It is currently 22 Sep 2017, 15:56

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Between 1965 and 1970, welfare caseloads more than doubled and costs

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
P
Joined: 26 Feb 2016
Posts: 1332

Kudos [?]: 522 [0], given: 16

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Leadership
WE: Sales (Retail)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Between 1965 and 1970, welfare caseloads more than doubled and costs [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2017, 11:03
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Question 1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

27% (03:42) correct 73% (02:53) wrong based on 79

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

42% (00:47) correct 58% (01:01) wrong based on 72

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 3
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

42% (01:04) correct 58% (01:30) wrong based on 71

HideShow timer Statistics

Between 1965 and 1970, welfare caseloads
more than doubled and costs tripled. The Nixon administration
was unable to secure a legislative majority for comprehensive
welfare reform. Legislative welfare reform raised contentious
issues of who is entitled to support, how much, and on what
terms—precisely the types of issues that have defied political
resolution throughout welfare‘s history.

As a mechanism of policy change, the Nixon administration
turned to a common managerial tool—performance monitoring.
Middle-level officials at the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
(HEW) crafted quality control—a system for monitoring the
accuracy of state welfare payments—into an instrument for
indirectly influencing states to become more restrictive in the
provision of welfare. Quality control‘s manifest purpose was
to achieve fiscal accountability.

Through this instrument HEW could monitor state welfare
payments and withhold federal reimbursement from those
that it deemed to be improper. However, quality control
also served a latent, political function, partly reflected in its
design. It penalized states only for overpayments and
payments made to ineligible individuals.

Quality control‘s effectiveness depended on the uncoordinated
responses of street-level bureaucrats in hundreds of local
welfare offices to new demands that administrative reform
imposed at the workplace. For example, welfare workers
translated administrative concern for procedural uniformity
into demands that welfare applicants routinely produce scores
of documents of dubious relevance to their eligibility.

Applicants who could not meet these procedural demands,
whether reasonable or not, were denied welfare.
Administrative reform traded errors of liberality for errors of
stringency. Behaviours directed toward the helping aspects of
welfare policy were virtually displaced as workers responded
to incentives to maximize measured attributes of performance,
namely procedural uniformity and productivity. At the same time,
worker discretion to make unreasonable procedural demands was
virtually unchecked.

Quality control did not overtly breach the integrity of theoretical
entitlement to welfare promised by statute and supported by legal
precedent. Rather, it seemed designed to protect this promise.
But in practice, quality control appears to have initiated a process of
effective disentitlement. Its adverse effects were unmeasured and
unobserved, leaving quality control‘s manifest legitimacy unimpaired.
Government institutions and officials were thus insulated from the
effects of their actions. In this sense, quality control ironically eroded
the government accountability that it was ostensibly intended
to guarantee. Furthermore, through quality control, federal
authorities could indirectly influence state administrative practices
without directly encroaching on areas of nominal state authority.
Performance measurement backed by fiscal sanctions proved to
be a relatively potent, if imperfectly cast, instrument for penetrating
a decentralized bureaucracy.
All of the following are mentioned in the passage by the author as
adverse effects of quality control EXCEPT:
A. undue emphasis on administrative paperwork and procedures.
B. arbitrary and inconsistent penalties for state welfare agencies.
C. a decrease in the number of people who were eligible for
welfare benefits.
D. lack of accountability for certain systematic infringements of
the welfare system.
E. initiation of a process of effective dis-entitlement


[Reveal] Spoiler:
C


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. In paragraph 4, the phrase ―uncoordinated responses of
street-level bureaucrats‖ is used in order to:
A. support the author‘s claim that unreasonable administrative
procedures caused many applicants to be denied welfare benefits.
B. refute the theory that quality control was used to hold states to
a higher standard of accountability in their fiscal administration.
C. prove that quality control policies were implemented to serve a
political rather than a social agenda.
D. provide a potential reason for the ineffectiveness of performance
monitoring on general welfare reform.
E. criticise bureaucrats for the state of affairs with regards to quality
control

[Reveal] Spoiler:
D


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What does the author of the passage suggest about the use of
common managerial tools to effect policy changes in the welfare
system?

