Paul: So welcome and thank you for joining us at Forensic Focus today. We’re honoured to speak with Dr Michael Bourke, who’s a distinguished clinical psychologist, researcher, and expert whose work has significantly contributed to our understanding of the psychological impacts of working in internet crimes against children.
Dr Bourke has Co-authored insightful studies exploring secondary traumatic stress, coping mechanisms, and the broader implications of this challenging yet vital work. As frontline defenders against some of the most distressing crimes, digital forensic investigators face unique stresses that can deeply affect their mental health, relationships, and overall well-being.
Through groundbreaking research, Dr Bourke and his collaborators have shed light on these critical issues, providing invaluable guidance for law enforcement agencies, mental health professionals and policy makers. In this interview we aim to delve into the motivations behind Dr Bourke’s research, unpack the key findings of his studies, and discuss how these insights can be applied to better support digital forensics personnel.
We’ll also explore the broader implications for law enforcement and the critical role of mental health in sustaining the resilience and effectiveness of these dedicated professionals. Thank you, Dr Bourke, for taking the time to share your expertise with us.
Let’s begin with a few questions. Can I first ask you what inspired you to explore the psychological impacts of digital forensics on the personnel?
Michael: It was due to cries for help. There were officers, investigators, analysts who were coming up to me at different conferences that I was attending, and they would ask me to help them out.
They would say, I’m involved in work that’s very meaningful, but it’s toxic. It’s hurting me. It’s hurting my relationships. It’s affecting my relationships with my children or my partner. Really it was just because a lot of people were coming up and asking me for help in how to cope.
Paul: Did those personnel have access to any resources at that time?
Michael: Sadly, the answer to that is almost resoundingly no. There were a few Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces that were exploring relationships with therapists or counsellors and were trying to do some prevention work but I would say overall the overwhelming, number of personnel were receiving no services whatsoever.
Paul: Do you find that a surprise or shocking?
Michael: I don’t because particularly in the law enforcement community there has been, traditionally, a stigma against any sort of weakness. I’m putting that in quotation marks because it’s just this antiquated idea. That seeking help is somehow indicative that you can’t handle the work or that you’re not tough enough and it’s a philosophy that is pervasive across law enforcement.
But, like I said, this has nothing to do with being tough. That has nothing to do with how macho or how strong you are as an individual. Human beings are simply not meant to view media depicting depravity day in and day out it worms into our psyche. It affects even the healthiest of individuals.
So, it didn’t surprise me that the attitude in law enforcement agencies, not just in the United States, but around the world was hey, if you can’t take it, then go back to patrol. If you can’t hack it, then let somebody else step up who can and that’s just a lousy way to take care of people.
Paul: Certainly, here in the UK, I’m aware of a lot of research which suggests that there is still a lot of stigma attached to either seeking help for mental health issues or being referred to see an occupational health unit for mental health issues. Is that what you found in the States?
Michael: That there’s a reluctance to seek help?
Paul: Either a reluctance or a stigma attached to it.
Michael: Yeah, I think so. Fortunately, what’s happened at least in the past couple of years is there started to be a shift. There’s just too many people now that are cognisant of how this work affects them.
There is growing insight into the fact that we have to A, do more work and we have to select people differently for this work. Then B, we need to prepare them differently for the work. We need to like the metaphor that I use is armouring up. Like a warrant squad would do before they go into a house, they’d put on their body armour and have their shields and they would take all these precautions to make sure they’re physically safe.
We need to do the same kind of armouring up psychologically so that we’re not purely using a reactive model. Too often in law enforcement, the model is if you’re hurt, then we’ll give you a phone number to call or you can go down the hallway to this office and they’ll help you. But that’s a reactive model.
It sends the message to personnel that we’re not really going to take care of you until you’re hurt and then we’ll try to patch you up. Really the key to taking care of people is that we don’t want them to be hurt to begin with. It’s all about prevention. It’s all about getting in front of it. That’s how we take care of people.
A lot of emphasis needs to be on the resilience and proactive efforts. Then we do want to have maintenance and monitoring and ways of keeping checks on people and having an environment that supports wellness.
Then we have to have that reactive piece in case secondary traumatic stress does get through our armour. Despite all of your most protective actions, it sometimes does find the chink, the Achilles heel. So, we have to have something in place to take care of our personnel if it gets to that point.
