I'm really surprised now that consideration of the 'quantum of funds' was not mentioned at all in the report, even as a footnote. On face value, I would argue

I'm really surprised now that consideration of the 'quantum of funds' was not mentioned at all in the report, even as a footnote. On face value, I would argue that $45/week extra although appreciated is not significant. As a thought experiment it's in the scale of, 1hr week spend more time help kids with homework, 1hr spend additional time job searching, 1hr deal with program administrative/reporting requirements. If a family say rewards themselves with a night out once a week for a dinner or movies etc, these funds are quickly gone. I think the scale here implies an incentive based around addressing a lack of will e.g. "Well if they just had a little more encouragement they'd spend more time helping their kids with education and seeking employment and good health". At this scale it does not address what I'll call 'incentive based on providing significant additional means for positive risk taking behaviour and structural optimization'. I define structural behavior as when a family makes significant changes to their own setup towards have an effect; like moving closer to the school, hiring a tutor, pursuing course further studies part time (2-3 days a week). Although the research process seems robust I agree the low quantum of funds discounts the greater significance of the findings. TLDR; Summary of findings: 'When we gave poor familes enough weekly funds to go out for dinner once a week alongside a bunch of criteria to seek improvement in their life, it made little difference'