4 ms·

I'm glad to see a few studies bearing out the sort of things I perceived growing up. 'To him, the obvious conclusion is to radically change our thinking. “Just

I'm glad to see a few studies bearing out the sort of things I perceived growing up. 'To him, the obvious conclusion is to radically change our thinking. “Just like you wouldn’t charge them $1,000 to fill out a form, you shouldn’t charge them $1,000 in cognitive complexity,” he says. One study found that if you offer help with filling out the Fafsa form, pickup goes up significantly.' I believe this is exactly the right sort of thinking. Finding ways to encourage and enable people to start moving gradually in order to build positive momentum. The "front loading" of forms, waiting lists and probationary periods are like mountains. Some people break themselves on the ascent, others spend themselves reaching the summit and have no energy to continue safely down the far side. These man made mountains need not remain arbitrarily steep.

_delirium 12y ago
As mostly an outside observer in both countries (fortunately), this is one of the big differences I see between the American and Danish welfare systems. The Danish one has a reputation for being much more generous, which is true to some extent, but is not as true in terms of throughput as it is in terms of latency. The Danish system does a lot of short-term "business": people get onto the system in a matter of days, use it for 6-12 months, then get off again. (By "the system" I mean a range of things: housing subsidy, retraining, cash welfare, mental-health treatment, etc.) Whereas the American one seems incapable of delivering anything with less than a 6-month waiting list, with an extremely bureaucratic and unfriendly process almost always serving as the gatekeeper.
- incision 12y ago
  >'Whereas the American one seems incapable of delivering anything with less than a 6-month waiting list..' My family was on a wait list for housing assistance from the time I was a child until I dropped out of school and started working, making us ineligible. The list is currently closed and was last open over half a decade ago, for less than two weeks - like something out of a fantasy novel. >...with an extremely bureaucratic and unfriendly process almost always serving as the gatekeeper.' Well, there's a popular notion in the US that the process should be as difficult and unfriendly as possible - that people seeking public assistance are not just lazy, but living well. The 'welfare queen' [1] still haunts the system 40 years later. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen
  - msandford 12y ago
    The problem is that while there are a great many deserving people who wouldn't abuse the system, there are also plenty who would. Worse is that if you overhear one person on the bus (like I did when I was in college) talking about having another child so she could get a larger welfare check, it has a way of getting to you. It's an anecdote so it doesn't really count from a scientific perspective. But emotionally, that's HUGE. When I use my brain I realize that it would be far more effective to cut the military budget by 10% than the welfare budget by 10% in terms of reducing taxes. But somehow I still feel some kind of moral outrage about the person who considered a welfare payment her divine right for existing rather than a temporary thing that well-intentioned people created for the sake of trying to help lift less fortunate folks out of poverty. Emotionally I feel less bad about the military because at least something's getting done as a result. People have jobs (even if they're not the most efficient) and technology is advanced (even at a cost greater than a private company might capable of) and actual tangible things happen. In some ways that's easier to justify, even if that justification is completely wrong given the graft and corruption that's rampant in the military-industrial complex. It also is very upsetting from a felt-justice perspective. Here I am working hard end paying my taxes so that (in a very, very small way $ or % wise) I'm empowering someone else to just sit around and get paid to do nothing but pop out babies and raise them poorly. Thinking critically I realize that I have no actual idea what my opinion of acceptable false positives and false negatives is, or how the system actually performs irrespective of my judgement. But as human beings we're wired to reject "unjust" gains for others even at our own expense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game "Well, there's a popular notion in the US that the process should be as difficult and unfriendly as possible - that people seeking public assistance are not just lazy, but living well. The 'welfare queen' [1] still haunts the system 40 years later." It's hard to not feel as though it might still be happening in a measurable way when you can read articles like this: http://www.salon.com/2010/03/16/hipsters_food_stamps_pinched/ http://www.salon.com/2010/03/16/hipsters_food_stamps_pinched... Again, I realize that it's ENTIRELY possible that the subjects of this article are the exception rather than the rule. But it's hard to use your brain rather than react to your emotions when this kind of thing gets written up. Ultimately the problem is that not everyone can think critically all the time about everything and then react appropriately.
SilasX 12y ago
I think that ignores the fact that the forms and such are there in the first place precisely to contain the tide of applicants. What do you think happens when organizations are under budget constraints and have to find creative ways to cut [edit: typo] costs?
- incision 12y ago
  >'I think that ignores the fact that the forms and such are there in the first place precisely to contain the tide of applicants.' This thought did cross my mind, but I've done lots of work in the public sector - local, federal, education and health. As a rule, these agencies just aren't that clever, not even close. In my experience, bad forms and the like are generally a matter of "That's how we've always done it." That's not to say the concern isn't real. Surely it wouldn't serve to simplify an intake form without altering other parts of the process. To fail to do that would just be moving the bottleneck. Ideally, sticking with the mountain analogy, you'd end up with a steady stream of healthy, willing and ultimately productive hands coming into the valley via a long, winding, but relatively safe pass.
  - SilasX 12y ago
    It doesn't have to literally take the form of "hey, we can scare people off by making the forms longer! And my mustache is twirlier today!" Rather, it's more like: with a reasonable flow of applicants, they can be lax in checking them, and maybe call the applicant if they need to get more information or something doesn't look right. But as the influx gets too large, they have to adopt an attitude of "give us everything we might possibly need to validate you, the first time around, or we can't afford to process it". They may not be deliberately trying to scare people off, but the massive influx does lead, somehow, to ever longer forms.
  - beat 12y ago
    Heck, I see "that's the way we've always done it" and awful mountains of paperwork inside the enterprise. You'd think Fortune 100 businesses would be interested in internal efficiency, but they're not.