Then the last thing that’s often neglected as well is follow up. By that what I mean is sometimes our folks leave the unit. They decide that it’s not what they signed up for. They decide, maybe there’s something in their background and this is bringing up too many issues for them or whatever it might be.
There’s completely legitimate reasons why people may choose not to do the work. If they’re leaving because of secondary traumatic stress, sometimes those symptoms don’t emerge for three to six months after the person has extricated themselves from the environment.
I think we have an obligation to go back to people who have left the unit. Either they’ve transferred to another unit, or they’ve left policing, or they’ve left whatever the environment is. Child advocacy centres or intelligence centres etc. We should go back and we should ask them 6 months later, are you okay?
Now, I’ve had lawyers that have told me once they’re no longer employees, we don’t have any obligation to. I understand that legally we may not be obligated to but morally we are. In my opinion, morally, we are.
Sometimes people say what would we do if they said I’m not doing very well? I said you would give them the same list of providers that you would give your employees. You have a list of practitioners who are qualified and culturally competent, and you know that they’re available to provide support, techniques and perhaps referrals to other professionals. So why not bring them into the system that you already have in place?
It doesn’t cost you anything. So, I think this is a holistic, multifaceted approach to wellness. It’s not just what do we need to do if this happens, it’s throughout the spectrum of their employment.
Paul: I agree. I also agree that it should be a more proactive approach to mental health as opposed to reactive because at the point someone becomes susceptible to secondary traumatic stress or burnout, then it is a lot harder to recover from that and it can also be quite time consuming so it means a lot of time away from the workforce. Do you agree?
Michael: I do agree, there was a study that was done on individuals that enter this work and they are trained and that training can be very expensive to acquire certain credentials as an examiner or child forensic interviewer or investigator.
To go through that process, do the work, not have anything in place to armour up and not having the right support system in place. When those people leave, this study found that the cost to replace them was three times their annual salary. So, it actually costs three times as much because you have recruiting, the background investigation, their academy, all of the different things that people have to go through and then you have to retrain them.
Meanwhile, while they’re gone. Other people are having to pick up that work. So now you have overtime costs, or you have other people burning out. This ripple effect is continuing on because you’re short staffed because somebody quit. So that is interesting for those who are maybe less persuaded by this idea of taking care of people. Which I think is abominable.
There are more bean counters and more of the people that are paying attention to the money. I say, there’s very compelling arguments to take care of personnel from a monetary standpoint as well, because it’s simply cost prohibitive. To keep having this incredible staff turnover.
Paul: I agree. Aside from the monetary cost, you’ve also got the loss of practical experience that goes with that person when they leave. You mentioned something also, cultural competence in therapists, to deliver the interventions to DFIs. Can you explain for the viewers what you mean by cultural competence?
Michael: Cultural competence is just a term that refers to a clinician’s ability to understand the context in which someone is working or operating. In this case, it would be an understanding of the police culture as a whole and, within that, this subculture of Internet crimes against Children or child exploitation and sexual abuse. Child sex trafficking.
People that are working in that field, what do they experience? What’s a normal day look like for them? What kind of coping strategies in that community are common? Some of those might be adaptive coping strategies, and some of those might be maladaptive coping strategies, but yet they’re still common. The more you understand exactly how that culture works and what the norms are, what that looks like for someone to engage in help seeking behaviour.
Is that likely to be seen favourably or will they get a black mark in their file saying Jones has something going on. Understanding the department hierarchy or the agency’s chain of command. What resources are available either laterally, such as a mental health professional that’s in house and then what sort of resources are available that are separate from the department.
How supportive are is the upper echelon? How supportive are the middle managers? What’s the culture like among peers? Because the research shows with regard to who does well and who struggles some of the main factors that make a difference is your relationships with your peers and your relationships with your immediate supervisor.
Those 2 relationships are by far the most important factors in being able to vent or release some of this secondary trauma on a regular basis. The other relationship not surprisingly is a relationship with someone such as a partner or a loved one at home, outside of that environment. That’s also really important to have confidants and others who are not in that inner circle.
Interestingly, a lot of police officers will tell you I can’t take work home and that’s very common in police. They say I have to keep work at work, people say. They’re like I can’t talk about what I see and I can’t talk about what I do. This is true for even road policing. They say, I saw a vehicle accident and I saw this and I’m not going to take that home. That’s actually a mistake. That’s a mistake because they absolutely can talk about work at home.