A. Procedural changes in welfare agencies should be established in
ways that assure adherence to regulations for both workers and
applicants.
B. Administrative reform methods like performance monitoring
may cause welfare organizations to become overly restrictive in
their policies.
C. State payments and federal reimbursement funding can be
effectively monitored through changes in welfare administration
at the national level.
D. Implementation of quality control methods helped to hold the
federal government accountable for its actions.
E. Such tools have completely failed to effect policy changes in
the past

[Reveal] Spoiler:
B

[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #1 OA
[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #2 OA
[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #3 OA

_________________

Stay hungry, Stay foolish

2017-2018 MBA Deadlines

Class of 2020: Rotman Thread | Schulich Thread
Class of 2019: Sauder Thread

Kudos [?]: 522 [0], given: 16

Director
Director
avatar
G
Joined: 21 May 2013
Posts: 532

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 477

CAT Tests
Re: Between 1965 and 1970, welfare caseloads more than doubled and costs [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Aug 2017, 04:37
pushpitkc wrote:
Between 1965 and 1970, welfare caseloads
more than doubled and costs tripled. The Nixon administration
was unable to secure a legislative majority for comprehensive
welfare reform. Legislative welfare reform raised contentious
issues of who is entitled to support, how much, and on what
terms—precisely the types of issues that have defied political
resolution throughout welfare‘s history.

As a mechanism of policy change, the Nixon administration
turned to a common managerial tool—performance monitoring.
Middle-level officials at the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
(HEW) crafted quality control—a system for monitoring the
accuracy of state welfare payments—into an instrument for
indirectly influencing states to become more restrictive in the
provision of welfare. Quality control‘s manifest purpose was
to achieve fiscal accountability.

Through this instrument HEW could monitor state welfare
payments and withhold federal reimbursement from those
that it deemed to be improper. However, quality control
also served a latent, political function, partly reflected in its
design. It penalized states only for overpayments and
payments made to ineligible individuals.

Quality control‘s effectiveness depended on the uncoordinated
responses of street-level bureaucrats in hundreds of local
welfare offices to new demands that administrative reform
imposed at the workplace. For example, welfare workers
translated administrative concern for procedural uniformity
into demands that welfare applicants routinely produce scores
of documents of dubious relevance to their eligibility.

Applicants who could not meet these procedural demands,
whether reasonable or not, were denied welfare.
Administrative reform traded errors of liberality for errors of
stringency. Behaviours directed toward the helping aspects of
welfare policy were virtually displaced as workers responded
to incentives to maximize measured attributes of performance,
namely procedural uniformity and productivity. At the same time,
worker discretion to make unreasonable procedural demands was
virtually unchecked.

Quality control did not overtly breach the integrity of theoretical
entitlement to welfare promised by statute and supported by legal
precedent. Rather, it seemed designed to protect this promise.
But in practice, quality control appears to have initiated a process of
effective disentitlement. Its adverse effects were unmeasured and
unobserved, leaving quality control‘s manifest legitimacy unimpaired.
Government institutions and officials were thus insulated from the
effects of their actions. In this sense, quality control ironically eroded
the government accountability that it was ostensibly intended
to guarantee. Furthermore, through quality control, federal
authorities could indirectly influence state administrative practices
without directly encroaching on areas of nominal state authority.
Performance measurement backed by fiscal sanctions proved to
be a relatively potent, if imperfectly cast, instrument for penetrating
a decentralized bureaucracy.
All of the following are mentioned in the passage by the author as
adverse effects of quality control EXCEPT:
A. undue emphasis on administrative paperwork and procedures.
B. arbitrary and inconsistent penalties for state welfare agencies.
C. a decrease in the number of people who were eligible for
welfare benefits.
D. lack of accountability for certain systematic infringements of
the welfare system.
E. initiation of a process of effective dis-entitlement


[Reveal] Spoiler:
C


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. In paragraph 4, the phrase ―uncoordinated responses of
street-level bureaucrats‖ is used in order to:
A. support the author‘s claim that unreasonable administrative
procedures caused many applicants to be denied welfare benefits.
B. refute the theory that quality control was used to hold states to
a higher standard of accountability in their fiscal administration.
C. prove that quality control policies were implemented to serve a
political rather than a social agenda.
D. provide a potential reason for the ineffectiveness of performance
monitoring on general welfare reform.
E. criticise bureaucrats for the state of affairs with regards to quality
control

[Reveal] Spoiler:
D


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What does the author of the passage suggest about the use of
common managerial tools to effect policy changes in the welfare
system?

