That is a wonderful question, and very comprehensive, and I really want to do it justice. If I may take the liberty, I will say that we will respond to these questions in writing as well afterwards, where we can be much more comprehensive.
All of these projects and programs that have been funded make a difference in going forward. The difference they make is that they lay down the evidence of what works. We saw that from your earlier presenters. We see that with the new horizons program, of which I've brought you an example.
Now what we need to do is integrate into an entire whole what we've learned from each of these disparate or separate programs. If funding were to be made available on a “next” basis, I would be looking for programs that bring these learnings into an integrated approach to elder abuse across sectors and settings and that provide demonstrated evidence that there is cross-sectoral collaboration and implementation of the programs.
We say in research that descriptive research is where you begin. Descriptive research gives you the evidence that you need, but then the next step is implementing that research. I think the greatest benefit of the projects that have been done is that of giving a voice to those who understand the issues and demonstrating that certain interventions make a difference. Now it is a concerted whole.
I believe that earlier in your deliberations you talked about despair over the definitions being different across provinces, territories, and indeed the world, and the presenters spoke of their work to achieve consensus on a definition. It's the same approach when you look at a program of interventions to prevent elder abuse.
I hope that's somewhat helpful. I promise you a more comprehensive answer.