IBM's new foretelling software to be used by Florida DOC

[wdtony]

Case worker: "This kid doesn't need to be locked up, marijuana use doesn't necessarily equal an addiction", Family counseling.......next!

Or maybe:”This child has been involved in a gang over on oak street.  The Oak street gang is known for forcing members to rape a random member of the neighborhood before they become full members.  He is twelve years old and has only been in the gang for six months.  He was involved in 2 robberies of local stores and was witness to 1 assault of an older woman and witnessed the murder of another gang member.  He admits to smoking marijuana.  His father is currently in jail for assault and battery and his mother suffers from depressions as does his grandmother and 1 older sister who is presently prostituting herself.  Adults in the household are rarely home.  The boy dropped out of school recently and has been tested by the school system to have an above average IQ and is interested in restoring older cars.

The boy was picked up and charged with aggravated assault on another minor and being involved in a robber with an automatic weapon although this boy was not carrying.

Caseworker 1:  Not much we can do, toss him in with the others.
Caseworker 2: Hey he says he has an older sister who might take him.  Lets release him to his sister and save the state some money.  Its only the kids first offense.
Caseworker 3: Family therapy!  If the family doesn’t show we will toss him in with the others and let him thru drug awareness training.

(total assessment time = 42 man hours = $4,200)


Predicting software would take into account many risk factors…

1.  like 90% of kids who run with gangs for more than a year will always go back after incarceration.
 
2.   If the child is moved to live with a relative and the relative lives less than a mile away from the child previous home then the move is found to be ineffective in 70% of the cases.
 
3.   Family therapy fails to be effective if the child comes from a home with one parent and the one parent is suffering from depression and is not engaged in the childs life more than 60 % of the time.

4.   Children with above average IQ tend to not do very well in juvy halls and tend to get worse.

5.   Child offenders under the age of 15 who have committed their first crime and run with a gang have only a 20% success rate of breaking lose from gang life if they are not separated from them within a year.

There would be thousands of statistics that would be used to predict this childs chances of becoming successful and living a happy life (or just not reentering the prison system as an adult).

Possible conclusion:
Since this boys family is not engaged then family counseling would fail.  It turns out that this boys' Uncle (who runs a body shop) lives 30 miles away and living apart from a depressed mother and sister, separating him from his new friends would give him the best chance in life.  Although we always advocate keeping the family together, the computer models indicates the best direction is to remove him from his immediate family, place him with his uncle who is willing to take him and he will not be required to serve any time in juvy hall or attend drug awareness training.
Notify authorities to perform a follow-up after six months to see how the boy is doing and send a letter to the local school systems to help with the boys transition into his new school (if authorized).

(total assessment time = .00004 man hours = $.004 cents)



...

Now this is one elaborate hypothetical (:

[Froderik]

Wow this really has gone on long enough..don't you all think.

I can't even bring myself to read the last two posts..

The idea of "foretelling software" is repulsive to me, as is anyone who would entertain an idea like this for more than a nanosecond.

Sometimes it's good to let threads like this one die; it hardly seems worth the effort...I'm sure there is more important news to talk about..

[Whooter]

Wow this really has gone on long enough..don't you all think.

I can't even bring myself to read the last two posts..

The idea of "foretelling software" is repulsive to me, as is anyone who would entertain an idea like this for more than a nanosecond.

Sometimes it's good to let threads like this one die; it hardly seems worth the effort...I'm sure there is more important news to talk about..

The "I just" thread has been going for a long time now. There is tons of reading and maybe that would be more interesting for you.  I notice the posts are much shorter and there is very little disagreement and the topic doesnt vary too much.



...

[DannyB II]

Yes there will be profiling, this is common practice in determining what criminals will do next. It helps keep your neighborhoods safe and keep these derelicts off the streets, while at the same time trying to get them help.

Uh . . . "derelicts?" Sounds like you have a certain amount of prejudgment as to the character of those in question here, eh?

Moreover, can you offer proof that profiling has had an actual long term effect on crime?

