. Repository of city racial equity policies and decisions. https://www.nlc.org/resource/repository-of-city-racial- equity-policies-and-decisions/

    2022

  6. [5]

    https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/public-sector/us-gps-tech-trends-2023.pdf

    2023. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/public-sector/us-gps-tech-trends-2023.pdf

    2023

  7. [6]

    S. Zanti M. Katz E. Berkowitz et al A. Hawn Nelson, D. Jenkins. 2020. A Toolkit for Centering Racial Equity Throughout Data Integration. University of Pennsylvania. https://aisp.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/AISP-Toolkit_5. 27.20.pdf

    2020

  8. [7]

    Ali Alkhatib and Michael Bernstein. 2019. Street-level algorithms: A theory at the gaps between policy and decisions. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    2019

Show all 128 references
  1. [8]

    Sylvia Archmann, Castillo Iglesias, et al. 2010. eGovernment: A driving force for innovation and efficiency in public administration. EIPAScope 2010, 1 (2010), 29–36

    2010

  2. [9]

    ASPA. 2024. What Is Social Equity? Diversity? Equity? Inclusion? Accessibility? https://www.aspanet.org/ASPA/ ASPA/About-ASPA/Social-Equity-Center/Definitions.aspx

    2024

  3. [10]

    Brandi Blessett. 2018. Embedding cultural competence and racial justice in public administration programs. , 425–429 pages

    2018

  4. [11]

    Brandi Blessett, Jennifer Dodge, Beverly Edmond, Holly T Goerdel, Susan T Gooden, Andrea M Headley, Norma M Riccucci, and Brian N Williams. 2019. Social equity in public administration: A call to action. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 2, 4 (2019), 283–299

    2019

  5. [12]

    Erin L Borry and Heather Getha-Taylor. 2019. Automation in the public sector: Efficiency at the expense of equity? Public Integrity 21, 1 (2019), 6–21

    2019

  6. [13]

    Mark Bovens and Stavros Zouridis. 2002. From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: how information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control.Public administration review 62, 2 (2002), 174–184

    2002

  7. [14]

    Sarah Bowen, Sinikka Elliott, and Annie Hardison-Moody. 2021. The structural roots of food insecurity: How racism is a fundamental cause of food insecurity. Sociology Compass 15, 7 (2021), e12846

    2021

  8. [15]

    Sarah Brayne. 2014. Surveillance and system avoidance: Criminal justice contact and institutional attachment. American Sociological Review 79, 3 (2014), 367–391

    2014

  9. [16]

    San Francisco Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office. 2019. Survey of Other Local Offices of Equity and Current Efforts by the City and County of San Francisco to Address Racial and Other Inequities

    2019

  10. [17]

    Justin B Bullock. 2019. Artificial intelligence, discretion, and bureaucracy.The American Review of Public Administration 49, 7 (2019), 751–761

    2019

  11. [18]

    Denita Cepiku and Marco Mastrodascio. 2021. Equity in public services: A systematic literature review. Public Administration Review 81, 6 (2021), 1019–1032

    2021

  12. [19]

    Hao-Fei Cheng, Logan Stapleton, Anna Kawakami, Venkatesh Sivaraman, Yanghuidi Cheng, Diana Qing, Adam Perer, Kenneth Holstein, Zhiwei Steven Wu, and Haiyi Zhu. 2022. How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Disparities in Algorithmic Decisions. In CHI Conference on Human Factor...

    2022

  13. [20]

    Alexandra Chouldechova, Diana Benavides-Prado, Oleksandr Fialko, and Rhema Vaithianathan. 2018. A case study of algorithm-assisted decision making in child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. PMLR, 134–148

    2018

  14. [21]

    Wm Arthur Conklin. 2007. Barriers to Adoption of e-Government. In2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’07) . IEEE, 98–98

    2007

  15. [22]

    National Research Council et al . 2002. Information technology research, innovation, and e-government . National Academies Press

    2002

  16. [23]

    John W Creswell and Dana L Miller. 2000. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice 39, 3 (2000), 124–130

    2000

  17. [24]

    Lei Cui, Gang Xie, Youyang Qu, Longxiang Gao, and Yunyun Yang. 2018. Security and privacy in smart cities: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE access 6 (2018), 46134–46145. 5https://goodsystems.utexas.edu , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2025. Data and Tec...

