5 ms·

Everytime a story like this pops up, I think of patio11's argument that "the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero". [1] I work with our local food bank, and got

Everytime a story like this pops up, I think of patio11's argument that "the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero". [1] I work with our local food bank, and got in a discussion with a family member who was shocked at there being no means testing or proof of need to participate. I'm certain there are people we serve who are over whatever threshold would exist, but the cost of excluding someone who's hungry because they couldn't print a paystub or have access to the right documents is _so_ much higher than any spillage from fraud. With certain aspects of society, such as with social-saftey-net benefits, when the costs of exclusion impact those teetering on the edge, "non-zero" fraud is absolutely the optimal amount. 1 - https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fraud/ https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...

MichaelZuo 4y ago
> I'm certain there are people we serve who are over whatever threshold would exist, but the cost of excluding someone who's hungry because they couldn't print a paystub or have access to the right documents is _so_ much higher than any spillage from fraud. How did you determine this?
- purpleflame1257 4y ago
  If the goal of the food bank is "ensure there's food for people who can't afford it," then turning away one person is a failure. As long as you're not running out of food, it would seem to me that means-testing for a food bank is unnecessary.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    And means testing at food bank is bound to fail. As there are sufficient number of scenarios where technically person there should have means, but for one or other reason they do not at that specific moment. Like maybe home fire or something. Or they were fired and things are processing.
    - tremon 4y ago
      Or to use a newly-minted term: people in energy poverty. Heating costs have quadrupled in many places, and it's generally the rich that have the best isolated homes. So many people who used to be self-sufficient with their income are now having to choose between food and warmth. Officially, they are not allowed to use the food bank because the means testing does not take into account the size of their energy bill, but in practice they may have no other option.
  - throwaway8689 4y ago
    In the UK food banks are indeed finding themselves short of food as demand increases and donations drop. Means testing process varies but certainly exists in the UK.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    This line of reasoning implies that a food bank with a 99.99% success rate is a 'failure'. Which doesn't seem sensible.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  It's pretty self evident isn't it. Having some (likely small) percentage of people getting food that they shouldn't will likely only have very minor influence on how muchnfood can be distributed (often enough there are some left overs even). Denying someone who really needs the food, might mean that person will not have food possible for several days. That's a pretty big cost for the person. Generally many "fraud prevention methods" for poor people are more about punishing poor people than actual fraud prevention. Often the cost of enforcement is as high or higher than the cost of the fraud.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    This seems like a repetition of the parent comment with more words. Can you describe, step-by-step, how you arrived at the conclusion?
    - isoprophlex 4y ago
      Are you being deliberately obtuse? 1. There is enough food to go around 2. Determining with 100% accuracy if someone is really entitled to help is unnecessary
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        If you don't understand the conversation then chiming in doesn't advance the argument. The question is assuming the marginal case since it wasn't intended to be trivial. i.e. where the 'amount of food' is limited. But if there is genuine confusion, since it wasn't spelt out, here's the rephrased question: "How is this assessment made when food is limited?
        jelly 4y ago
        Food is parceled out so a small amount of food bank fraud creates a slightly smaller parcel for everyone, in the case where food is limited. If fraud rates are small, the cost to everyone is trivial; if fraud rates are zero, the costs get piled onto a few unfortunate souls who couldn't pass the test despite actually needing help.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Also, consider the valid cases. How to ensure you received all up-to-date bank accounts they and their family and dependants have? Then how much time would you spend to verify numbers there that they are under the threshold and so on? It is quite a lot of work per person, for what 10 or 20€ worth bag? And doesn't even really cover the scenarios which usually result in this. Some big unexpected cost of money, maybe losing money and the unemployment taking time to process. Failure in that process. So on. Scenarios where technically it might be that person would not even get it yet.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    Did you intend to reply to cycomaniac's comment?
Tijdreiziger 4y ago
In fact, the benefits scandal may have happened precisely because of governmental overcorrection following the so-called ‘Bulgarian’ fraud scandal [1]. The following passage (translated) from Wikipedia is telling: During the debate on the Bulgarian fraud scandal, State Secretary Frans Weekers sustained the Second Chamber’s call for stricter fraud control, but warned that “the good will suffer under the bad”. [1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeslagenaffaire#Bulgarenfraude https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeslagenaffaire#Bulgarenfraud... (Dutch)