 :shamrock:  :shamrock:

Ursus I don't know if I was referring to the overall effect profiling has on squashing crime, I was saying they (cops/detectives) use profiling as part of there assessment of crime. Though I do have 2 brothers that are in law enforcement and part of my opinion came from them, all this talk about profiling has gotten way off track so where any profiling of any sort is bad.
I am sorry if you are offended with the word derelict, I guess you have never been arrested and incarcerated, it is then the word derelict is used, at least they used this word when referring to me.
The prejudgment comes from the article posted that says they are thinking of using IBM system to profile known criminals, did I miss something or are you just off on one of your crusades again.

Danny

[DannyB II]

Sometimes it's amazing how people don't give a shit about liberty.

The whole idea of "foretelling software" borders on the absurd..

WTF is this world coming to???

 :shamrock:  :shamrock:  :shamrock:

What is amazing is I am listening to rational, educated adults say it is crazy not to try and find a way to stop 80,000 youth offenders from taking your civil liberties away (speaking in general) when they commit a crime.
Froderik what do you want Florida to do or for that matter any other state.
I hear everyone here getting up on their soap box doing what you usually do, digging up information to discredit this probable solution to a out of control problem, 6 to 7 of you everytime the same people jump into action to knock down a potential fix, without even knowing what exactly your talking about. Some of you don't even quote the article properly, you don't care what it has to say, you have your opinions and that is it.

Danny

[Froderik]

Wow this really has gone on long enough..don't you all think.

I can't even bring myself to read the last two posts..

The idea of "foretelling software" is repulsive to me, as is anyone who would entertain an idea like this for more than a nanosecond.

Sometimes it's good to let threads like this one die; it hardly seems worth the effort...I'm sure there is more important news to talk about..

The "I just" thread has been going for a long time now. There is tons of reading and maybe that would be more interesting for you.


...

I'd probably learn more on that thread, you're right.

[Froderik]

Sometimes it's amazing how people don't give a shit about liberty.

The whole idea of "foretelling software" borders on the absurd..

WTF is this world coming to???

 :shamrock:  :shamrock:  :shamrock:

What is amazing is I am listening to rational, educated adults say it is crazy not to try and find a way to stop 80,000 youth offenders from taking your civil liberties away (speaking in general) when they commit a crime.
Froderik what do you want Florida to do or for that matter any other state.

I don't know.....abide by the Constitution?

[psy]

I see what you're arguing, Whooter...  That this system will result in fewer and more appropriate program placements.  Maybe, Maybe not.  But the fact remains that these kids are being sentenced not on what they have done, but what they are likely do do in the future (according to the computer based on god knows who's programming and data).   England is using it on adults, apparently.  I don't care what a computer says is the most likely outcome.  While punishment is certainly appropriate if the kids have caused harm to others, changing a person's way of thinking against one's will is unethical.  Using the system you propose, justice would possibly be more practical, but it would also be a lot less fair.

Whooter, would you support a system where criminals were implanted with computer chips in their brain removing their free will but creating productive members of society?  It sounds sci-fy but I'm going somewhere.  Answer the question.

I would never support someone losing their free will for any reason.

OK, Whooter, but what if the computer predicted that the person, because of his circumstances or whatever data, was a violent killer likely to go out and murder somebody.  Say the chance was 95%.  Say the person was arrested for punching a guy.  Should he be sentenced for the crime of assault, or sent away for longer to potentially save a life?  Let's assume for the purposes of this hypothetical that the computer is indeed accurate and there is a high likelihood the person in question would commit such a crime.

In such a circumstance, would you support such a device removing a person's free will?  What if the predicted chance was 99%.  What if the crime had already been committed?

[Whooter]

OK, Whooter, but what if the computer predicted that the person, because of his circumstances or whatever data, was a violent killer likely to go out and murder somebody.  Say the chance was 95%.  Say the person was arrested for punching a guy.  Should he be sentenced for the crime of assault, or sent away for longer to potentially save a life?  Let's assume for the purposes of this hypothetical that the computer is indeed accurate and there is a high likelihood the person in question would commit such a crime.

