4 ms·

While it sounds low, this is almost the same efficiency that a temporary work program for homeless people in Denver had (which initially caused me to look into

While it sounds low, this is almost the same efficiency that a temporary work program for homeless people in Denver had (which initially caused me to look into the low sounding efficiency number). Think of it like this: if all of the remaining 52% went to paying a NYC social worker's average salary of $73.9k (source below), then each social worker has to manage 10.5 families to pay their salary. That's managing ten families and making sure their kids are in school, they are going to doctor's visits, etc, each week. That sounds like a manageable workload. BUT WAIT! An employee actually costs 200% of their salary to employ in terms of office rent, benefits, and other incidentals (that 200% figure can go up and down depending on company, location, etc, but is a good enough number for this thought experiment). So in reality, each social worker needs to manage 21 families to have their employment costs paid for. And tracking 21 families weekly sounds like a reasonable full time fob to me. That's getting in touch with just a little over four families each day to make sure they are meeting their conditions for the money. Since social work like this usually requires a lot of driving, it will probably fill up their day. So really, when accounting for the fact that you have to pay the case managers a fair wage to live in NYC to administer the program, 48% sounds about right. At least that single number doesn't point to there being any obvious graft going on. https://www1.salary.com/NY/Social-Worker-MSW-Salary.html https://www1.salary.com/NY/Social-Worker-MSW-Salary.html

sharemywin 9y ago
but the "cash" assistance was all about lowering costs. I get you've got costs of measuring the success rates etc, but I think the whole concepts needs to be rethought if they can't get that number much lower.
- olympus 9y ago
  Most people underestimate the inefficiency of just about every government organization. Probably the only way to significantly improve the program's efficiency would be to turn it over to a for-profit company that had an incentive structure to distribute the cash properly but as efficiently as possible. So far I don't think that company exists yet. Pay for performance contracts get twisted by the contractors into a game to maximize the performance metrics while spending as little as possible. The problem is that it's really hard (some say impossible) to set up performance metrics that can't be gamed.
gamblor956 9y ago
Employees do not actually cost 2x their salary in benefits, payroll taxes, etc. The 2x includes office space and the associated costs of running the office, and a Silicon Valley markup for other benefits like free food and luxury shuttle service. For most companies, an employee's total cost 1.25-1.5x of salary. Most government agencies generally own the land and buildings in which the agencies are located (excepting agencies which entered into lease-back arrangements...). Whether or not those savings are eaten up by retirement benefits depends on the jurisdiction. Source: I've worked in Finance Departments and have actually seen the cost side.
- olympus 9y ago
  Sure, but that was just a thought experiment to show that ~50% efficiency isn't some insanely low number. If you wanted you could ask for their records and dig in, and I bet most people would find each individual expense is reasonable. Then you add it all up and are somehow still surprised at how much running a large scale operation really costs. And sure, we can delete the cost of office rent for government workers, but you have to add in the nice benefits package and you have to add in all the mileage they get reimbursed for driving their cars, and the fact that a considerable portion of their time is lost in training and meetings that don't directly support accomplishing the CCT's core mission. None of those things were included in my thought experiment, and erode the efficiency a little bit at a time. Source: Am statistician employed by the government.

sharemywin 9y ago

but the "cash" assistance was all about lowering costs. I get you've got costs of measuring the success rates etc, but I think the whole concepts needs to be rethought if they can't get that number much lower.

olympus 9y ago
Most people underestimate the inefficiency of just about every government organization. Probably the only way to significantly improve the program's efficiency would be to turn it over to a for-profit company that had an incentive structure to distribute the cash properly but as efficiently as possible. So far I don't think that company exists yet. Pay for performance contracts get twisted by the contractors into a game to maximize the performance metrics while spending as little as possible. The problem is that it's really hard (some say impossible) to set up performance metrics that can't be gamed.

gamblor956 9y ago

Employees do not actually cost 2x their salary in benefits, payroll taxes, etc. The 2x includes office space and the associated costs of running the office, and a Silicon Valley markup for other benefits like free food and luxury shuttle service. For most companies, an employee's total cost 1.25-1.5x of salary. Most government agencies generally own the land and buildings in which the agencies are located (excepting agencies which entered into lease-back arrangements...). Whether or not those savings are eaten up by retirement benefits depends on the jurisdiction. Source: I've worked in Finance Departments and have actually seen the cost side.

olympus 9y ago
Sure, but that was just a thought experiment to show that ~50% efficiency isn't some insanely low number. If you wanted you could ask for their records and dig in, and I bet most people would find each individual expense is reasonable. Then you add it all up and are somehow still surprised at how much running a large scale operation really costs. And sure, we can delete the cost of office rent for government workers, but you have to add in the nice benefits package and you have to add in all the mileage they get reimbursed for driving their cars, and the fact that a considerable portion of their time is lost in training and meetings that don't directly support accomplishing the CCT's core mission. None of those things were included in my thought experiment, and erode the efficiency a little bit at a time. Source: Am statistician employed by the government.