Cassia Resettlement Team head and co-founder, Lim Jingzhou (Source: Our Better World)

Resources may be better diverted directly to those who need it the most if there was less gatekeeping in the social services sector, said Cassia Resettlement Team (CRT) head and co-founder Lim Jingzhou.

In a Facebook post on Saturday (27 February), Mr Lim discussed how the excessive gatekeeping within the social services sector incurs a cost that might be better channelled in a different way.

Mr Lim recounted how he had spent most of his working hours that day processing three financial assistance applications for a programme by one of the social services agencies that CRT is collaborating with.

The work, he said, involved explaining to people what the programme is, how it works, interviewing them for the data required, collecting information, and uploading everything into the system.

This particular programme gives out up to S$4,560 over 12 months per approved household.

“As I trudged on with the all the administrative work, I asked myself whether this is ‘worth it’,” write Mr Lim, asking whether all the time spent putting through the application and the “level of gatekeeping” is worth is.

“I regularly ‘argue’ that sometimes we gatekeep ‘excessively’ to the extent that we forget that gatekeeping incurs costs,” he said.

“And it’s incredibly difficult to have the conversation on how costly gatekeeping is, simply because there seems to be little effort to track it. Or if the data is available, there is great reluctance to share it transparently,” he added.

In order to try and quantify the cost of this “gatekeeping”, Mr Lim argued that the labour cost for him to put up three applications is about S$100—based on his last drawn salary. Then there’s the person who reviews the application on the other end as well, which Mr Lim pegged at S$100 as well.

On top of that, there’s the monthly review component of this programme which takes up about an hour per household, according to Mr Lim’s estimate. He calculated that to cost about S$11 per month per household for him to process. Again, double that to include the cost incurred by the reviewing agency.

“That makes it approximately $60 (one-time) plus $22*12=$264, which in total adds up to $324 to gatekeep an assistance package worth $4,560 a year for one household,” explained Mr Lim.

“The estimated human cost of gatekeeping this amount of benefit amounts to 7% of the total benefits that goes directly to the intended ‘beneficiary’,” he continued, adding that the real cost would often be higher as “bureaucracy is inefficient”.

As such, he rounded up the cost to about 10% for just labour.

Mr Lim went on to argue that with many low-income households applying for an array of schemes, programmes and benefits, “the amount of resources spent on gatekeeping” adds up.

“This is an inevitable, perhaps intended (?), consequence of ‘many helping hands’ approach,” he mused.

Mr Lim said that while most would agree that there is value in multiple stakeholders coming together to provide different services and harnessing a diversity of talent to support those in need, he feels that there is “absolutely very little logic” in this “many helping hands” approach in delivering such resources.

“Do you have any idea exactly how many schemes are out there, either by the Government or funded significantly by the Government, and how much time it takes to apply for them, and how much labour costs we incur to administer these schemes and ‘gatekeep’?” he asked.

When thing reach a point where there are too many schemes and services, the “problem” then becomes that there is a need for an integrated and coordinated social services delivery.

However, he questioned is that is actually tackling the crux of the problem.

Mr Lim asserted, “So all this is really an absolute nightmare, and in many ways invite us to question the failures and problems with charity and our existing social welfare paradigm.”

A matter of culture, paradigm and ideology

Mr Lim then briefly touched on the high salaries of CDC mayors.

“I suspect the reason why many are questioning (note: not exactly against or completely rejecting, but simply questioning) the roles of CDC and mayors is this: we pay you so much taxpayer monies, to create more programmes and schemes, but to what end? To incur more costs to administer and gatekeep?”

He wondered why the money cannot simply be channelled directly to the “needy” and “low-income people” that the mayors and CDC serves. In fact, he also suggested staffing the CDCs with these people in need who are trying to find a job as a more direct way of helping.

“After some preliminary attempt at quantifying, through my own case study, the labour costs incurred when we have too many schemes and programmes, too much gatekeeping, I can only say that the doubts and questions about CDCs and mayors continue to intensify and deepen,” said Mr Lim.

Going back to the main discussion, Mr Lim said: “If we could do away with some unnecessary or excessive gatekeeping, my hope is that these resources can be better diverted to better places, like to people-in-need directly.”

Acknowledging that he is part of the problem, he notes that while it is time to reflect on how to transform internal practices, systems and policies, there is more than need to shift in terms of culture, paradigm and ideologies.

Subscribe
Notify of
8 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Massive delay along North-South Line during morning rush hour

Commuters rushing for school and work on the North-South line (NSL) were…

华文儿童绘本涉种族歧视风波 显示推广华语委会审核松懈

华文儿童绘本《谁会赢?》引发种族歧视风波,致使出版社名创教育决定停止销售和发行该绘本、图书馆也下架。 绘本中反派角色“毛毛”是校园小霸王,皮肤黝黑且一头卷发,目中无人,还经常欺负同学。一些读者反映,绘本故事情节也没有改过自新的寓意,如“毛毛”只是被误解,或最后改变态度和主角成为朋友等,反而是“毛毛”从头到尾都毫无悔意 文化遗产学博士黄子明,对于有者对此事“不关心”,甚至认为“何必那么敏感”感到震惊。但他对于图书馆审核单位及推广华语委员会的疏忽,更是难以接受。 黄子明在脸书帖文指出,有网民指出该绘本含有种族歧视主义,名创教育(Marshall Cavendish Education)便站出来道歉,并且宣布停售并召回所有吴星华的《皮皮历险记》系列作品,但是他认为“这还不够”。 该绘本自2018年,就成为教育部推广华语委员会所批准的小学华文课外读物参考书目之一。 黄子明直言,这说明有关疏忽不仅是图书馆当局或个人课题,“也显然是委员会在审阅丛书内容的懈怠,因为清单内所提供的系列丛书简介,并没有提到这名皮肤黝黑且一头油腻卷发的角色,毛毛。” 黄子明表示,虽然部分家长认为,这本针对7至9岁的儿童读物中,“毛毛”的角色并不涉及种族歧视,但是这其实已导致华社在多元社会中,对其他种族产生的负面看法。 “这甚至比过去华裔父母用印裔警察来恐吓孩子,来的糟糕。” 促民众反思种族定性观念 绘本内容中,“皮肤黝黑”的恶霸是我行我素的捣蛋鬼,甚至不尊重老师,而在故事尾端,华裔男孩学自卫术进行反抗。然而在他们的“较量”分出胜负之前,一名老师制止两人并将他们带到校长室去,两人在故事结局都没有和解。…

社媒账户被删除 国大学联重申立场

被指错误引用内政部长尚穆根言论的“新加坡国立大学学生联合会”(NUSSU)脸书粉丝专页,却因为违反脸书公司真实身份守则,遭该公司管理层删除。 对此,上述专页特此发文告表示,他们并不介意账户被删除,但是重申他们并非如尚穆根的新闻秘书吴作彤所指那般“反宗教”。 有关不具名管理员在文告里指出,他们强烈反对吴作彤对他们的指责,指他们“反宗教”、煽动仇恨及不和。他们重申支持每个政治人物都有宗教信仰的权利,但不赞同政治人物,在政治组织和宗教组织上“一脚踏两船”(one foot step two boats)。网页管理员曾自称是国大毕业生。 脸书公司发言人于周日(11月24日)指出,该假冒账户(NUSSU – NUS Students United)违反了真实身份守则,因此将其删除。…

Farrera Brochez pleads not guilty in US Court for charges of leaking stolen confidential information from Singapore’s HIV Registry

Mikhy Farrera Brochez pleaded not guilty on 19 March to charges related…