RUNNING HEADER: BENEFIT PROVISION 1

Benefit Provision
Robert De Witt
Empire State College
School for Graduate Studies
Tally
November 2016

BENEFIT PROVISION

Define universalism and selectivity as allocative principals and discuss some of the
perceived problems with each choice.
Universalism, in the context of the allocation of social benefits, is defined as benefits

made available to an entire population as a basic right, an example would be social security
benefits (Gilbert & Terrell (2015), pg.92). Selectivity, on the other hand, denotes benefits made
available on the basis of individual need, one example being welfare (Gilbert & Terrell (2015),
pg.92). These two concepts hold particular importance in the debate over who gets what and
why.
Universalists perceive all of society as being at risk, and therefore social policies should
be used to address issues and problems that are being experienced by all members of the
population, not just the poor or others facing hard times (Gilbert & Terrell (2015), pg.92).
Selectivists, on the other hand, perceive the scope of social policy as focusing on carefully
targeted beneficiaries (Gilbert & Terrell (2015), pg.93). Instead of simply spreading benefits
among the greater population in a haphazard fashion, those individuals demonstrating the
greatest need should have priority in receiving available social benefits (Gilbert & Terrell (2015),
pg.93).
These two competing perspectives are simply concerned with ensuring that people who are
in need are able to utilize available social benefits and that those benefits are not abuse or
wasted. They both share similar intentions but their values are focused in different areas. The
effects of liberal and conservative ideologies are easily distinguishable here.

Define and describe the tension between social effectiveness and cost effectiveness.
Universalists additionally place extreme value on the concept of social effectiveness, or

the protection of the dignity of the individual and a more unified society (Gilbert & Terrell

BENEFIT PROVISION

(2015), pg.93). The Selectivists perception of the world places more emphasis on limiting benefit
allocation to those in the most dire need, recognizing the economic constraints facing the
country, they believe that social policies should be limited, with more concern placed on the
cost effectiveness of proposed or existing social policies (Gilbert & Terrell (2015), pg.93).
Again, liberal and conservative ideologies. Lets not forget that one of the primary reasons our
nations founding document was forged to protect wealthy landowners and businessmen. This
seems more like a concern to limit the provisions to the needy and poor so that the rich will have
more.

Define each of the four criteria for social allocations covered in "A Continuum of
Choice."
Gilbert and Terrell (2015), conceptualize four allocative principles in their consideration

of the manner in which social benefits are distributed to members of society, they are: attributed
need, which is dependent on an individuals membership in a group possessing common needs
that are not being met under the present economic and social conditions; compensation, where
membership is conditioned on belonging to groups that have contributed socially and
economically to society, such as Veterans; diagnostic differentiation, conditioned on
professional judgements of individuals requiring special services or needs, such as the mentally
impaired or the physically disabled; and , means-tested need, which is conditioned on an
individuals ability to purchase goods or services, limiting the obtaining of social benefits to an
individuals economic circumstances (pp. 108-11).

Define and discuss the perceived differences between in-cash and in-kind
allocations.
In the policy dimension that is concerned with the provision of social benefits, the debate is

generally centered on two most basic forms of social provision: benefits in-kind, material goods

BENEFIT PROVISION

such as food, clothing, etc., versus benefits in-cash (Gilbert & Terrell (2015), pg.128). Early
arguments put forth that in-kind benefits were more economical to produce and provide to those
in need at a lower cost than the in-cash alternative, targeting those in need specifically, and
ensuring that the benefits are directed to their intended purpose (Gilbert & Terrell (2015),
pg.128). Conversely, those who favor in-cash provisions argue that users will experience
maximum choice, and thereby maximizing their utility, assuming that the consumer is
capable of making rational decisions based on good judgement, this method assumes the overall
good of society is achieved by ensuring that the individual has choices, and that those choices
will in turn work to benefit all of society (Gilbert & Terrell (2015), pp.128-29).