    2018

  18. [25]

    Maria De-Arteaga, Riccardo Fogliato, and Alexandra Chouldechova. 2020. A case for humans-in-the-loop: Decisions in the presence of erroneous algorithmic scores. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12

    2020

  19. [26]

    The cavalry ain’t coming in to save us

    Jessa Dickinson, Mark Díaz, Christopher A Le Dantec, and Sheena Erete. 2019. " The cavalry ain’t coming in to save us" Supporting Capacities and Relationships through Civic Tech. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–21

    2019

  20. [27]

    Kathy Dobson. 2019. Welfare fraud 2.0? Using big data to surveil, stigmatize, and criminalize the poor. Canadian Journal of Communication 44, 3 (2019), 331–342

    2019

  21. [28]

    Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel. 2012. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference . 214–226

    2012

  22. [29]

    Wolfgang E Ebbers, Marloes GM Jansen, and Alexander JAM van Deursen. 2016. Impact of the digital divide on e-government: Expanding from channel choice to channel usage. Government information quarterly 33, 4 (2016), 685–692

    2016

  23. [30]

    Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor . St. Martin’s Press

    2018

  24. [31]

    Marcos Fernández-Gutiérrez and Steven Van de Walle. 2019. Equity or efficiency? Explaining public officials’ values. Public Administration Review 79, 1 (2019), 25–34

    2019

  25. [32]

    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2021. At A Glance: CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index. (2021)

    2021

  26. [33]

    NYC Automated Decision Systems Task Force. 2019. New York City Automated Decision Systems Task Force Report

    2019

  27. [34]

    George Frederickson. 2005. The state of social equity in American public administration. National Civic Review 94, 4 (2005), 31–38

    2005

  28. [35]

    H George Frederickson. 1980. New public administration. University Alabama Press

    1980

  29. [36]

    H George Frederickson. 1990. Public administration and social equity. Public Administration Review 50, 2 (1990), 228–237

    1990

  30. [37]

    Shirin Ghaffary. 2019. New York City wants to make sure the AI and algorithms it uses aren’t biased. That’s harder than it sounds. Vox. April 11 (2019)

    2019

  31. [38]

    Philip Gillingham. 2019. Decision support systems, social justice and algorithmic accountability in social work: A new challenge. Practice 31, 4 (2019), 277–290

    2019

  32. [39]

    Apoorva Gondimalla, Varshinee Sreekanth, Govind Joshi, Whitney Nelson, Eunsol Choi, Stephen C Slota, Sherri R Greenberg, Kenneth R Fleischmann, and Min Kyung Lee. 2024. Aligning Data with the Goals of an Organization and Its Workers: Designing Data Labeling for Social Service ...

    2024

  33. [40]

    Susan Gooden and Shannon Portillo. 2011. Advancing social equity in the Minnowbrook tradition. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21, suppl_1 (2011), i61–i76

    2011

  34. [41]

    Susan T Gooden. 2015. From equality to social equity. Public administration evolving (2015), 210–231

    2015

  35. [42]

    Susan T Gooden. 2015. Race and social equity: A nervous area of government . Routledge

    2015

  36. [43]

    Ben Green, Gabe Cunningham, Ariel Ekblaw, Paul Kominers, Andrew Linzer, and Susan P Crawford. 2017. Open data privacy. Berkman Klein Center Research Publication 2017-1 (2017), 17–07

    2017

  37. [44]

    Nina Grgic-Hlaca, Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Krishna P Gummadi, and Adrian Weller. 2016. The case for process fairness in learning: Feature selection for fair decision making. In NIPS symposium on machine learning and the law , Vol. 1. Barcelona, Spain, 11

    2016

  38. [45]

    Juan Guerrero-Ibáñez, Sherali Zeadally, and Juan Contreras-Castillo. 2018. Sensor technologies for intelligent transportation systems. Sensors 18, 4 (2018), 1212

    2018

  39. [46]

    Alex Hanna, Emily Denton, Andrew Smart, and Jamila Smith-Loud. 2020. Towards a critical race methodology in algorithmic fairness. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency . 501–512

