Scaling Poverty... And the Questions Unanswered

The New York Times article "To Beat Back Poverty, Pay the Poor" is commendable. Excellent in fact. I find it amazing that countries like Brazil and Mexico are able to apply this program of "conditional cash transfer" so effectively, and on such a large scale. Oportunidades, Bolsa Familia, or in english-- conditional cash program, is a program  set up in developing nations where the government pays out a monthly sum to the the citizens living in extreme poverty.

The statistics on the program are jaw-dropping. In Brazil the poverty level has dropped from 22% to 7% in a 6 year period. In Mexico, the Oportunidades covers 5.8 million families. Furthermore, the author claims that this program is helping close the income gap between the rich and the poor.

But I honestly do not believe it, for a number of reasons. In Brazil, the families are given $13 per month per child up to the 3 children. Families in extreme poverty get a maximum of $40. How is maximum of $480 per year closing the wealth gap in these countries. The author did not statistically back with numbers how the gap is "closing". As a college student with student loans, I have spent $480 in a day before.. And I am not the rich of Brazil. On a similar note, who are the people funding the conditional cash transfers? In the article, the immediate answer is the government. Logic tells me that the rich are the ones who paying taxes for the people to receive this money in the first place. In not so obvious way, this type of social innovation reminds me of the 3 tier healthcare system, where the rich pay full price, middle class/lower middle class pays a portion of the price, and those living in poverty are able to receive treatment through those paying full and/or a portion of the price. In this model the rich/ middle class pay taxes, and the poor receive a monthly stipend.

I know that this program is doing a lot of overall good. I personally believe the best way to end the cycle of poverty is with proper education, because in many cases continued education leads to opportunity. What I do not like about this article's reporting of the programs, are that many of the traditional side effects of "handing out" money go completely unanswered.
    - Did the crime rate in these communities drop?
    - Was there an increase in drug usage as the community had access to more money?
    - How do we know the gap is closing and these stipends are not scaling poverty and causing an increase in the price for certain goods?

These are my questions. These are very important questions to ask I think as well. If the answers to the questions are "No. Yes. And we have no idea at this moment." respectively, I am not proposing that the programs be shut down, but simply saying the success of these programs can continue to improve and the negative impacts of the programs should be reported as well. The improved child weight and nourishment, the improved vaccination rate, pre-natal care and education level are enough for me to personally champion this cause. But I highly doubt that the program is as perfect as advertised by Tina Rosenberg.