Outline alternative forms of allocation. Please specify them by name and define
them.
In the real world, policymakers are faced with many realities that complicate simplifying

the distribution of social benefits along the narrow lines of utilizing only the two methods
discussed above. In a much broader view, forms of social provision can be classified into six
categories: opportunities, services, goods, vouchers and tax credits, cash, and power (Gilbert &
Terrell (2015), pg.134). Opportunities being those things that are intended to motivate
individuals toward some desired behavior, such as incentives and sanctions, opportunity benefits
being more centered on the provision of civil rights, or an extra chance (Gilbert & Terrell
(2015), pg.134). Services are those actions that are provided directly to individuals, such as case
management, in-home care, etc. (Gilbert & Terrell (2015), pg.135). Goods, pertain to tangible
things such as food, housing, etc., characterized by limited transfer value (Gilbert & Terrell
(2015), pg.135). Vouchers and tax credits, can be used to help pay for daycare services, food
stamps exchanged for food, they are uniquely attractive to both individualistic and community

BENEFIT PROVISION

preferences for allocating benefits, and they provide the individual with a greater range of choice
than other forms of allocation (Gilbert & Terrell (2015), pg.135). Cash benefits, obtained through
such programs as public assistance, social insurance, etc., give the individual complete control
over their purchasing, tax breaks give to the consumer also fall under this rubric (Gilbert &
Terrell (2015), pg.135). Power, may involve policies that transfer the authority to make policy to
specific groups, restructuring the power base that is involved with the control of goods and
resources, sometimes accomplished by requiring representation of the effected consumers in the
decision-making bodies that dispense benefits (Gilbert & Terrell (2015), pg.135). Finally,
instrumental provision, are those that help to form institutions that are key in the development
and implementation of benefit programs, and that bring about more effective and efficient
interactions among service providers (Gilbert & Terrell (2015), pg.135).
Personal Reflection
As I was reading the chapters for this assignment, I couldnt help but realize I have been
directly responsible for some of the major changes to public assistance that have occurred and
that when I think back, I can personally identify with the logic behind a lot of the welfare
reforms.
My first experience with the welfare system was in 1985 when I was released from county
jail for the first time. At the time of my arrest I was homeless for the first time, and I had been
told by others in the jail that I should go to DSS (Department of Social Services) as it was known
then. I was told that all I had to do was bring DSS my release papers, tell them I was homeless,
and that DSS would give me almost $200 in food stamps, put me in a hotel, and give me about
$200 in cash before the end of the business day. Well, I can tell you I was skeptical, but every
single word was true. Hell, we would walk out of the DSS office, down the street to Getty

BENEFIT PROVISION

Square in Yonkers, up to the corner store on Palisades Ave. (this is the block that borders the
projects in Yonkers officially called Schlobaum Houses, where Mary J. Blige lived, but know by
everybody in the hood as slow-bombs), and sell the food stamps for about two-thirds of their
value. The going rate was $70 cash for $100 in food stamps.
That day when I was released from the Westchester County jail for the first time, I went to
DSS in Yonkerss at about 8:00 A.M., and I received everything that I was told I would by 2:00
P.M. that day.
Thus began my vicious cycle in the welfare system. I had a new welfare case about every 3
months, as I was in and out of jail at about that rate. I would think that up until 2005, at the time
of my last arrest, I probably had probably been on the welfare rolls (had an open case) at least 20
times. They were practically throwing money at anyone that could prove eligibility, and
generally that was just by word of mouth, all anyone had to do was walk in and say they were
homeless, sign an agreement that what they were saying was true, and they were in.
The welfare system in the 80s and even into the 90s was one of the greatest income
streams for drug dealers ever created, as a good majority of those that were homeless during that
period were addicted to crack cocaine. So as I read about these changes to the system and the
different methods of allocation and the debates over them, I understand them perfectly, on a
personal level, and most people cant because you had to have been a part of the nightmare that
was the system before the changes occurred to truly understand the changes to the system that
have transpired and why.
For years I lived off of the backs of the taxpayers, they supported me in numerous ways,
form my stays in jail and prison, to food stamps, cash allowances, etc. All coming from the

BENEFIT PROVISION

pockets of hard working people with families of their own to take care of. So I get it, changes
had to be made, and they were all for the better, trust me. You had to be there.

References
Gilbert, Neil, & Terrell, Paul. (2015). Dimensions of Social Welfare Policy. New York: Pearson
Education (pg. 157).