Now, you don’t want to secondarily traumatise your partner, you don’t want to go back and give them all of the details, but you can absolutely go home and say to your partner, I’ve had the worst day I’ve had in a month. You can even say the series of child abuse material that I had to view was a child that’s the same age as our child or the name of the series is the name of my nephew.
Something that made you a little bit more vulnerable and it upset you more than average. That’s not going to traumatise your partner. That’s not going to secondarily affect them. It can result in you getting some extra care and support from the person who cares the most about you. Otherwise, we’ve left them out.
Paul: Yeah, I agree. It can be quite cathartic just to talk around the difficulties that you’ve had in the day without giving specific details of what you’ve actually seen counted.
Michael: Yes. An important part of that is what we recommend. I used to work for the marshal service, and what we would recommend to our personnel is you have to train your loved one, for lack of a term, on how to take care of you.
What we noticed is that people would go home and say I had this terrible day and the partner wouldn’t know. Does that mean you want to talk about it? Does that mean you want me to leave you alone? Do you want to go for a run? Do you need to take a hot shower and get rid of all that stuff that you saw? What exactly is the best way that I can support you right now?
So, we say you want to sit down before all of this stuff affects you and say, if I say X, this is the best way to support me. This is what I need. We’ve had some very interesting cases where the lack of communication with people actually backfired.
It doesn’t just have to be a domestic partner. This can be adults, children, it can be a pastor or rabbi. It could be a parent. It could be your best friend. The key is to involve people in your social support system who know you well. Who say you seem a little bit off or you seem to be drinking a little bit more or you haven’t been going to play cards with your friends as much.
Somebody who’s noticing because the metaphor that I use here with secondary traumatic stress is a sunburn. We know that this environment is potentially toxic. We know that these things that we view are not things that a normal person should have to view all day long, every day. We’re just as human beings. We’re not set up to view morally abhorrent videos in colour in sound. Like looking through a window almost on our computers.
We’re just not meant to do that. I say that material is potentially like radiation from the sun. A lot of times we don’t know that we’ve been affected until 1 of 2 things happens either a that damage has accumulated so much that were burned.
In the world of child exploitation, that initial radiation is what we call secondary traumatic stress. When it accumulates up to a point where it is hurt you, that’s what we call vicarious trauma. Now you’ve moved from experiencing a stress into now becoming traumatised.
The 2nd way that we realise that we’re being affected is going back to the sunburn analogy is if someone says, your skin is red, you haven’t been protecting yourself like you should. That’s usually how people know that they’re getting burned is either it begins to hurt or someone lets them know.
It’s the same thing with secondary traumatic stress. The more people you can involve around you who know you and care about you. They’re the ones that are going to say have you been putting on sunscreen? Have you been protecting yourself? Have you been going through these rituals and these protective practices when you go into work? Because what I’ve noticed is you’re beginning to get hurt.
Paul: I think that’s an excellent analogy. Speaking from personal experience, I didn’t talk to my family, my wife or my kids, about what I’d saw on a daily basis at work. I put it into a little box. I put a lock on that box and I put it away until I returned to work.
In exactly the way you’ve just explained, it gradually grew and grew until I couldn’t hide it anymore. By that time, it was too late and I didn’t return to digital forensics which is why I now campaign for increased mental health provision for DFIs.
That was an excellent analogy to explain it. In secondary traumatic stress among digital forensic investigators, you highlight the relationship between the frequency of exposure to disturbing material and secondary traumatic stress levels. What practical steps can organisations take to mitigate that impact?
Michael: I actually teach entire courses on this because first of all, there’s many different things that organisations can do. I think I have over a hundred different categories of things and different techniques and whatnot.
The second thing is what I have found over the years is that it really needs to be customised for each agency or each department because there’s a big difference, for example, when I was helping, Interpol in Washington, D. C. There was one person that really needed the safeguarding and that was the person who was receiving all of the phone calls and all of the emails from all over the world.
Many of those were in different languages and basically, she didn’t know what she was going to open until it was opened. It might be a suicide, it might be an act of terrorism, a drug cartel act of violence, or it could be child exploitation material.
