I'm not an economist by any accounts, but this statement troubles me: "The New York City experiment was designed to last three years, and the families particip

I'm not an economist by any accounts, but this statement troubles me: "The New York City experiment was designed to last three years, and the families participating knew that. In other words, the program inadvertently replicated some of the very instability it was designed to overcome. " 3 years of financial assistance, while not a long time, is hardly unstable. It's certainly enough time to make a lot of headway towards life when the program is up. The article makes the case that CCT programs simply didn't work because they didn't last forever. I'm not sure I buy that line of reasoning.