Interest in how social assistance programmes are organized has recently heightened, fed by concerns about the limits on achieving greater efficiency. Most available evidence considers performance indicators that are too general, there being few studies relating the use of inputs to outcomes. We compare different performance indicators of Madrid's programme with resource endowments in a group of local agencies of social services. In addition to constructing a detailed system of input and performance indicators, an empirical analysis of efficiency for each of the social services agencies is carried out using data envelopment analysis. Results confirm that there is a wide margin for obtaining efficiency gains. The empirical analysis shows that some detected inefficiencies arise from an excessive number of staff in relation to the work to be performed. Agencies with a higher incidence of social problems present higher efficiency scores.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonKHBurkhauserRVRaymondJE, 1993, “The effect of creaming on placement rates under the Job Training Partnership Act”Industrial and Labour Relations Review46613–624
2.
AuerPFortunyM, 2002, “Ageing of the labour force in OECD countries: Economic and social consequences”, Employment Paper 2000/2, International Labour Office, 4 Route des Morillons, CH-1211 Genève 22
3.
AyalaLPérezC, 2005, “Macroeconomic conditions, institutional factors and demographic structure: What causes welfare caseloads?”Journal of Population Economics3563–581
4.
AyalaLRodríguezM, 2006, “The latin model of welfare: Do ‘insertion contracts’ reduce welfare recidivism?”Labour Economics13799–822
5.
BarnowBS, 1992, “The effects of performance standards on state and local programmes”, in Evaluating Welfare and Training Programmes Eds ManskiCFGarfinkelI (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 277–309
BartikTJEbertsRKlineK, 2004, “Estimating a performance standards adjustment model for workforce programs that provides timely feedback and uses data from only one state”, Report to US Department of Labor and State of Michigan, The WE Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 300 South Westnedge Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI49007–4686
BlankRM, 2001, “What causes public assistance caseloads to grow?”Journal of Human Resources3685–118
10.
BlankRM, 2002, “Evaluating welfare reform in the United States”Journal of Economic Literature401105–1166
11.
BurgessSPropperCWilsonD, 2002, “Does performance monitoring work? A review of the evidence from the UK public sector, excluding health care”, WP 02/49, Centre for Market and Public Organisation, http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmpo/workingpapers/wp49.pdf
12.
CancianMHavemanRKaplanTMeyerDRWolfeB, 1999, “Work, earnings and well-being after welfare”, in Economic Conditions and Welfare Reform Ed. DanzigerS (Upjohn Institute of Employment Research, Kalamazoo, MI)
13.
CharnesACooperWWRhodesE, 1978, “Measuring the efficiency of decision making units”European Journal of Operational Research2429–444
14.
CooperWWSeifordLMToneK, 1999Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht)
15.
CorderoJMPedrajaFSalinasJ, 2005, “Eficiencia en educación secundaria e inputs no controlables: Sensibilidad de los resultados ante modelos alternativos”Hacienda Pública Española17361–83
16.
DangTTImmervollHMantovaniDOrsiniKSutherlandH, 2006, “An age perspective on economic well-being and social protection in nine OECD countries”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration WP 34, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/10/36890154.pdf
17.
DHHS, 2000Report on Alternative Outcome Measures: Temporary Assistance for Needy FamiliesUS Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC
18.
Esping-AndersenG, 2003, “Adapting social protection to the new demography and labour market”Hacienda Pública Española Special Issue, 37–62
19.
FarrellMJ, 1957, “The measurement of productive efficiency”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A3253–290
20.
FriedlanderDBurtlessG, 1994Five Years After: The Long-term Effects of Welfare-to-work Programmes (Russell Sage Foundation, New York)
21.
GroggerJ, 2005, “Markov forecasting methods for welfare caseloads”, WP 11682, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA02138–5398
22.
GroggerJKarolyLA, 2005, Welfare Reform: Effects of a Decade of Change (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
23.
HeckmanJJHeinrichCSmithJ, 2002, “The performance of performance standards”Journal of Human Resources37778–811
24.
KoshelJ, 1997, “Indicators as tools for managing and evaluating programmes at the national, state, and local levels of government: Practical and theoretical issues”, Special Report 73, Institute for Research on Poverty, http://www.irp/wisc.edu/publications/sr/pdfs/sr73.pdf
MoffittRVer PloegM (Eds), 2001Evaluating Welfare Reform in an Era of Transition (National Academy Press, Washington, DC)
27.
MooreKA, 1998, “Criteria for indicators of child well-being”, in Indicators of Children's Well-being Eds HauserRMBrownBVProsserWR (Russell Sage Foundation, New York) pp 36–44
NunamakerTR, 1985, “Using data envelopment analysis to measure the efficiency of non-profit organizations: A critical evaluation”Managerial and Decision Economics650–58
30.
SeftonT, 2003, “Economic evaluation in the social welfare field: Making ends meet”Evaluation973–91
31.
StapletonDLivermoreGTuckerA, 1997Determinants of AFDC Caseload GrowthDepartment of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC
32.
WorthingtonACDolleryBE, 2002, “Incorporating contextual information in public sector efficiency analyses: A comparative study of NSW local government”Applied Economics34453–464
33.
ZornitskyJRubinM, 1988, “Establishing a performance management system for targeted welfare programmes”, RR 88–14, National Commission for Employment Policy, 1522 K Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005
