Yes. I think you're right that, clearly, much of the success in well-developed projects, many of them in the States—such as Boston's Operation Ceasefire, Chicago's CeaseFire project, and others in other U.S. cities—has had this combination of really targeting the worst offenders, telling them there's going to be no letup, telling them you're watching them, really supervising them. It's a quite small core group, and that begins to give them messages. But it is also working with other people at the same time.
When I'm talking about the high-risk focus, it's about areas as well as individuals, because quite often they coincide. They are concentrating their work, living and working within one area. So I think it's very important to try to target the areas where the problems are worse and to try to keep relations with the community going.
You're absolutely right that if something happens, this is sometimes the catalyst. It can be, unfortunately, tremendously beneficial for really catalyzing a community to come together to do something. That's quite clear, and that has happened here in Canada and in many other countries. That should be used as an opportunity to really work with a community.
But I think you can also see projects in high-risk areas where people are maintaining ties. The project I mentioned in Bradford is about working with leaders among the Muslim community, especially the mullahs and others, so that when there are issues of race and terrorism happening in the city of Bradford, they already have a network that is relatively active, is alerted to the need to know how to talk to their communities. So it's maintaining something else, apart from just concentrating on the very high-risk individuals. I think you have to try to do both.