I think this is an amazing idea/experiment. From the NY Times:

Seeking new solutions to New York's vexingly high poverty rates, the city is moving ahead with an ambitious experiment that will pay poor families up to $5,000 a year to meet goals like attending parent-teacher conferences, going for a medical checkup or holding down a full-time job, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said yesterday.

There is some outrage about it by those who think it is taking a paternalistic approach, acting as if poor people are ignorant children who need to be prodded and incentivized to "do the right thing" as the Times puts its. They also say that it acts as though being poor is the fault of the people, even though the economy is making it harder and harder to get ahead. While I don't disagree with the fact that some people's plight is made worse by the difficulty of lifting yourself up by your bootstraps in a tough economy, I disagree with the criticism of the program.

First, doing ANYTHING to try to help people out of poverty is good. If it doesn't work, stop doing it. At worst you'll have some poor people that got a little extra money for some period of time, which they could use.

Second, money provides a here-and-now incentive to follow through on things you might not follow through on if that incentive was not there. As anyone who's been poor can tell you, even when you try to lift yourself out, it can be demoralizing. You live amongst poor people, many of whom have already given up hope of being anything but poor and aren't necessarily the best role models (and who may even discourage your efforts at getting ahead). And even when you try to do what you know will help in the long haul---going to school, making it to work every day, taking care of your health---when you're living on the edge it only takes one hit to knock you right back down the ladder. A car breaks down, someone gets a short-term illness, minor events in the lives of most that easily make someone stuck in poverty say "why do I even try?"

But offer a direct monetary incentive and it's easier to keep going when there are setbacks (and pay for them when need be). That's not being paternalistic. That's saying "we care about you, and we want to help you reach your goals. We don't want you to give up."

No one likes to accept money from others, no one wants to feel like a charity case. And I'm sure some in the program will feel a degree of resentment toward the very people who are offering them the money. But many will swallow their pride and take advantage of what's being offered, if not for their sake than in the hope that their kids will be able to have more of a fighting chance. I can't wait to see how it turns out.