When you think about resilience, a lot of it is the preparation is knowing what you’re about to encounter. For example, Paul if I knew every day at 3 o’clock you were going to punch me in my arm. I’m sure you’ve got a good wallop from policing and it’s going to knock me back, but if I can steel myself for it and lead into it, I’m going to survive.
Paul: It’s going to reduce the effect, doesn’t it?
Michael: Yeah, but that unanticipated punch out of the blue. Is going to knock me down, right? There’s a lot to be said for that preparation. She didn’t have the ability to steel herself psychologically for what, what was about to enter her psyche.
There was no filter she could put up to guard. That’s very different from war crimes investigators over in Geneva at the UN who are looking at mass graves, war atrocities and interviewing victims of torture. The support system is different. The mission is different. The personnel involved are different. The context of the exposure is different.
So, if you said, what should agencies do? Well, agency A should do something maybe quite different from agency B because they have different resources and all that other stuff I just mentioned.
Overall, what I would say is you want to have an environment that supports people in taking care of themselves. You can’t do things like pickle them in depravity. You don’t want to have somebody go in at 8 o’clock in the morning and view child abuse material all day long. That it is inevitably going to overwhelm our defences.
You have to put protective measures in place. You have to have breaks. You have to have periodic moments when you’re shifting gears psychologically.
There’s two amygdalae in the brain. There’s two little almond shaped organs in the brain. Actually, amygdala means almond because they look like little almonds. Those little organs in the brain are responsible for the fight flight freeze response.
What’s really interesting is one of those on one hemisphere is much more responsive to language and logic and the other is much more responsive to imagery and more primitive kinds of threats. When you’re viewing in the field of child exploitation, you’re often exposed to both types because you might be looking at a chat or someone is soliciting a minor or there’s a fantasy or a story online.
So that’s over here, or you might be just viewing this video of a child being assaulted. That’s this very raw, visceral visual where there’s no one, communicating. You don’t have to figure anything out. It’s just right there.
So, the fight flight freeze is very different, but here’s just a quick example of how an agency could help protect somebody is you have them switch. I don’t know if it’s dolphins or sharks or something where they sleep with one half of their brain and then the other half of their brain is awake. They can still swim and get away from predators.
So, I tell people, be a shark. You either do that chat work or the verbal work that uses that part of your brain or you do that other part. But, every 45 minutes or so switch and that lets that other side of your brain, that amygdala, begin to relax. Then you switch again, then you take a break and then you let them both relax.
There’s other coping things that you can do during that interim. I’m a big fan of movement. There’s good research that suggests you have to get up and you have to move. You don’t have to run, although that’s not bad either. If you want to go for a run at lunch, that’s fantastic. But moving is good.
There’s good research that shows that it’s helpful to go outside whether it’s the sunshine or whether it’s the wind or even if it’s rain. I’m not saying go out and get soaked, but I’m saying go outside and feel nature, drink water, eat healthy foods, talk with people, not about work but shifting again, it’s all about shifting in the brain.
By the time that day ends, you have used about half of those resources that you would have otherwise spent. If you had that that digital forensic investigator looking at images all day long, they would have been depleted twice as much just from that. There’s effects in psychology, the primacy effect and the recency effect. The most important thing here is the recency effect is the last hour of the workday is what you’ll take home.
That last bit of your workday, you should not focus on depravity, people being injured, people being assaulted, people being victimised. That last half an hour to hour you should do more mundane tasks, do your time sheets, put in your vacation, take your security online course that your agency makes you take, go and clean up your desk, scrub a hard drive. Do a task that is not where you’re doing a deep dive into something that’s morally injurious.
Research again shows the primacy and recency effects are very powerful with regard to what’s stuck in your memory. You don’t want to be ruminating on that last hour on your train ride home or your bus home or your drive home. You want to have that be behind the wall so that when you get home you can just be with your family.
Paul: I’m pretty sure that’s the advice you gave in your 2014 paper. I’m sure I remember reading that. It was really good advice.
Michael: Thanks. I wish I could say that I came up with all these ideas because I’m some kind of intellectually bright guy here. The truth is that I have learned all of these techniques through talking to people that have been involved with the work.
Whenever I meet someone who’s been involved in child exploitation work, whether it’s in a child advocacy centre, or whether they’re a police officer, or whether they’re involved in some other way like a computer analyst or something.
