From the New York Times, I'm Natalie Kittrow-F. This is the Daily.

For many, the logic seemed unassailable. Giving poor families' money would measurably improve the lives of their children.

And so a few years ago, social scientists set out to test whether that assumption was right.

But the results of that test have shocked them.

Today, my colleague Jason DeParl on how a groundbreaking experiment has undercut deeply held

assumptions about how to end the cycle of childhood poverty.

It's Wednesday, August 6th.

Jason, you've been reporting on poverty and the efforts to address it for decades.

You've written books on the subject.

So tell me about this study that has really shaken the policy world that you cover.

It's long been clear that children in affluent families do better than their low-income peers

on measures of cognitive development and behavior.

The question has always been why.

Is it the money itself that makes a difference or is it associated factors like maybe their

parents have more education? Maybe they live in better neighborhoods. Maybe they have access to better

schools. Maybe they have access to better child care. There's lots of indirect evidence that suggests

poverty itself causes negative child outcomes, but there hasn't been a study

that isolates the effect of cash itself. And this is a big policy question because most advanced

countries do provide some sort of unconditional cash aid to parents raising children.

The United States is unusual in that it does not.

And the Democrats and progressives are eager to change that.

So this question has a high public policy potential relevance.

...