Toward AI Matching Policies in Homeless Services: A Qualitative Study with Policymakers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.07129v1
• Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2025 00:33:03 GMT
• Title: Toward AI Matching Policies in Homeless Services: A Qualitative Study with Policymakers
• Authors: Caroline M. Johnston, Olga Koumoundouros, Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang, Laura Onasch-Vera, Eric Rice, Phebe Vayanos,
• Abstract summary: We investigate whether policymakers in Los Angeles are open to the idea of integrating AI into the housing resource matching process.<n>Our qualitative analysis indicates that, even when aware of various complicating factors, policymakers welcome the idea of an AI matching tool.
• Score: 10.288369812464895
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence researchers have proposed various data-driven algorithms to improve the processes that match individuals experiencing homelessness to scarce housing resources. It remains unclear whether and how these algorithms are received or adopted by practitioners and what their corresponding consequences are. Through semi-structured interviews with 13 policymakers in homeless services in Los Angeles, we investigate whether such change-makers are open to the idea of integrating AI into the housing resource matching process, identifying where they see potential gains and drawbacks from such a system in issues of efficiency, fairness, and transparency. Our qualitative analysis indicates that, even when aware of various complicating factors, policymakers welcome the idea of an AI matching tool if thoughtfully designed and used in tandem with human decision-makers. Though there is no consensus as to the exact design of such an AI system, insights from policymakers raise open questions and design considerations that can be enlightening for future researchers and practitioners who aim to build responsible algorithmic systems to support decision-making in low-resource scenarios.

Related papers

• Enabling Ethical AI: A case study in using Ontological Context for Justified Agentic AI Decisions [0.0]
  Authors show how this process captures institutional knowledge, improves response quality and efficiency, and mitigates institutional amnesia.<n>We argue for a shift from post-hoc explanation to justifiable Agentic AI, where decisions are grounded in explicit, inspectable evidence and reasoning to both experts and non-specialists.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-04T14:06:35Z)
• Reasoning Is All You Need for Urban Planning AI [3.3943213418026126]
  This paper presents the Agentic Urban Planning AI Framework for reasoning-capable planning agents.<n>It integrates three cognitive layers (Perception, Foundation, Reasoning) with six logic components (Analysis, Generation, Verification, Evaluation, Collaboration, Decision) through a multi-agents collaboration framework.<n>We show how AI agents can augment human planners by systematically exploring solution spaces, verifying regulatory compliance, and deliberating over trade-offs transparently.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-07T15:59:06Z)
• Barbarians at the Gate: How AI is Upending Systems Research [58.95406995634148]
  We argue that systems research, long focused on designing and evaluating new performance-oriented algorithms, is particularly well-suited for AI-driven solution discovery.<n>We term this approach as AI-Driven Research for Systems ( ADRS), which iteratively generates, evaluates, and refines solutions.<n>Our results highlight both the disruptive potential and the urgent need to adapt systems research practices in the age of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T17:49:24Z)
• AI Automatons: AI Systems Intended to Imitate Humans [54.19152688545896]
  There is a growing proliferation of AI systems designed to mimic people's behavior, work, abilities, likenesses, or humanness.<n>The research, design, deployment, and availability of such AI systems have prompted growing concerns about a wide range of possible legal, ethical, and other social impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T03:55:38Z)
• Beyond Algorithmic Fairness: A Guide to Develop and Deploy Ethical AI-Enabled Decision-Support Tools [0.0]
  The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and optimization hold substantial promise for improving the efficiency, reliability, and resilience of engineered systems. This paper identifies ethical considerations required when deploying algorithms at the intersection of AI and optimization. Rather than providing a prescriptive set of rules, this paper aims to foster reflection and awareness among researchers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-17T18:37:53Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• Negotiating the Shared Agency between Humans & AI in the Recommender System [1.4249472316161877]
  This study introduces a dual-control mechanism aimed at enhancing user agency.<n>We evaluated the impact of varying levels of transparency and control on user experience.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-23T19:23:08Z)
• On the meaning of uncertainty for ethical AI: philosophy and practice [10.591284030838146]
  We argue that this is a significant way to bring ethical considerations into mathematical reasoning. We demonstrate these ideas within the context of competing models used to advise the UK government on the spread of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 during December 2021.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-11T15:13:36Z)
• Human-Centric Multimodal Machine Learning: Recent Advances and Testbed on AI-based Recruitment [66.91538273487379]
  There is a certain consensus about the need to develop AI applications with a Human-Centric approach. Human-Centric Machine Learning needs to be developed based on four main requirements: (i) utility and social good; (ii) privacy and data ownership; (iii) transparency and accountability; and (iv) fairness in AI-driven decision-making processes. We study how current multimodal algorithms based on heterogeneous sources of information are affected by sensitive elements and inner biases in the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-13T16:44:44Z)
• Inverse Online Learning: Understanding Non-Stationary and Reactionary Policies [79.60322329952453]
  We show how to develop interpretable representations of how agents make decisions. By understanding the decision-making processes underlying a set of observed trajectories, we cast the policy inference problem as the inverse to this online learning problem. We introduce a practical algorithm for retrospectively estimating such perceived effects, alongside the process through which agents update them. Through application to the analysis of UNOS organ donation acceptance decisions, we demonstrate that our approach can bring valuable insights into the factors that govern decision processes and how they change over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T17:40:42Z)
• Bias in Multimodal AI: Testbed for Fair Automatic Recruitment [73.85525896663371]
  We study how current multimodal algorithms based on heterogeneous sources of information are affected by sensitive elements and inner biases in the data. We train automatic recruitment algorithms using a set of multimodal synthetic profiles consciously scored with gender and racial biases. Our methodology and results show how to generate fairer AI-based tools in general, and in particular fairer automated recruitment systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T15:58:05Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.