I think that there are probably different costs. Again, I am not speaking from experience. I am speaking from a comparative perspective, knowing how other countries have managed this. The first cost is a transaction cost, just from the legal dimensions of having to make contractual arrangements related to social finance or a social impact bond. What we hear from other countries is that the more you do, the lower the transaction costs become. The transaction costs are high for the first transaction because there is a learning dimension to it, but the more you do, the lower the cost. The British case is a good example here. They have multiple social impact bonds, so they have been able to capture lessons learned from the first social impact bonds and apply them to subsequent ones, thereby reducing the transaction costs.
In terms of evaluating things as you proceed, I am not sure here if you mean the costs of implementing a social finance initiative like a social impact bond, or if you mean evaluating any kinds of savings. As with any kind of project or expenditure, costs are monitored. With any project management approach, you would monitor costs along the way, and then you would do an assessment at the end.
In terms of being able to assess whether there are any savings, that could only come at the end, unless you establish some milestones of payments along the way, which is done, for example, in standard pay-for-performance contracts in many countries, including our own, as well as in some of the social impact bond projects that have been put together in various jurisdictions.