_delirium 12y ago

As mostly an outside observer in both countries (fortunately), this is one of the big differences I see between the American and Danish welfare systems. The Danish one has a reputation for being much more generous, which is true to some extent, but is not as true in terms of throughput as it is in terms of latency. The Danish system does a lot of short-term "business": people get onto the system in a matter of days, use it for 6-12 months, then get off again. (By "the system" I mean a range of things: housing subsidy, retraining, cash welfare, mental-health treatment, etc.) Whereas the American one seems incapable of delivering anything with less than a 6-month waiting list, with an extremely bureaucratic and unfriendly process almost always serving as the gatekeeper.

incision 12y ago
>'Whereas the American one seems incapable of delivering anything with less than a 6-month waiting list..' My family was on a wait list for housing assistance from the time I was a child until I dropped out of school and started working, making us ineligible. The list is currently closed and was last open over half a decade ago, for less than two weeks - like something out of a fantasy novel. >...with an extremely bureaucratic and unfriendly process almost always serving as the gatekeeper.' Well, there's a popular notion in the US that the process should be as difficult and unfriendly as possible - that people seeking public assistance are not just lazy, but living well. The 'welfare queen' [1] still haunts the system 40 years later. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen
- msandford 12y ago
  The problem is that while there are a great many deserving people who wouldn't abuse the system, there are also plenty who would. Worse is that if you overhear one person on the bus (like I did when I was in college) talking about having another child so she could get a larger welfare check, it has a way of getting to you. It's an anecdote so it doesn't really count from a scientific perspective. But emotionally, that's HUGE. When I use my brain I realize that it would be far more effective to cut the military budget by 10% than the welfare budget by 10% in terms of reducing taxes. But somehow I still feel some kind of moral outrage about the person who considered a welfare payment her divine right for existing rather than a temporary thing that well-intentioned people created for the sake of trying to help lift less fortunate folks out of poverty. Emotionally I feel less bad about the military because at least something's getting done as a result. People have jobs (even if they're not the most efficient) and technology is advanced (even at a cost greater than a private company might capable of) and actual tangible things happen. In some ways that's easier to justify, even if that justification is completely wrong given the graft and corruption that's rampant in the military-industrial complex. It also is very upsetting from a felt-justice perspective. Here I am working hard end paying my taxes so that (in a very, very small way $ or % wise) I'm empowering someone else to just sit around and get paid to do nothing but pop out babies and raise them poorly. Thinking critically I realize that I have no actual idea what my opinion of acceptable false positives and false negatives is, or how the system actually performs irrespective of my judgement. But as human beings we're wired to reject "unjust" gains for others even at our own expense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game "Well, there's a popular notion in the US that the process should be as difficult and unfriendly as possible - that people seeking public assistance are not just lazy, but living well. The 'welfare queen' [1] still haunts the system 40 years later." It's hard to not feel as though it might still be happening in a measurable way when you can read articles like this: http://www.salon.com/2010/03/16/hipsters_food_stamps_pinched/ http://www.salon.com/2010/03/16/hipsters_food_stamps_pinched... Again, I realize that it's ENTIRELY possible that the subjects of this article are the exception rather than the rule. But it's hard to use your brain rather than react to your emotions when this kind of thing gets written up. Ultimately the problem is that not everyone can think critically all the time about everything and then react appropriately.

SilasX 12y ago

I think that ignores the fact that the forms and such are there in the first place precisely to contain the tide of applicants. What do you think happens when organizations are under budget constraints and have to find creative ways to cut [edit: typo] costs?

incision 12y ago
>'I think that ignores the fact that the forms and such are there in the first place precisely to contain the tide of applicants.' This thought did cross my mind, but I've done lots of work in the public sector - local, federal, education and health. As a rule, these agencies just aren't that clever, not even close. In my experience, bad forms and the like are generally a matter of "That's how we've always done it." That's not to say the concern isn't real. Surely it wouldn't serve to simplify an intake form without altering other parts of the process. To fail to do that would just be moving the bottleneck. Ideally, sticking with the mountain analogy, you'd end up with a steady stream of healthy, willing and ultimately productive hands coming into the valley via a long, winding, but relatively safe pass.
- SilasX 12y ago
  It doesn't have to literally take the form of "hey, we can scare people off by making the forms longer! And my mustache is twirlier today!" Rather, it's more like: with a reasonable flow of applicants, they can be lax in checking them, and maybe call the applicant if they need to get more information or something doesn't look right. But as the influx gets too large, they have to adopt an attitude of "give us everything we might possibly need to validate you, the first time around, or we can't afford to process it". They may not be deliberately trying to scare people off, but the massive influx does lead, somehow, to ever longer forms.
- beat 12y ago
  Heck, I see "that's the way we've always done it" and awful mountains of paperwork inside the enterprise. You'd think Fortune 100 businesses would be interested in internal efficiency, but they're not.