A. Procedural changes in welfare agencies should be established in
ways that assure adherence to regulations for both workers and
applicants.
B. Administrative reform methods like performance monitoring
may cause welfare organizations to become overly restrictive in
their policies.
C. State payments and federal reimbursement funding can be
effectively monitored through changes in welfare administration
at the national level.
D. Implementation of quality control methods helped to hold the
federal government accountable for its actions.
E. Such tools have completely failed to effect policy changes in
the past

[Reveal] Spoiler:
B



Do you have the OE for Qs 3? IMO , answer should be C.

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 477

Intern
Intern
User avatar
S
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 23

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 109

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Between 1965 and 1970, welfare caseloads more than doubled and costs [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Aug 2017, 08:23
KS15 wrote:
pushpitkc wrote:
Between 1965 and 1970, welfare caseloads
more than doubled and costs tripled. The Nixon administration
was unable to secure a legislative majority for comprehensive
welfare reform. Legislative welfare reform raised contentious
issues of who is entitled to support, how much, and on what
terms—precisely the types of issues that have defied political
resolution throughout welfare‘s history.

As a mechanism of policy change, the Nixon administration
turned to a common managerial tool—performance monitoring.
Middle-level officials at the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
(HEW) crafted quality control—a system for monitoring the
accuracy of state welfare payments—into an instrument for
indirectly influencing states to become more restrictive in the
provision of welfare. Quality control‘s manifest purpose was
to achieve fiscal accountability.

Through this instrument HEW could monitor state welfare
payments and withhold federal reimbursement from those
that it deemed to be improper. However, quality control
also served a latent, political function, partly reflected in its
design. It penalized states only for overpayments and
payments made to ineligible individuals.

Quality control‘s effectiveness depended on the uncoordinated
responses of street-level bureaucrats in hundreds of local
welfare offices to new demands that administrative reform
imposed at the workplace. For example, welfare workers
translated administrative concern for procedural uniformity
into demands that welfare applicants routinely produce scores
of documents of dubious relevance to their eligibility.

Applicants who could not meet these procedural demands,
whether reasonable or not, were denied welfare.
Administrative reform traded errors of liberality for errors of
stringency. Behaviours directed toward the helping aspects of
welfare policy were virtually displaced as workers responded
to incentives to maximize measured attributes of performance,
namely procedural uniformity and productivity. At the same time,
worker discretion to make unreasonable procedural demands was
virtually unchecked.

Quality control did not overtly breach the integrity of theoretical
entitlement to welfare promised by statute and supported by legal
precedent. Rather, it seemed designed to protect this promise.
But in practice, quality control appears to have initiated a process of
effective disentitlement. Its adverse effects were unmeasured and
unobserved, leaving quality control‘s manifest legitimacy unimpaired.
Government institutions and officials were thus insulated from the
effects of their actions. In this sense, quality control ironically eroded
the government accountability that it was ostensibly intended
to guarantee. Furthermore, through quality control, federal
authorities could indirectly influence state administrative practices
without directly encroaching on areas of nominal state authority.
Performance measurement backed by fiscal sanctions proved to
be a relatively potent, if imperfectly cast, instrument for penetrating
a decentralized bureaucracy.
All of the following are mentioned in the passage by the author as
adverse effects of quality control EXCEPT:
A. undue emphasis on administrative paperwork and procedures.
B. arbitrary and inconsistent penalties for state welfare agencies.
C. a decrease in the number of people who were eligible for
welfare benefits.
D. lack of accountability for certain systematic infringements of
the welfare system.
E. initiation of a process of effective dis-entitlement


[Reveal] Spoiler:
C


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. In paragraph 4, the phrase ―uncoordinated responses of
street-level bureaucrats‖ is used in order to:
A. support the author‘s claim that unreasonable administrative
procedures caused many applicants to be denied welfare benefits.
B. refute the theory that quality control was used to hold states to
a higher standard of accountability in their fiscal administration.
C. prove that quality control policies were implemented to serve a
political rather than a social agenda.
D. provide a potential reason for the ineffectiveness of performance
monitoring on general welfare reform.
E. criticise bureaucrats for the state of affairs with regards to quality
control

[Reveal] Spoiler:
D


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What does the author of the passage suggest about the use of
common managerial tools to effect policy changes in the welfare
system?

