> 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

> 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.