In such a circumstance, would you support such a device removing a person's free will?  What if the predicted chance was 99%.  What if the crime had already been committed?

I feel that this person should be talked to and they should assess the risk.  A therapist should evaluate this man to determine if anything could be done to avert a murder.  But he should not be arrested for a crime he did not commit.  If he is found to be unstable then he should be treated for that condition.

It’s a sticky situation, though, think about it.  If a person sends an email to a friend saying he is armed and heading to the library to shoot everyone who is there.  Should the cops shoot this guy on site?  Should they try to detain him?  Should he be charged with attempted murder if they catch him on the road?
 
Its possible that this guy might have entered the library and aimed his weapon at people and decided that he just couldn’t do it.  Maybe he would then put his weapon away and go home and there would be no crime.  So the friend who received the email should not call the police to begin with because no crime has been committed yet?



...

[DannyB II]

:shamrock:  :shamrock:

I am curious, why are we going way out there with wild speculation as to how IBM will use this system. Is this massaging your ego in so far as satisfying your need pys, to advocate against anything that will eliminate self will for people. If that is the case I guess it is fine but I thought there was enough real information in the article to have a rational debate, seems were digging for whatever conversation we can have now.
I happen to agree with froderik this post has lost the appeal it could have had.

Danny

[Ursus]

Case worker: "This kid doesn't need to be locked up, marijuana use doesn't necessarily equal an addiction", Family counseling.......next!

Or maybe:”This child has been involved in a gang over on oak street.  The Oak street gang is known for forcing members to rape a random member of the neighborhood before they become full members.  He is twelve years old and has only been in the gang for six months.  He was involved in 2 robberies of local stores and was witness to 1 assault of an older woman and witnessed the murder of another gang member.  He admits to smoking marijuana.  His father is currently in jail for assault and battery and his mother suffers from depressions as does his grandmother and 1 older sister who is presently prostituting herself.  Adults in the household are rarely home.  The boy dropped out of school recently and has been tested by the school system to have an above average IQ and is interested in restoring older cars.

The boy was picked up and charged with aggravated assault on another minor and being involved in a robber with an automatic weapon although this boy was not carrying.

Caseworker 1:  Not much we can do, toss him in with the others.
Caseworker 2: Hey he says he has an older sister who might take him.  Lets release him to his sister and save the state some money.  Its only the kids first offense.
Caseworker 3: Family therapy!  If the family doesn’t show we will toss him in with the others and let him thru drug awareness training.

(total assessment time = 42 man hours = $4,200)


Predicting software would take into account many risk factors…

1.  like 90% of kids who run with gangs for more than a year will always go back after incarceration.
 
2.   If the child is moved to live with a relative and the relative lives less than a mile away from the child previous home then the move is found to be ineffective in 70% of the cases.
 
3.   Family therapy fails to be effective if the child comes from a home with one parent and the one parent is suffering from depression and is not engaged in the childs life more than 60 % of the time.

4.   Children with above average IQ tend to not do very well in juvy halls and tend to get worse.

5.   Child offenders under the age of 15 who have committed their first crime and run with a gang have only a 20% success rate of breaking lose from gang life if they are not separated from them within a year.

There would be thousands of statistics that would be used to predict this childs chances of becoming successful and living a happy life (or just not reentering the prison system as an adult).

Possible conclusion:
Since this boys family is not engaged then family counseling would fail.  It turns out that this boys' Uncle (who runs a body shop) lives 30 miles away and living apart from a depressed mother and sister, separating him from his new friends would give him the best chance in life.  Although we always advocate keeping the family together, the computer models indicates the best direction is to remove him from his immediate family, place him with his uncle who is willing to take him and he will not be required to serve any time in juvy hall or attend drug awareness training.
Notify authorities to perform a follow-up after six months to see how the boy is doing and send a letter to the local school systems to help with the boys transition into his new school (if authorized).