    2020

  40. [47]

    Ben Hayes. 2012. The surveillance-industrial complex. In Routledge handbook of surveillance studies . Routledge, 167–175

    2012

  41. [48]

    Nuri Heckler. 2017. Publicly desired color-blindness: Whiteness as a realized public value. Administrative Theory & Praxis 39, 3 (2017), 175–192

    2017

  42. [49]

    Natalie Helbig, J Ramón Gil-García, and Enrico Ferro. 2009. Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government information quarterly 26, 1 (2009), 89–97

    2009

  43. [50]

    Paul Henman. 2020. Improving public services using artificial intelligence: possibilities, pitfalls, governance. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration 42, 4 (2020), 209–221

    2020

  44. [51]

    Sara Hinkley. 2023. Technology in the public sector and the future of government work. (2023)

    2023

  45. [52]

    Sally Ho and Garance Burke. 2023. Child welfare algorithm faces Justice Department scrutiny. AP News (2023). , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2025. 24 Zhang et al

    2023

  46. [53]

    Kenneth Holstein, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hal Daumé III, Miro Dudik, and Hanna Wallach. 2019. Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–16

    2019

  47. [54]

    Naja Holten Møller, Irina Shklovski, and Thomas T Hildebrandt. 2020. Shifting concepts of value: Designing algorithmic decision-support systems for public services. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human- Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society . 1–12

    2020

  48. [55]

    Stephanie House-Niamke and Adam Eckerd. 2021. Institutional injustice: How public administration has fostered and can ameliorate racial disparities. Administration & Society 53, 2 (2021), 305–324

    2021

  49. [56]

    Elvira Ismagilova, Laurie Hughes, Nripendra P Rana, and Yogesh K Dwivedi. 2020. Security, privacy and risks within smart cities: Literature review and development of a smart city interaction framework. Information Systems Frontiers (2020), 1–22

    2020

  50. [57]

    Abigail Z Jacobs and Hanna Wallach. 2021. Measurement and fairness. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 375–385

    2021

  51. [58]

    Marijn Janssen and George Kuk. 2016. The challenges and limits of big data algorithms in technocratic governance. , 371–377 pages

    2016

  52. [59]

    2015.Justice for all: Promoting social equity in public administration

    Norman J Johnson and James H Svara. 2015.Justice for all: Promoting social equity in public administration . Routledge

    2015

  53. [60]

    Peter A Johnson, JM Corbett, C Gore, Pamela Robinson, Peter Allen, and Renee Sieber. 2015. A web of expectations: Evolving relationships in community participatory Geoweb projects. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies 14, 3 (2015), 827–848

    2015

  54. [61]

    Tina J Kauh, Jen’nan Ghazal Read, and AJ Scheitler. 2021. The critical role of racial/ethnic data disaggregation for health equity. Population research and policy review 40, 1 (2021), 1–7

    2021

  55. [62]

    Anna Kawakami, Amanda Coston, Hoda Heidari, Kenneth Holstein, and Haiyi Zhu. 2024. Studying Up Public Sector AI: How Networks of Power Relations Shape Agency Decisions Around AI Design and Use. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12458 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Anna Kawakami, Amanda Coston, Haiyi Zhu, Hoda Heidari, and Kenneth Holstein. 2024. The Situate AI Guidebook: Co-Designing a Toolkit to Support Multi-Stakeholder, Early-stage Deliberations Around Public Sector AI Proposals. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors ...

    2024

  57. [64]

    Anna Kawakami, Venkatesh Sivaraman, Hao-Fei Cheng, Logan Stapleton, Yanghuidi Cheng, Diana Qing, Adam Perer, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Haiyi Zhu, and Kenneth Holstein. 2022. Improving Human-AI Partnerships in Child Welfare: Understanding Worker Practices, Challenges, and Desires for A...

    2022

  58. [65]

    Why Do I Care What’s Similar?

    Anna Kawakami, Venkatesh Sivaraman, Logan Stapleton, Hao-Fei Cheng, Adam Perer, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Haiyi Zhu, and Kenneth Holstein. 2022. “Why Do I Care What’s Similar?” Probing Challenges in AI-Assisted Child Welfare Decision-Making through Worker-AI Interface Design Concepts....