I usually try to have a conversation with them about what works, what do they do that they find helpful, what are their bosses do that they like, what kind of things don’t seem to work.
We put out the national wellness survey 5 years ago. That was a collaborative venture between academia and law enforcement and we sent that out across the United States.
We asked those questions of 1st responders and we said what have you tried and how effective was it? Did it work? If so, why? If not, why not? If you didn’t seek help then what stopped you? Was it financial? Was it stigma? Was it that you were afraid it would hurt your future promotional opportunities? Was it that you just didn’t know how to seek out a therapist?
I’ve had officers tell me, I don’t know the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist. I don’t know what a Freudian is and what a Jungian is, I don’t know if I need medicine or not. So, there’s a lot of mystery around mental health services and just. How do you find a good therapist.
Paul: On the subject of the National Wellbeing Survey, you’re busy preparing to distribute that again, aren’t you?
Michael: Yeah, we are. We weren’t sure how many people would respond to this because it’s a long survey. It takes about 35 minutes. People told us, you’re not going to get cops sitting there for 35 minutes, filling this out.
I said, I disagree with you because I have met way too many digital forensic examiners, investigators or not, and child advocacy personnel who are thirsty for more work to be done here. They really do want studies to support what they know intuitively. They’re talking to their brothers and sisters, and on the thin blue line here. They want to convince the bosses, or they want to get more resources to take care of themselves and it’s a legitimate ask.
So, I said, I think they are going to participate. We had 8,000 respondents. I think it went out to 14 and we got 8,000 back. That’s an incredible response rate. It speaks to the fact that people want more answers and they want more support from academia about what they know experientially is true.
We’re getting ready to do it again. We hope to reach even more individuals. We hope to send that out to our brothers and sisters across the pond in the UK. I think it would be fascinating to continue some work we did a couple of years ago looking at the differences between the United Kingdom investigators and personnel and those in the US.
There might be something that we can learn from each other there, there might be some gaps or some best practices and we’re still learning. This is not anything that we’ve got it all figured out. I think it’s going to be a constant learning process of how can we better take care of our folks.
Paul: I agree. I have to say, talking about the National Wellbeing Survey. I will absolutely do everything I can to help distribute that here in the UK, because I think the comparative analysis between the US and the UK will be really interesting. It’ll be an exciting thing to see.
Michael: I agree and you’ve made that offer before our podcast today. I’m very grateful for that because I don’t have as many as you would have, I don’t have a lot of connections over there to distribute that. No matter where I go, I’ve been to 34 different countries training and speaking to folks. No matter where I go from here to Australia, Central South America, Canada, it’s one of these universal things.
It’s just about being human and viewing something that’s evil around the world.
Paul: Yeah, I agree. Before we go, can I ask you to talk about the FORWARD Centre, which you were talking to me about when we had a chat a few days ago. I think that’s an incredible achievement and I think it’s really important to share.
Michael: Yeah, I agree with you. I was asked to participate in the FORWARD Center. The foundation for first responder wellness and resilience is the full name of our nonprofit organisation. The centre that we’re going to create, we just call it the FORWARD Center. That acronym kind of spells forward.
Essentially, this is a group of police professionals, fire professionals, dispatchers, emergency communication operators, EMS, emergency medical services. I think you call them blue light services.
Paul: Yes, we do.
Michael: So, we’ve gotten together a number of mostly chief executives. Most of the folks are chief executives, but not everybody. The idea is to create a facility that is devoted toward wellness.
It’s a holistic centre. About 10 million dollars was donated, and I think we’re going to be shifting buildings. The top floor is devoted towards traditional psychotherapy, counselling and traditional psychotherapy.
The second floor right now is a medical floor. It has psychiatry sleep studies, which are very important. Sleep is a very important part of wellness. There are other medical types of assistance. Acupuncture may be offered there as well.
Then on the first floor. We have chaplains. We have a facility dog training program. We have our administrative personnel.
On the top floor is a green space for things like yoga and meditation. For people that just want to have some time to themselves for a few minutes or what have you.
The point of this centre is that everyone in that building will be culturally competent. Everyone will understand the culture with first responders, fire, EMS, corrections, police, and they will be specially trained. Whether that person is a homicide investigator, if they’re an internet crimes against children investigator, if they’re a firefighter, if they’re a correctional officer they will understand that world and this facility is solely for them.