(total assessment time = .00004 man hours = $.004 cents)

Geeezzz... Even presuming that the ramifications of this program is as innocuous as you imply (which I don't buy, btw), there's nothing in your hypothetical example, Whooter, that a good case worker wouldn't pick up whilst taking a history, if not more. In fact, in all likelihood, a good case worker who cares, will pick up more than a mere $12 billion computer program could ever predict or recommend. This happens during time spent with the kid, which does cost more than 0.4¢, I'm afraid.

In fact, it is precisely that time spent, that human to human interaction, which has the most potential for good, simply by the fact that it is human to human.

Not everyone is the same, not everyone's behavior can be so patly predicted, not everyone responds to the dynamics of the particular programs they are funneled to in equal fashion. Some programs, conceivably predicted based on previous behaviors and history, may even be an anathema to certain individuals due simply to their social and/or spatial needs. A good case worker is more likely to weigh in such factors, especially when combined with communication with the individual in question.

The fact is, it doesn't take really complicated software to make the jobs of the plebes on the front line easier. Too much software, on the other hand, can potentially take away from the human element which is, when you get right down to it, the main part of the job.

But... Florida would rather invest millions into the use of some software package, a business deal fattening certain corporations' coffers and certain individuals' wallets, than it would invest in its own working people. Seems to me this is merely the latest installment in a long line of debacles in the history of this state's decisions regarding delivery of their social services.

[Whooter]

Geeezzz... Even presuming that the ramifications of this program is as innocuous as you imply (which I don't buy, btw), there's nothing in your hypothetical example, Whooter, that a good case worker wouldn't pick up whilst taking a history, if not more.

This could be.  But how many good case workers do we have?  What about the kid who ends up with a bad case worker? Or one having a bad day?  I would rather get good consistent results.

The fact is, it doesn't take really complicated software to make the jobs of the plebes on the front line easier. Too much software, on the other hand, can potentially take away from the human element which is, when you get right down to it, the main part of the job.

I agree that they could do the same job (not as consistently or as quick). The same way GM could get rid of all the computers and have all the cars made by hand.  The quality would drop off and the prices would rise considerably.  But it could be done.

 

In fact, in all likelihood, a good case worker who cares, will pick up more than a mere $12 billion computer program could ever predict or recommend. This happens during time spent with the kid, which does cost more than 0.4¢, I'm afraid.

I am not sure how you can conclude this.  The case workers will still be involved, Ursus, they will just have the added assistance of a program to help place the child on the right path.  If they pick something up that isn’t in the computer then it would be added.  That way it would be there for the next child and the next caseworker would benefit as would the child.

I used a billing rate of $100/hour.  So the caseworker would cost thousands of dollars versus a few cents for the computer assessment..  The idea is to reduce the time the caseworker has to spend figure out what is the best route for this child to take.

In fact, it is precisely that time spent, that human to human interaction, which has the most potential for good, simply by the fact that it is human to human.

This I can agree with.  The child isn’t going to be rehabilitated by the computer, Ursus.  The computer is just going to recommend the best rehab direction to take.  If anything human contact may be increased.

But... Florida would rather invest millions into the use of some software package, a business deal fattening certain corporations' coffers and certain individuals' wallets, then it would invest in its own working people. Seems to me this is merely the latest installment in a long line of debacles in the history of this state's decisions regarding delivery of their social services.

Why do you get so mad every time someone receives a paycheck for their hard work?  Do you work for free?  Do you expect everyone to just give away what they have and not expect compensation?  Your argument does not make any sense.  If the software package doesn’t hold any value then the word will get out very quickly and IBM will not be able to sell another package.  If these kids get placed on a better track and the state can reduce the number of adults in prison by helping the teens then the investment will pay off and everyone wins.
How could this possibly be harmful for the child or the State?



...

[Ursus]

Geeezzz... Even presuming that the ramifications of this program is as innocuous as you imply (which I don't buy, btw), there's nothing in your hypothetical example, Whooter, that a good case worker wouldn't pick up whilst taking a history, if not more.

