There isn't actually much information about it around - but the criteria would be under 30 and on unemployment benefit for a year.

I am not convinced still (and maybe a year is too long and six months would be better) but - there are many ways to skin a cat, of course there still needs to be all the other things to get people employment in the first place and this is obviously only possibly going to be effective in targeting people to stay in a job. Presumably because they have said under 30, there has been a target group identified particularly in that age bracket who have problems staying in employment (experience of working in a factory in the UK, and what I have seen in warehouses here I have anecdotal evidence about issues with sticking with things.)

I do think that getting primary caregivers into work and childcare is a completely separate part of tackling unemployment - the whole childcare situation needs sorting first so people don't drop out of the workforce so then become unemployed for greater than a year in the first place, and part of that is getting the balance between childcare costs, tax benefits and flexible employment opportunities right in the first place.

I know the study you are talking about MD, but I also thought I remembered that the correlation between waiting and success in later life was correct but that being an instant gratification child with lollies didn't necessarily mean that you would always take the instant gratification route every time as you grew up - e.g. as a child you may have taken the two sweets but that didn't mean that in other scenarios you weren't capable of weighing up and taking the long term decision. (Indeed I was an instant gratification child, and probably am as an adult where food is concerned but with other things like money can play the long-game).

Any solution to unemployment needs to be multi-faceted - and maybe this could be a small part of it.