It is going to be available to them regardless of ability to pay. So, if they can’t afford it, or they need to be on a sliding scale and they can only afford 5 dollars or whatever, that’s fine. Money is not going to stop anyone from getting services.
The other important thing is we’re also offering it to retired personnel, because we know from many stories that people struggle when they leave. They’re leaving their vocational family. They’re leaving their identity. They’re leaving their support system. They’re leaving things that are important to them. They’re leaving their world. It’s very difficult to transition and we want to support them in every way we can.
We even have a financial planner who’s helping them with the sometimes confusing finances of the pension and 2nd employment etc. All of that is offered regardless of ability to pay and it’s for retired personnel as well as active personnel.
The last neat thing that I like about it is that one of the other things that stops first responders from seeking help is that they’re afraid their bosses are going to find out.
If they go to an in house psychologist, they’re afraid there might come a time when that psychologist, who’s an employee of the organisation reporting to the assistant chief for example, that one day that assistant chief may say I need Johnson’s file. They understand confidentiality, but they are also very nervous because it’s the boss and he or she is telling them what to do.
So, the other neat thing about this is it’s not attached to any department. There are no ties. There is no one is beholden to any department. They will never get that file. In fact, you can seek services anonymously. We have a chip system for payment where you could literally give a chip to your friend who’s going through a tough divorce.
That man or woman could come in, could receive support, could receive psychotherapy, could receive a sleep study, could see the chaplain and they could just drop a chip down for payment. They don’t even have to give their name. I guess the short story is we’ve tried to eliminate every barrier that would stop somebody from being taken care of because this is tough work and we have an obligation to do better.
Paul: You also told me that the attendees of the centre given a second chip.
Michael: Yes. So, when you leave, you would be given two chips. One is for your next appointment and one is for a friend.
We’ve had some departments say, we’re going to take all the extra chips and we’re going to put them in a jar in the middle of the squad. Anybody who needs one can just grab one, almost like M&M’s or a penny jar etc. If you need one, grab one.
Other people say they wanted extra chips for supervisors. So that if a supervisor was seeing a decrease in work performance or maybe just heard through the rumour mill that somebody had experienced maybe a loss, maybe someone passed away in their life, or maybe they maybe their pet passed away.
There are things that can be really stressful for people and that person might not think to themselves, I better go see a psychologist because my pet died, but a supervisor might just give a little nudge by leaving that on their desk. So, when they come in the morning there’s a chip. Don’t forget about this resource and don’t be ashamed to go and just say to somebody, I need a little tune up. I need to just check in here because I’m going through a rough period.
It doesn’t mean you have to make it some extensive year long, psychoanalysis. Sometimes people need a 15 minute tune up, like an oil change in your car. It’s not major maintenance, but if you do the oil changes regularly, you find out that car will hum along for 50 years.
Paul: Exactly. I’m blown away by that initiative. I think it’s absolutely incredible and for it to be a non-profit organisation. Obviously, it gets funding from other areas as we discussed. But I think it’s a phenomenal initiative and I hope it grows. I really do.
Michael: We’ve already had requests from folks that want us to export the model, but we have to crawl before we walk or run.
It’s not a money making venture. We haven’t met anybody yet that’s looking at this from a profit standpoint. We would be quite happy if it just makes enough money to keep going year after year. Just to stay afloat.
We take donations from different people, groups and even individuals. We have an initiative, we call it 9/11 after both the tragedy in New York on 9/11 and also our emergency system, 911, so people can donate 9 dollars and 11 cents every month. It just gets taken out of the bank account.
It’s 9 dollars and if enough people were wanting to sign up for 9 dollars, then that actually ends up paying for food for their facility dog or it pays for someone to receive a sleep study or whatever it might be and that might be an older person who can’t afford it.
Paul: Dr Bourke, it has been fascinating talking to you tonight. I want to say thanks on behalf of Forensic Focus. I absolutely appreciate how busy your schedule is and for you to give up this time for us it’s really important, so thanks for that.
Michael: Thanks for having me.
Paul: Please stay in touch with us. I’m sure if we can help you in any way, especially around the study we will be able to facilitate that.
Thanks again for joining us today.
Michael: Thanks for having me, Sir.
Paul: Thank you.
Michael: Take care.