This could be.  But how many good case workers do we have?  What about the kid who ends up with a bad case worker? Or one having a bad day?  I would rather get good consistent results.

Try training those case workers better. Try paying those case workers more. Try not saddling them with 50% higher caseloads than is specified in their job description. Try appreciating them more where it counts. Try doing something about a toxic work environment where burn-out runs rampant and cynicism sets in quickly. How about Florida invests in its people and not some computer program that is unlikely to make an appreciable difference in the long run anyway.

But... Florida would rather invest millions into the use of some software package, a business deal fattening certain corporations' coffers and certain individuals' wallets, than it would invest in its own working people. Seems to me this is merely the latest installment in a long line of debacles in the history of this state's decisions regarding delivery of their social services.

Why do you get so mad every time someone receives a paycheck for their hard work?  Do you work for free?  Do you expect everyone to just give away what they have and not expect compensation?  Your argument does not make any sense.  If the software package doesn’t hold any value then the word will get out very quickly and IBM will not be able to sell another package.  If these kids get placed on a better track and the state can reduce the number of adults in prison by helping the teens then the investment will pay off and everyone wins.
How could this possibly be harmful for the child or the State?

You truly can be diabolical sometimes. Where in hell's name did you come up with that conclusion? Classic Whooter twisting of a post to a completely different meaning.

Florida investing in its working people entails giving them a paycheck, and more, of course. How on earth you could twist that to mean the opposite is simply beyond my comprehension.

Makes me wonder just how much of a paycheck you get to do your dirty business here.  

[DannyB II]

Case worker: "This kid doesn't need to be locked up, marijuana use doesn't necessarily equal an addiction", Family counseling.......next!

Or maybe:”This child has been involved in a gang over on oak street.  The Oak street gang is known for forcing members to rape a random member of the neighborhood before they become full members.  He is twelve years old and has only been in the gang for six months.  He was involved in 2 robberies of local stores and was witness to 1 assault of an older woman and witnessed the murder of another gang member.  He admits to smoking marijuana.  His father is currently in jail for assault and battery and his mother suffers from depressions as does his grandmother and 1 older sister who is presently prostituting herself.  Adults in the household are rarely home.  The boy dropped out of school recently and has been tested by the school system to have an above average IQ and is interested in restoring older cars.

The boy was picked up and charged with aggravated assault on another minor and being involved in a robber with an automatic weapon although this boy was not carrying.

Caseworker 1:  Not much we can do, toss him in with the others.
Caseworker 2: Hey he says he has an older sister who might take him.  Lets release him to his sister and save the state some money.  Its only the kids first offense.
Caseworker 3: Family therapy!  If the family doesn’t show we will toss him in with the others and let him thru drug awareness training.

(total assessment time = 42 man hours = $4,200)


Predicting software would take into account many risk factors…

1.  like 90% of kids who run with gangs for more than a year will always go back after incarceration.
 
2.   If the child is moved to live with a relative and the relative lives less than a mile away from the child previous home then the move is found to be ineffective in 70% of the cases.
 
3.   Family therapy fails to be effective if the child comes from a home with one parent and the one parent is suffering from depression and is not engaged in the childs life more than 60 % of the time.

4.   Children with above average IQ tend to not do very well in juvy halls and tend to get worse.

5.   Child offenders under the age of 15 who have committed their first crime and run with a gang have only a 20% success rate of breaking lose from gang life if they are not separated from them within a year.

There would be thousands of statistics that would be used to predict this childs chances of becoming successful and living a happy life (or just not reentering the prison system as an adult).

Possible conclusion:
Since this boys family is not engaged then family counseling would fail.  It turns out that this boys' Uncle (who runs a body shop) lives 30 miles away and living apart from a depressed mother and sister, separating him from his new friends would give him the best chance in life.  Although we always advocate keeping the family together, the computer models indicates the best direction is to remove him from his immediate family, place him with his uncle who is willing to take him and he will not be required to serve any time in juvy hall or attend drug awareness training.
Notify authorities to perform a follow-up after six months to see how the boy is doing and send a letter to the local school systems to help with the boys transition into his new school (if authorized).

