Yes, absolutely.
Social impact bonds are a tool. They're a tool for better public services. They wouldn't be the first tool you start off with, particularly at the moment, where there's still an element of complexity to them. What we are finding is that in certain areas, and particularly around complex cohorts—for example, people with mental health issues, people presenting with a number of long-term conditions—it's been quite an effective tool.
Now, one of the challenges that's often asked in the U.K. is that if you know what works, why would you use a social impact bond? Isn't it an expensive way of tackling social issues? People I meet would agree, and say, “Yes, if you know what works, why on earth would you use a social impact bond?”
We do find that in a lot of areas in fact we don't know what works, or we only have a partial idea of what works. We might have some good evidence from a pilot in one area, but we don't know whether it will apply in another area. We also find that one of the big questions is that a lot of the benefits of a social impact bond could probably be handled through better public management of contracts, so why isn't that happening?