    2022

  59. [66]

    Seyun Kim, Bonnie Fan, Willa Yunqi Yang, Jessie Ramey, Sarah E Fox, Haiyi Zhu, John Zimmerman, and Motah- hare Eslami. 2024. Public Technologies Transforming Work of the Public and the Public Sector. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18579 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Seyun Kim, Jonathan Ho, Yinan Li, Bonnie Fan, Willa Yunqi Yang, Jessie Ramey, Sarah E Fox, Haiyi Zhu, John Zimmerman, and Motahhare Eslami. 2024. Integrating Equity in Public Sector Data-Driven Decision Making: Exploring the Desired Futures of Underserved Stakeholders. Proceed...

    2024

  61. [68]

    Erica Kimmerling and Min Hee Kim. 2022. The White House Office of Science and Technology Equity Ac- tion Plan. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/04/14/the-white-house-office-of-science-and- technology-equity-action-plan/

    2022

  62. [69]

    PM Krafft, Meg Young, Michael Katell, Jennifer E Lee, Shankar Narayan, Micah Epstein, Dharma Dailey, Bernease Herman, Aaron Tam, Vivian Guetler, et al. 2021. An action-oriented AI policy toolkit for technology audits by com- munity advocates and activists. In Proceedings of th...

    2021

  63. [70]

    Tzu-Sheng Kuo, Hong Shen, Jisoo Geum, Nev Jones, Jason I Hong, Haiyi Zhu, and Kenneth Holstein. 2023. Under- standing Frontline Workers’ and Unhoused Individuals’ Perspectives on AI Used in Homeless Services. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput...

    2023

  64. [71]

    Maciej Kuziemski and Gianluca Misuraca. 2020. AI governance in the public sector: Three tales from the frontiers of automated decision-making in democratic settings. Telecommunications policy 44, 6 (2020), 101976

    2020

  65. [72]

    Anna Lenhart. 2022. When to Collect Sensitive Category Data? Working Towards a Participatory Framework for Balancing Privacy and Freedom from Discrimination in Automated Decision Systems in the Public Sector. Working Towards a Participatory Framework for Balancing Privacy and ...

    2022

  66. [73]

    Jeremy R Levine and Carl Gershenson. 2014. From political to material inequality: Race, immigration, and requests for public goods. In Sociological Forum, Vol. 29. Wiley Online Library, 607–627

    2014

  67. [74]

    Vanessa Lopez-Littleton, Brandi Blessett, and Julie Burr. 2018. Advancing social justice and racial equity in the public sector. Journal of Public Affairs Education 24, 4 (2018), 449–468

    2018

  68. [75]

    John Lorinc. 2022. Dream states: Smart cities, technology, and the pursuit of urban utopias . Coach House Books

    2022

  69. [76]

    David Lyon. 2003. Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk, and digital discrimination . Psychology Press

    2003

  70. [77]

    Henrietta Lyons, Eduardo Velloso, and Tim Miller. 2021. Conceptualising contestability: Perspectives on contesting algorithmic decisions. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–25

    2021

  71. [78]

    Michael Madaio, Lisa Egede, Hariharan Subramonyam, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2022. Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners’ Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Support. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW1 (2022), 1–26

    2022

  72. [79]

    Mary Madden, Michele Gilman, Karen Levy, and Alice Marwick. 2017. Privacy, poverty, and big data: A matrix of vulnerabilities for poor Americans. Wash. UL Rev. 95 (2017), 53

    2017

  73. [80]

    Ricardo Matheus, Marijn Janssen, and Devender Maheshwari. 2020. Data science empowering the public: Data-driven dashboards for transparent and accountable decision-making in smart cities. Government Information Quarterly 37, 3 (2020), 101284

    2020

  74. [81]

    Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kristina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. 2021. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54, 6 (2021), 1–35

    2021

  75. [82]

    Mohammad I Merhi and Klajdi Bregu. 2020. Effective and efficient usage of big data analytics in public sector. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 14, 4 (2020), 605–622

    2020

  76. [83]

    Kim Moloney and Rupert Lewis. 2023. The flawed foundations of social equity in public administration: A racial contract theory critique. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 6, 4 (2023), 131–136

    2023

  77. [84]

