Taub: Inequalities in municipal welfare budgeting

The study also found that most of the gaps in per-client budget allocation can be explained by the different care frameworks for the needy.

December 6, 2017 05:59
2 minute read.
A PASSERBY stops to console a poor woman in Jerusalem in 2015.

A PASSERBY stops to console a poor woman in Jerusalem in 2015.. (photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM)


Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analysis from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.

For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:

  • A user experience almost completely free of ads
  • Access to our Premium Section
  • Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Report and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew - Ivrit
  • A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel

Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.

Thank you,

Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief


Socioeconomically weak municipalities spend less per client on social services than stronger localities, according to a report by the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies scheduled to be released on Wednesday.

The study notes that local social-service departments provide services with matched funding. For every shekel invested by the local authority, the Labor and Social Welfare Ministry supplements three shekels, so that 75% of the welfare budget is financed by the ministry and 25% by the local authority.

The High Court of Justice is currently reviewing a petition against this method of financing on the grounds that it is not equitable.

The comprehensive study, conducted by Prof. John Gal, Shavit Madhala and Haim Bleikh, addresses the issue by including an analysis of 253 local authorities – Jewish, Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) and Arab Israeli – across the spectrum of social and economic status.

The data reveal, unsurprisingly, that the socioeconomic ranking of a locality is proportional to the welfare needs of its residents. So the lower the ranking, the greater the percentage of the locality budget must be used to address welfare issues.

Accordingly, welfare expenditure accounts for 11% of the total budget on average for localities in the three lowest socioeconomic clusters, as opposed to 6% of the budget in the three highest socioeconomic clusters.

Despite this, the study revealed that the total per-client expenditure was actually smaller when the locality was weaker.
The study found that while the average per-client expenditure in the socioeconomically strongest municipal authorities stood at NIS 9,095 annually, in Arab Israeli authorities it was NIS 3,387.

Haredi local authorities are exceptions to the rule, despite those localities having low socioeconomic ranking. In those communities, the average per-client expenditure stood at NIS 8,749 per year compared to other Jewish municipalities with NIS 7,318 per-client expenditure.

The reasons for this discrepancy, the study found, was that initial allotments from the ministry creates a gap that disadvantages weaker authorities; the average per-client expenditure is NIS 3,170 for low socioeconomic status authorities, compared to NIS 5,400 for the remaining authorities.

Gaps in the average ministry allocation revealed differences based on demographics, with NIS 2,682 being the average in Arab Israeli localities, NIS 5,483 in Jewish localities, and higher sums in Haredi localities.

The study also found that most of the gaps in per-client budget allocation can be explained by the different care frameworks for the needy. Weaker authorities use fewer out-of-home frameworks, which are the most expensive, to care for the disadvantaged.

In Arab Israeli localities, for example, these frameworks are used less frequently than they are in the Jewish sector. Haredi localities use such frameworks far more frequently than the other localities.

The researchers concluded:  “The study’s findings on social service budgeting among Israeli local authorities and its examination of the factors underlying the budgeting system, underscore the need for a reexamination of the existing budgeting system and the adoption of policies that will ensure equal access to care for the needy, regardless of where they live.”

Related Content

Ben-Gurion Airport's Terminal 3 arrivals hall
June 18, 2019
West Bank leaders join call to stop McDonald's tender at Ben-Gurion


Cookie Settings