A. Procedural changes in welfare agencies should be established in
ways that assure adherence to regulations for both workers and
applicants.
B. Administrative reform methods like performance monitoring
may cause welfare organizations to become overly restrictive in
their policies.
C. State payments and federal reimbursement funding can be
effectively monitored through changes in welfare administration
at the national level.
D. Implementation of quality control methods helped to hold the
federal government accountable for its actions.
E. Such tools have completely failed to effect policy changes in
the past

[Reveal] Spoiler:
B



Do you have the OE for Qs 3? IMO , answer should be C.


Yea, I was also confused between B and C, need the OE to rule out C.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 109

BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
P
Joined: 26 Feb 2016
Posts: 1332

Kudos [?]: 522 [0], given: 16

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Leadership
WE: Sales (Retail)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Between 1965 and 1970, welfare caseloads more than doubled and costs [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2017, 20:37
Hi KS15 & ezzo,

Please find below the OE for the question 3

What common managerial tool is mentioned in the passage?
Paraphrase: Quality control. What does the author think about quality control
in the case of welfare reform? That it was too restrictive and kept people who
were entitled to welfare from getting it. What would the author think about
the use of ―common managerial tools‖ to effect change in welfare?

Predict: Probably the same thing; it‘s too restrictive.
(B) rewards the careful reasoning with a nearly word-for-word paraphrase.

(A): Opposite. If anything, the author argues that over-adherence to regulations
was the cause of the problem in the first place.
(B): The correct answer
(C): Opposite. The author uses to passage to cite quality control as an example of
a case in which national welfare administration wasn’t effective at doing this.
(D): Out of Scope. The only accountability that the author mentions is the
accountability at the state and local level; federal accountability is never
discussed.
(E): Out of scope, as described above.


Hope this helps!
_________________

Stay hungry, Stay foolish

2017-2018 MBA Deadlines

Class of 2020: Rotman Thread | Schulich Thread
Class of 2019: Sauder Thread

Kudos [?]: 522 [0], given: 16

Intern
Intern
User avatar
S
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 23

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 109

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Between 1965 and 1970, welfare caseloads more than doubled and costs [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Aug 2017, 20:34
pushpitkc wrote:
Hi KS15 & ezzo,

Please find below the OE for the question 3

What common managerial tool is mentioned in the passage?
Paraphrase: Quality control. What does the author think about quality control
in the case of welfare reform? That it was too restrictive and kept people who
were entitled to welfare from getting it. What would the author think about
the use of ―common managerial tools‖ to effect change in welfare?

Predict: Probably the same thing; it‘s too restrictive.
(B) rewards the careful reasoning with a nearly word-for-word paraphrase.

(A): Opposite. If anything, the author argues that over-adherence to regulations
was the cause of the problem in the first place.
(B): The correct answer
(C): Opposite. The author uses to passage to cite quality control as an example of
a case in which national welfare administration wasn’t effective at doing this.
(D): Out of Scope. The only accountability that the author mentions is the
accountability at the state and local level; federal accountability is never
discussed.
(E): Out of scope, as described above.


Hope this helps!


Thanks for the OE, but can you shed some light on how is C opposite? I'm not able to understand how is it opposite.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 109

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 24 Jun 2017
Posts: 12

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 20

CAT Tests
Re: Between 1965 and 1970, welfare caseloads more than doubled and costs [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Aug 2017, 21:19
Can someone shed some light on the first question? I had B as the answer

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 20

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 23 Jul 2015
Posts: 148

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 29

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V40
GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: Between 1965 and 1970, welfare caseloads more than doubled and costs [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2017, 21:17
OE for question 2 please.

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 29

Re: Between 1965 and 1970, welfare caseloads more than doubled and costs   [#permalink] 31 Aug 2017, 21:17
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
18 Manufacturers have to do more than build large manufacturing omidsa 21 02 Sep 2017, 11:16
232 BEST COMPILATION of MORE than 400 Passages frm GMAT/GRE/LSAT q10nik 54 15 Feb 2017, 06:51
6 Until the 1970s it was assumed that sahilchaudhary 7 23 Jun 2016, 08:12
16 READING COMP - More than 200 passages with solutions. phineasandferb 3 29 Jul 2016, 22:58
2 RC-Even more than mountain leaderz 2 23 Oct 2012, 23:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Between 1965 and 1970, welfare caseloads more than doubled and costs

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.