evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Sistema Alerta Niñez — Chile's Machine-Learning Score for Children at Risk of Rights Violations

Chile · Santiago · See the Chile profile · See the Santiago profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 93% 27/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since 2019, Chile's Subsecretariat of Social Evaluation has piloted a machine-learning risk score prioritising at-risk children in 12 communes. Seven years on it remains pilot-only, and researchers found no public documentation of the model or its accuracy.

2262 children
Children and adolescents directed to services, by October 2019 (by Oct 2019)
3440 children/year
Estimated annual intervention capacity of participating Local Childhood Offices
12 communes
Pilot communes covered (2019-2026)
345 communes
Original nationwide expansion target

Details

Maturity
Pilot
Promoter
Subsecretaría de Evaluación Social — Ministerio de Desarrollo Social y Familia
Period
2019–present (pilot)
Keywords
child welfare, social services, public administration, machine learning

Context

Chile's Sistema Alerta Niñez (SAN) is a machine-learning risk-scoring tool built by the Subsecretaria de Evaluacion Social within the Ministry of Social Development and Family. Since 2019 it has combined administrative and self-reported data -- covering family, educational, social and territorial variables -- to estimate which children and adolescents face the highest risk of having their rights violated.

Objectives

To let Local Childhood Offices (Oficinas Locales de la Niñez) prioritise early intervention for children and adolescents at highest risk of rights violations, such as abuse, school dropout, substance use or exploitation.

Activities

The system has run continuously as a pilot in 12 communes spanning multiple regions -- from Iquique in the north to Aysén in Patagonia, including Santiago, Concepción and La Florida -- combining administrative and self-reported data to generate a risk score for each child.

Results

By October 2019 the system had helped direct services to 2,262 children and adolescents, against an estimated annual intervention capacity of roughly 3,440 in the participating offices. Despite an original ambition to expand nationwide to all 345 Chilean communes, SAN remained confined to the same 12 pilot communes as of 2024-2026.

Conclusions

A 2022 investigation by the digital-rights organisation Derechos Digitales found that the procurement process that created SAN set no ethical, transparency or data-justice criteria in advance, and that no public documentation exists of the model's design, variables or accuracy. Civil-society and academic reviewers have raised concerns about stigmatisation risk and the absence of any independent evaluation of whether the tool actually reduces harm to flagged children, rather than simply reallocating limited casework capacity.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Piloted continuously since 2019 in the same 12 communes; the original ambition to expand to all 345 Chilean communes was not realised as of 2024-2026.
Staffing & skills
Subsecretaria de Evaluacion Social (Ministry of Social Development and Family) technical team, Local Childhood Offices (Oficinas Locales de la Niñez) caseworkers acting on flagged cases

Conditions for success

  • Access to combined administrative and self-reported family, educational, social and territorial data
  • Local Childhood Offices with intervention capacity to act on flagged cases

Common failure modes

  • Procurement process set no ethical, transparency or data-justice criteria in advance (Derechos Digitales, 2022)
  • No public documentation of the model's design, variables or accuracy
  • No independent evaluation of whether the tool reduces harm versus simply reallocating limited casework capacity
  • Stigmatisation risk for flagged children raised by civil-society and academic reviewers

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Replication kit

Reusable artefacts from this practice — as published by their sources.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful