I think it comes down to the key words you pointed to in your question: “results” and “follow-through”. In the past, what we felt was happening with the national crime prevention strategy programs was that they were hampered for two reasons: first, they were often short-term projects, single-year, and it was difficult to sustain an effort; second, the results were not measurable. The programs have been refocused. The grants and contributions are being adjusted so as to achieve a couple of things. They are more likely to be multi-year programs, and they are designed to achieve measurable results. These results are important. We need to know if we are making a difference, and if the things we want to see happening are actually taking place.
There has also been a focus on groups at risk. As a result, anti-crime funding is being targeted, for example, at young people, from children to people in their mid-20s. Actually, I think 24 is our high end. So we're looking at folks who might be at risk of going into a life of crime, into gang life. We want interventions at an early stage to divert them from that. Another key target group is offenders who are no longer under supervision in the community.