I'd reference and echo Mr. McFee's observations about the cost of incarceration, for example, being four times the cost of paying a police officer to do a job. So we are trying to maintain a balance. If you avoid having to introduce somebody into the criminal justice system, there are a lot of costs that societies avoid. It doesn't necessarily result in a savings to the police department, but all of these accumulated costs are avoided if we can intervene earlier. There's a principle here of cost avoidance in community investments as opposed to direct cost reduction. You're still going to have to invest in the particular case, but that investment may perhaps take the form of a return to school, perhaps a family support intervention to support the family at home, perhaps some addiction counselling or some crisis intervention. They're still going to require an investment, so the community still has to have the capacity to respond to that. But you're not introducing the individual into the high priced, high-cost services that are represented by our courts, our correctional services, and our police services. I'd make that point.
I echo what the two other speakers are saying, that there's a balance to be achieved. The hub offers a great deal of promise, because the case conferencing can examine the individual needs and respond more effectively than trying to do some aggregate response to a community issue like poverty, or homelessness, or marginalization. You're working now with individuals, changing their condition so they don't come back and become repeat offenders or recidivists and a continual draw on the system.