    Paul Mozur. 2019. One month, 500,000 face scans: How China is using AI to profile a minority. The New York Times 14 (2019), 2019

    2019

  78. [85]

    Alan Nelson. 2002. Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Journal of the national medical association 94, 8 (2002), 666

    2002

  79. [86]

    Meredith A Newman, Susannah Ali, Ariel Powell, and John South. 2023. The experience of local governments in promoting equity and inclusion. Public Personnel Management 52, 4 (2023), 624–649

    2023

  80. [87]

    Kristen Norman-Major. 2011. Balancing the four E s; or can we achieve equity for social equity in public administration? Journal of Public Affairs Education 17, 2 (2011), 233–252

    2011

  81. [88]

    NYC Mayor’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer. 2021. AI Strategy The New York City Artificial Intelligence Strategy

    2021

  82. [89]

    Cathy O’neil. 2017. Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy . Crown

    2017

  83. [90]

    Juho Pääkkönen, Matti Nelimarkka, Jesse Haapoja, and Airi Lampinen. 2020. Bureaucracy as a lens for analyzing and designing algorithmic systems. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–14

    2020

  84. [91]

    Sanjay K Pandey, Domonic Bearfield, and Jeremy L Hall. 2022. A New Era and New Concepts in the Study of Race in Public Administration. Public Administration Review 82, 2 (2022)

    2022

  85. [92]

    Sanjay K Pandey, Kathryn Newcomer, Leisha DeHart-Davis, Jasmine McGinnis Johnson, and Norma M Riccucci. 2022. Reckoning with race and gender in public administration and public policy: A substantive social equity turn. Public Administration Review 82, 3 (2022), 386–395

    2022

  86. [93]

    Michael Quinn Patton. 2014. Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage publications

    2014

  87. [94]

    Jennifer Pierre, Roderic Crooks, Morgan Currie, Britt Paris, and Irene Pasquetto. 2021. Getting Ourselves Together: Data-centered participatory design research & epistemic burden. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–11

    2021

  88. [95]

    Lee Rainie and Janna Anderson. 2017. Code-dependent: Pros and cons of the algorithm age. (2017)

    2017

  89. [96]

    Bogdana Rakova, Jingying Yang, Henriette Cramer, and Rumman Chowdhury. 2021. Where responsible AI meets reality: Practitioner perspectives on enablers for shifting organizational practices. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–23

    2021

  90. [97]

    Joanna Redden. 2018. Democratic governance in an age of datafication: Lessons from mapping government discourses and practices. Big Data & Society 5, 2 (2018), 2053951718809145

    2018

  91. [98]

    Norma M Riccucci. 2021. Applying critical race theory to public administration scholarship. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 4, 4 (2021), 324–338

    2021

  92. [99]

    Samantha Robertson, Tonya Nguyen, and Niloufar Salehi. 2021. Modeling assumptions clash with the real world: Transparency, equity, and community challenges for student assignment algorithms. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–14....

    2021

  93. [100]

    Erna Ruijer, Gregory Porumbescu, Rebecca Porter, and Suzanne Piotrowski. 2023. Social equity in the data era: A systematic literature review of data-driven public service research.Public Administration Review 83, 2 (2023), 316–332

    2023

  94. [101]

    Devansh Saxena, Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Pamela J Wisniewski, and Shion Guha. 2021. A framework of high-stakes algorithmic decision-making for the public sector developed through a case study of child-welfare. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–41

    2021

  95. [102]

    Devansh Saxena and Shion Guha. 2024. Algorithmic harms in child welfare: Uncertainties in practice, organization, and street-level decision-making. ACM Journal on Responsible Computing 1, 1 (2024), 1–32

    2024

  96. [103]

    Devansh Saxena, Charles Repaci, Melanie D Sage, and Shion Guha. 2022. How to train a (bad) algorithmic caseworker: A quantitative deconstruction of risk assessments in child welfare. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. 1–7

    2022

  97. [104]

    Kristen M Scott, Sonja Mei Wang, Milagros Miceli, Pieter Delobelle, Karolina Sztandar-Sztanderska, and Bettina Berendt. 2022. Algorithmic tools in public employment services: Towards a jobseeker-centric perspective. In Proceed- ings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Acco...

