If I may add, we have three roles. That is a bit unusual, because if you look at the U.K. model, or other U.S. models, in the crime area the evaluator is more of an outsider presently. We have been playing the role of helping to set the framework and supporting the leaders. We have a second role of auditing whether the outcomes have been measured and reporting to the funder, so we're relied upon in that way. The third role you alluded to is the evaluation of the old initiative. What's the question here? The key question is whether this way of doing things is better than another way. This is hard to answer without running similar projects side by side, one that would be governed by a social impact bond and another one that would be governed by a traditional funding scheme.
In the absence of that, we're relying on our long experience evaluating the traditional way to provide comments on how well and how suitable the SIB model will be and how it performs. A lot of our report will consist of documenting the implementation—some have difficulties in raising the funds, or things like that—and what the investor expects. We hope that at the end our report will provide a lot of lessons learned, but it will not be a definitive type of report that says you are better off from now on offering these sorts of services with a SIB.