MichaelZuo 4y ago

> I'm certain there are people we serve who are over whatever threshold would exist, but the cost of excluding someone who's hungry because they couldn't print a paystub or have access to the right documents is _so_ much higher than any spillage from fraud. How did you determine this?

purpleflame1257 4y ago
If the goal of the food bank is "ensure there's food for people who can't afford it," then turning away one person is a failure. As long as you're not running out of food, it would seem to me that means-testing for a food bank is unnecessary.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  And means testing at food bank is bound to fail. As there are sufficient number of scenarios where technically person there should have means, but for one or other reason they do not at that specific moment. Like maybe home fire or something. Or they were fired and things are processing.
  - tremon 4y ago
    Or to use a newly-minted term: people in energy poverty. Heating costs have quadrupled in many places, and it's generally the rich that have the best isolated homes. So many people who used to be self-sufficient with their income are now having to choose between food and warmth. Officially, they are not allowed to use the food bank because the means testing does not take into account the size of their energy bill, but in practice they may have no other option.
- throwaway8689 4y ago
  In the UK food banks are indeed finding themselves short of food as demand increases and donations drop. Means testing process varies but certainly exists in the UK.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  This line of reasoning implies that a food bank with a 99.99% success rate is a 'failure'. Which doesn't seem sensible.
cycomanic 4y ago
It's pretty self evident isn't it. Having some (likely small) percentage of people getting food that they shouldn't will likely only have very minor influence on how muchnfood can be distributed (often enough there are some left overs even). Denying someone who really needs the food, might mean that person will not have food possible for several days. That's a pretty big cost for the person. Generally many "fraud prevention methods" for poor people are more about punishing poor people than actual fraud prevention. Often the cost of enforcement is as high or higher than the cost of the fraud.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  This seems like a repetition of the parent comment with more words. Can you describe, step-by-step, how you arrived at the conclusion?
  - isoprophlex 4y ago
    Are you being deliberately obtuse? 1. There is enough food to go around 2. Determining with 100% accuracy if someone is really entitled to help is unnecessary
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      If you don't understand the conversation then chiming in doesn't advance the argument. The question is assuming the marginal case since it wasn't intended to be trivial. i.e. where the 'amount of food' is limited. But if there is genuine confusion, since it wasn't spelt out, here's the rephrased question: "How is this assessment made when food is limited?
      - jelly 4y ago
        Food is parceled out so a small amount of food bank fraud creates a slightly smaller parcel for everyone, in the case where food is limited. If fraud rates are small, the cost to everyone is trivial; if fraud rates are zero, the costs get piled onto a few unfortunate souls who couldn't pass the test despite actually needing help.
Ekaros 4y ago
Also, consider the valid cases. How to ensure you received all up-to-date bank accounts they and their family and dependants have? Then how much time would you spend to verify numbers there that they are under the threshold and so on? It is quite a lot of work per person, for what 10 or 20€ worth bag? And doesn't even really cover the scenarios which usually result in this. Some big unexpected cost of money, maybe losing money and the unemployment taking time to process. Failure in that process. So on. Scenarios where technically it might be that person would not even get it yet.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  Did you intend to reply to cycomaniac's comment?

Tijdreiziger 4y ago

In fact, the benefits scandal may have happened precisely because of governmental overcorrection following the so-called ‘Bulgarian’ fraud scandal [1]. The following passage (translated) from Wikipedia is telling: During the debate on the Bulgarian fraud scandal, State Secretary Frans Weekers sustained the Second Chamber’s call for stricter fraud control, but warned that “the good will suffer under the bad”. [1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeslagenaffaire#Bulgarenfraude https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeslagenaffaire#Bulgarenfraud... (Dutch)