    2022

  98. [105]

    Jay M Shafritz, EW Russell, and CP Borick. 1997. Public administration

    1997

  99. [106]

    Aaron Shapiro. 2017. Reform predictive policing. Nature 541, 7638 (2017), 458–460

    2017

  100. [107]

    Jannick Kirk Sørensen and Jonathon Hutchinson. 2018. Algorithms and public service media. In Public Service Media in the Networked Society: RIPE@ 2017 . Nordicom, 91–106

    2018

  101. [108]

    Anthony M Starke, Nuri Heckler, and Janiece Mackey. 2018. Administrative racism: Public administration education and race. Journal of Public Affairs Education 24, 4 (2018), 469–489

    2018

  102. [109]

    James H Svara and James R Brunet. 2005. Social equity is a pillar of public administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education 11, 3 (2005), 253–258

    2005

  103. [110]

    Songül Tolan, Marius Miron, Emilia Gómez, and Carlos Castillo. 2019. Why machine learning may lead to unfairness: Evidence from risk assessment for juvenile justice in catalonia. InProceedings of the seventeenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law . 83–92

    2019

  104. [111]

    Adie Tomer and Lara Fishbane. 2022. Bridging the digital divide through Digital Equity Offices. https://www. brookings.edu/research/bridging-the-digital-divide-through-digital-equity-offices/

    2022

  105. [112]

    Halil Toros and Daniel Flaming. 2018. Prioritizing homeless assistance using predictive algorithms: an evidence-based approach. Cityscape 20, 1 (2018), 117–146

    2018

  106. [113]

    USAID. 2022. Artificial Intelligence Action Plan

    2022

  107. [114]

    Jan Van Dijk. 2020. The digital divide. John Wiley & Sons

    2020

  108. [115]

    Charlotte van Ooijen, Barbara Ubaldi, and Benjamin Welby. 2019. A data-driven public sector: Enabling the strategic use of data for productive, inclusive and trustworthy governance. (2019)

    2019

  109. [116]

    Michael Veale and Irina Brass. 2019. Administration by algorithm? Public management meets public sector machine learning. Public management meets public sector machine learning (2019)

    2019

  110. [117]

    Michael Veale, Max Van Kleek, and Reuben Binns. 2018. Fairness and accountability design needs for algorithmic support in high-stakes public sector decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14

    2018

  111. [118]

    Christian Von Haldenwang. 2004. Electronic government (e-government) and development. The European journal of development research 16 (2004), 417–432

    2004

  112. [119]

    Haoyu Wang, Hengtong Zhang, Yaqing Wang, and Jing Gao. 2021. Fair classification under strict unawareness. In Proceedings of the 2021 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM) . SIAM, 199–207

    2021

  113. [120]

    Vishanth Weerakkody and Jyoti Choudrie. 2005. Exploring e-government in the UK: Challenges, issues and complexi- ties. Journal of Information Science & Technology 2, 2 (2005)

    2005

  114. [121]

    Ariel White and Kris-Stella Trump. 2018. The promises and pitfalls of 311 data. Urban affairs review 54, 4 (2018), 794–823

    2018

  115. [122]

    C William and R Webster. 2012. Public administration as surveillance. In Routledge handbook of surveillance studies . Routledge, 313–320

    2012

  116. [123]

    Michael Williams and Tami Moser. 2019. The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. Interna- tional Management Review 15, 1 (2019), 45–55

    2019

  117. [124]

    Richmond Y Wong. 2021. Tactics of Soft Resistance in User Experience Professionals’ Values Work. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–28

    2021

  118. [125]

    Blue Wooldridge and Susan Gooden. 2009. The epic of social equity: Evolution, essence, and emergence.Administrative Theory & Praxis (2009), 222–234

    2009

  119. [126]

    Corey Kewei Xu and Tian Tang. 2020. Closing the gap or widening the divide: The impacts of technology-enabled coproduction on equity in public service delivery. Public Administration Review 80, 6 (2020), 962–975

    2020

  120. [127]

    Matthew M Young, Justin B Bullock, and Jesse D Lecy. 2019. Artificial discretion as a tool of governance: a framework for understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on public administration. Perspectives on Public Management , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.