It's certainly a balance of evidence. What we look at are cases where there tends to be a body of evidence—and ideally one that is growing—and an organization that has a culture of continuous performance improvement. However, that broader question around feasibility is something that we were actually very happy to address. We've produced documents on feasibility frameworks for social impact bonds in particular, and although we didn't actually bring them, I'd be happy to share them with the committee.
The idea is that the framework provides a lens through which we can assess the feasibility of these interventions and programs as potential social impact bonds, such that we know that the risk taken by an organization in going through this developmental effort—because it is risky for the social service sector as well—is worthwhile. We look for cases where there is that sort of culture. We also look for cases where there is a cost structure in place in the broader domain, such as crime prevention, frankly, where the positive individual and social outcomes—things like not reoffending—also align very strongly with a positive economic outcome and a lower cost to things like rehabilitation, as opposed to incarceration.