Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

skydream416 t1_j12kipl wrote

Reply to comment by elizabeth-cooper in Over Half of NYC’s Food Stamp Applicants Left Waiting as Staffing Shortage Deepens by Lilyo

who said anything about "operating at peak efficiency" ? I think the idea is just to get people's applications processed, because... food.

6

elizabeth-cooper t1_j13tz75 wrote

Let's say 10 people operating at peak efficiency can process 100 applications in an hour.

But 10 people operating at middling efficiency can only process 50 applications in an hour and 10 people operating at low efficiency can only process 25 applications in an hour.

If they're operating at low efficiency, how many people do they need to process 100 applications in an hour? Show your work.

You can increase efficiency or you can hire more people. Which choice is more cost-effective? Show your work.

−2

skydream416 t1_j158mdj wrote

I never said the solution was to hire more people either lol, because I'm not in the habit of making up scenarios about which i'm totally uninformed :)

But sure I can humor you; your model is bad. You're assuming there's a "make city workers more 'efficient' button" that someone can just press, and is choosing not to press lmao. If you want to "increase efficiency" there is obviously going to be some sort of input cost to doing so (training, time, hiring trainers, etc.) So the real question isn't some weird, trivial 4th grade math about filling out widget-forms, the question is if (expected value/expected cost of TRAINING) > (expected value/expected cost of HIRING).

Good luck! show your work xx

1

elizabeth-cooper t1_j159cj2 wrote

You can see the same discussion on the other NYC board. They understand this point. Learn something.

https://www.reddit.com/r/newyorkcity/comments/zquwd4/over_half_of_nycs_food_stamp_applicants_left/

0

skydream416 t1_j15cnp3 wrote

I skimmed, so in good faith I'll share the (imo) important bits of your comment here:

> Well, let's start with the easy part, which is automating the form.

This is already a huge assumption, that it's "easier"/cheaper/more effective for the city to update the application process, than it is to hire more people. And that there are no additional regulatory steps other than "scan the form and put it online".

> Nobody should be doing data entry when time is of the essence.

You (correctly) observe the key factor is time. Setting aside what would be more cost effective, what do you think would be faster for the city: updating a workstream (taking the SNAP form application process and digitalizing it + whatever other steps would be required e.g. with NYS or the feds) or hiring more people to do the same work in the same way?

I'm not in the public sector, but knowing what we know about the bureaucracy of NYC, which tends to look to private-sector technocrats to implement scaled change, I'd bet that hiring more people is the faster (if not cheaper) way to get more forms processed in the short term, because those operations (the hiring, the onboarding/training, etc.) all exist already, and don't require any external intervention by e.g. some consulting firm to implement. So that's what makes more sense to me, after thinking it through.

1

elizabeth-cooper t1_j15dsfv wrote

You can already apply for SNAP online. They just don't force people to go that route.

Updating the form to be less crappy looking, which would make things easier for people filling it out and doing the data entry would be extremely easy and would speed up the inputting.

1

skydream416 t1_j15f4my wrote

idk that sounds like we're abstracting away from the goal of increasing program coverage and application throughput. I'm assuming there's literally 0 money, but if there was money i'd say it should be spent on 1) hiring more application processors, whatever that means and 2) aggressively marketing the program in areas where SNAP currently has the highest usage. And cutting as much red tape in the process as possible though it already sounds pretty simple (just an application + an interview --> decision?)

1