Thanks for this question! You can find GiveWell&#x27;s preliminary cost-effectiveness assessment of New Incentives in their writeup here: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.givewell.org&#x2F;international&#x2F;charities&#x2F;new-incentives" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.givewell.org&#x2F;international&#x2F;charities&#x2F;new-incentiv...</a>.<p>It&#x27;s important to note that GiveWell is not necessarily pushing in this direction yet. Instead, they are placing bets that they potentially think could have a huge payoff if done right.<p>CCTs can be very effective or completely ineffective. This is because the second &quot;C&quot; matters a lot. What the program conditions makes all the difference. If the program is focusing on incentivizing interventions that are not cost-effective, the CCT won&#x27;t be cost-effective because the underlying focus is too costly. Another aspect is what the long-term effects of the program are when the incentive ends. In our case, we are focusing on HIV transmission from mothers to infants and neonatal death. Our temporary incentives have a long-lasting effect by saving a child from getting HIV or a newborn from dying. However, if you were to have a CCT for something that is not life or death and would be needed throughout one&#x27;s lifetime, the cost would potentially be too high.<p>Some of the most successful CCTs are for immunizations. This is because immunizations are a proven cost-effective health intervention in the first place. So adding the small CCT to increase coverage maintains cost-effectiveness while achieving benefits from having a greater percent of the population that is immunized.