(total assessment time = .00004 man hours = $.004 cents)

Geeezzz... Even presuming that the ramifications of this program is as innocuous as you imply (which I don't buy, btw), there's nothing in your hypothetical example, Whooter, that a good case worker wouldn't pick up whilst taking a history, if not more. In fact, in all likelihood, a good case worker who cares, will pick up more than a mere $12 billion computer program could ever predict or recommend. This happens during time spent with the kid, which does cost more than 0.4¢, I'm afraid.

In fact, it is precisely that time spent, that human to human interaction, which has the most potential for good, simply by the fact that it is human to human.

Not everyone is the same, not everyone's behavior can be so patly predicted, not everyone responds to the dynamics of the particular programs they are funneled to in equal fashion. Some programs, conceivably predicted based on previous behaviors and history, may even be an anathema to certain individuals due simply to their social and/or spatial needs. A good case worker is more likely to weigh in such factors, especially when combined with communication with the individual in question.

The fact is, it doesn't take really complicated software to make the jobs of the plebes on the front line easier. Too much software, on the other hand, can potentially take away from the human element which is, when you get right down to it, the main part of the job.

But... Florida would rather invest millions into the use of some software package, a business deal fattening certain corporations' coffers and certain individuals' wallets, than it would invest in its own working people. Seems to me this is merely the latest installment in a long line of debacles in the history of this state's decisions regarding delivery of their social services.

 :shamrock:  :shamrock:

Ursus, This is what I mean along with many others pull the plug on this post it is over, there are 80,000 kids just in Florida not including the rest of America. Case workers, one on one talks, fireside chats, maybe down to the creek to fish "Big Brother".
Not trying to insult but lets just move on we obviously don't get this one.
Everything in America fattens somebodies wallet you work for someone or yourself your somehow fattening your wallet off of something or somebody.

Danny

[Whooter]

You truly can be diabolical sometimes. Where in hell's name did you come up with that conclusion? Classic Whooter twisting of a post to a completely different meaning.

Right here:

But... Florida would rather invest millions into the use of some software package, a business deal fattening certain corporations' coffers and certain individuals' wallets, than it would invest in its own working people.  Florida investing in its working people entails giving them a paycheck, and more, of course. How on earth you could twist that to mean the opposite is simply beyond my comprehension.

This creates jobs, gets people off of welfare, opens up entry level positions as well as White collar employment.  People who are employed pay taxes which helps to fuel government fiscal recovery.... etc.

Makes me wonder just how much of a paycheck you get to do your dirty business here.

It would be nice to get paid for doing this.  Do you get paid for writing on fornits?

Try training those case workers better. Try paying those case workers more. Try not saddling them with 50% higher caseloads than is specified in their job description. Try appreciating them more where it counts. Try doing something about a toxic work environment where burn-out runs rampant and cynicism sets in quickly. How about Florida invests in its people and not some computer program that is unlikely to make an appreciable difference in the long run anyway.

How do you know it is unlikely to make a difference?  Here is an interesting article on your state workers which may make a few people rethink the value of the software:
Article

During the past two years, more than 70 Florida child-welfare workers have been caught falsifying records -- lying about their on-the-job efforts to protect children, according to state and county records reviewed by the Orlando Sentinel.

As a consequence, the Florida Department of Children and Families temporarily lost track of at least six children, sometimes for months. Fourteen children were left in unsafe homes, the Sentinel found in a review of agency records.

Despite passage of a state law intended to punish cheaters, dishonest caseworkers remain a persistent problem in Florida's system to protect at-risk children:

•The day after a caseworker reported that she had inspected a foster home in Wildwood, police found its four foster children living in tents in the yard. The house had no running water, no food and no clean clothes.

•After a Hardee County social worker lied about making home visits, one child wound up living with an uncle awaiting trial on child-rape charges.

•Two children in Hernando County lived, for a time, with a grandfather who had been arrested two years earlier and accused of physically abusing his own child.




...