To address that from our perspective, what we've found—and not theoretically, but in our experience designing these tools—is governance is a critical factor. It's a critical element of that work. A big aspect of that is a recognition that organizations that are relevant or applicable to tools such as social impact bonds, shouldn't be invested in if we don't think they know how to do that service better than we do, or anyone else does.
With that in mind, when we think about these governance structures, it's critical that we intentionally create degrees of removal between investors and the programmatic delivery. There's a commitment of capital, based on due diligence of how the program is meant to operate, and then there's an arm's-length role from there. There's very little direct day-to-day.... Explicitly, there's that removal.
The other side of it is, with that in mind, what we intentionally design is a recognition these are meant to be flexible pools of capital. We're not buying into a specific process. We know that social issues are not static and they're not unchanging. A lot of these tools are designed to operate over the course of five to seven years, or more. There's a lot of flexibility to change course based on the front line. Ultimately, if that's the feedback we're getting, they need to shift investment toward different areas in order to produce better outcomes. This aligns everyone's interests toward those goals.