Yes, I think that is a correct statement. I think one of the things that appeal about social impact bonds and social finance tools more broadly is their focus on outcomes.
When we say “outcomes”, I think that's not to be narrowly interpreted. When we look at, for instance, the supportive housing study that we're working on in the area of social impact bond feasibility, we're looking at the impact that an intervention at the level of providing housing and wraparound services could have in terms of a person's life. That could be labour market attachment outcomes. That could be reduction in crime. That could be improved health outcomes. A variety of different positive outcomes could result from a particular intervention.
When we're looking at these tools, I think the point is that we need to holistically consider all of those impacts. Frequently, I think, part of the rationale for governments in looking at social impact bonds is, as you say, to reduce costs. That means looking downstream at what an intervention now will mean in terms of reduced health care costs or in terms of lower numbers of people in prison, that kind of thing.