That's a good question.
Vancouver responds to break and enters in the way you describe. I would say that Vancouver has not gone as wholesale as we're about to do, in relation to priorities three and four. That's not completely fair because in the last little while, Vancouver has hired 40 community safety officers as an efficiency and are responding to more of those calls that way. They are moving towards that, but I haven't been a part of that.
Maybe it's the size of what this is, for a small department, relative to what Vancouver was doing with their break and enters and a few other kinds of calls, so all priorities three and four. My understanding of Vancouver is that when I left, it wasn't all threes and fours; it was a portion thereof, so that's one thing.
We have tried to be intelligence-led, as well as Vancouver is trying to be intelligence-led. KPMG is saying, “You're not really doing that. You think you are, by having your meetings and discussions about various crime types, but you do not truly have a brain that is directing police officers on a daily basis to do different things based on what's actually going on.” They're saying, “You think you're doing it, but we don't think you are.”
What they see as intelligence-led is something different from what we have achieved so far. It's yet to be discovered. But to have somebody take all your police resources, on a daily basis, and redeploy them based on what's going on is probably more similar to what you would see in New York than has been seen at least in the cities I've been around.