Yes, I think you're correct in recognizing that there appears to be a dichotomy between the two groups. The group here that we studied were those who were convicted for a particular kind of offence in the Criminal Code in conjunction with other kinds of offences. As a population, they probably set themselves apart from the broader-based gang member, street-type individual we see in individuals who present more levels of dysfunction in their lives in terms of educational deficits, family dysfunction, cognitive problems, health issues, and addiction issues as well. So the broader-based correctional reintegration programs that we use to target substance abuse and violence prevention and expressions of that can address some of their issues, certainly, and have been, and we've been seeing some results in that regard.
As for this group that has uniquely distinguished itself in the level of sophistication it presents, and which demonstrates relatively less the broader array of criminogenic needs or deficits that we would be tackling in a traditional way, we may have to look at a different approach in terms of how we address these concerns.
Again, I'll liken it to completing some further research and doing the longitudinal outcome areas, so we can actually get a good understanding of what happened in the long run with these individuals, in order for us to make some changes in our approaches.
For now they participate in programs to some extent, but to a lesser extent than the other group. How they are doing will be borne out in terms of the results. We know they're doing relatively well inside the prison environments. We know the other group poses some unique risks in terms of managing within the institutional environments as well. But you are correct, they are turning out to be different, in terms of a group, from the ones you would observe traditionally involved in street gangs and other kinds of gangs that are out there.