🧭 Case Study 9: Public Benefits and Algorithmic Eligibility
An ethical breakdown of automated systems that determine who deserves support and who gets left behind
📌 Background
Governments across the world are using AI systems to determine eligibility for food assistance, disability support, unemployment aid, and welfare. One of the most well known examples is Indiana’s automated eligibility system launched in 2006.
It replaced thousands of caseworkers with a centralized algorithm that flagged incomplete applications and issued automatic denials. Missing documents caused by system error or mail delays still triggered rejection. Thousands of people lost access to critical aid without understanding why or how to appeal.
⚖️ Ethical Concerns
- Dehumanized Decision Making: Human discretion was removed. The system applied rigid logic without context, denying aid over minor technicalities.
- Opaque Eligibility Criteria: Denials came with no clear explanation. The decision making process was hidden, undermining fairness and trust.
- No Real Appeal Path: Appeals existed on paper, but were difficult to access. The process burdened those already struggling to survive.
📊 By the Numbers
- More than 1 million applications were processed by Indiana’s automated system from 2006 to 2009.
- Tens of thousands of people were wrongfully denied, according to court records.
- The state settled a class action lawsuit for 60 million dollars over the harm caused.
- → ACLU: How Algorithms Are Denying People Public Benefits
- → HuffPost: Indiana’s Welfare Automation Disaster
- → Human Rights Watch: Automation in Public Assistance
🧠 Ethical Reflection
This case shows the cost of chasing efficiency without care. Poor people were treated as error prone data, not humans in need.
When automation replaces care, the system stops serving people and starts punishing them.
Justice demands forgiveness, not flawless digital compliance.
🛠️ Clause Tie In (from Doctrine)
Clause 7.2: Human Oversight in Essential Eligibility Systems
AI systems that control access to life critical services must preserve human judgment, ensure transparency, and provide an easy appeals process. No machine should deny a person food, care, or housing without accountability.