The Daily Kos has the article What Happens when Poor People get Cash? An Empirical Study. The bottom line is:
So applying money to the problem of native poverty DOES work as far as native children are concerned.
There is much detail in the article about what exactly happened and why that is important to read beyond the conclusion quoted above.
I find the segment below a little silly and distracting.
about half the casino profits went to infrastructure and social services, including free addiction counseling and improved health care. Ann Bullock, a doctor and medical consultant to the Cherokee tribal government, argues that these factors together — which she calls the exercising of “collective efficacy” — also may have contributed to the improved outcomes. She describes a “sea change” in the collective mood when the tribe began to fund its own projects. A group that was historically disenfranchised began making decisions about its own fate.
Professors Costello and Akee continue to think that cash made the difference,
Why can’t it be just as good that trying two solutions to a problem has better results than one solution? It may be of academic (and some practical) benefit to know which change had the most impact. For the lives of the people involved it would have been an immoral exercise to try to find out if the people could have done nearly as well with less help.