4 ms·

> The study found that the program did not produce the hoped-for effects on most key outcomes (g., child education, parental employment) during a two to four-ye

> The study found that the program did not produce the hoped-for effects on most key outcomes (g., child education, parental employment) during a two to four-year period. Measuring educational outcomes is a good idea... > a conditional cash transfer program for low-income families with at least one child entering ninth or 10th grade. ...but you are measuring the impact kids who likely have already spent over a decade in poverty?!? Why not measure younger children? Infancy and early childhood are the most critical developmental periods. > Over about a three-year period, the program provided each participating family with cash rewards that were contingent on meeting certain goals related to children’s school performance, the family’s use of preventive health care, and parents’ employment. So if you're not doing well enough, you don't get the money, which of course will help you meet the targets for the next month.... :-/ As others have said, the amount of assistance seems shockingly low for 1) the outcomes they seem to be looking for and 2) the massive dysfunction of American society.

wutbrodo 9y ago
> As others have said, the amount of assistance seems shockingly low for 1) the outcomes they seem to be looking for and 2) the massive dysfunction of American society. I think people are misunderstanding what they're actually trying to test here. CCTs aren't simply assistance, or UBI by another name. The intent of the study was to test the effect on incentives. The FPL for a family of 4 is 24600, or 2500/mo. An extra 10+% in disposable income at that level of poverty isn't a transformative amount of aid, but it's plausibly significant enough to shift incentives (and perhaps ability to meet the bar), which is the point of the study. As it turns out, it _doesn't_ appear to do that, but that more likely indicates structural problems with the hypothesis than the fact that the study should've started with higher amounts of aid.

wutbrodo 9y ago

> As others have said, the amount of assistance seems shockingly low for 1) the outcomes they seem to be looking for and 2) the massive dysfunction of American society. I think people are misunderstanding what they're actually trying to test here. CCTs aren't simply assistance, or UBI by another name. The intent of the study was to test the effect on incentives. The FPL for a family of 4 is 24600, or 2500/mo. An extra 10+% in disposable income at that level of poverty isn't a transformative amount of aid, but it's plausibly significant enough to shift incentives (and perhaps ability to meet the bar), which is the point of the study. As it turns out, it _doesn't_ appear to do that, but that more likely indicates structural problems with the hypothesis than the fact that the study should've started with higher amounts of aid.