The Hub Model / Situation Table

Program snapshot

Age group: Not age specific

Gender: Mixed (male and female)

Population served: Aboriginal/Indigenous; Families

Topic: Hubs/situation tables; Social/economic disadvantage

Setting: Rural/remote area; Urban area; Community-based setting

Location: Alberta; Manitoba; Nova Scotia; Ontario; Saskatchewan

Number of completed Canadian outcome evaluation studies: 1; In progress

Continuum of intervention: Secondary crime prevention; Tertiary crime prevention

Brief Description

The Hub Model (also known as the Community Mobilization Prince Albert approach and Situation Tables in other jurisdictions) consists of a multi-agency team focused on addressing specific situations where the probability of experiencing harm is imminent. Footnote1 The team works collaboratively to develop immediate, coordinated and integrated responses by mobilizing existing resources with the intent of reducing risk in a timely manner, usually within 24 to 48 hours.

This model is not a service delivery mechanism, but rather a way of utilizing and mobilizing the systems and resources already in place in different, unified, and dynamic ways to address specific situations of elevated risk, for which an integrated approach is required.


The main goals of the Hub Model / Situation Table are:

  • Timely mobilization of resources;
  • Increased awareness/knowledge of risks, trends and systemic issues;
  • Achieve a reduction in the levels of harm and victimization;
  • Improved collaboration and communication among service providers;
  • Increased awareness of risks and needs among individuals and families;
  • More proactive measures implemented; and
  • Increased community safety and well-being.


The Hub Model / Situation Table serves individuals or families (both Indigenous and non-Indigenous) in situations of acutely-elevated risk, needing either secondary or tertiary prevention efforts which cannot be addressed by a single agency alone. Acutely-elevated risk occurs where four conditions are present: significant interest at stake; probability of harm occurring; severe intensity of harm; and the scenario requires a multi-disciplinary team.

Core Components

Professionals from a variety of human service backgrounds sit at Hub / Situation Tables. Police officers, teachers, social workers and youth workers are just a few examples of the kinds of professionals that might participate. During a  meeting, participants work together to review situations of acutely elevated risk to determine if an individual or family meets the criteria for imminent risk of harm and/or victimization. Following their review, the Hub / Situation Table team will co-ordinate interventions as necessary.

When situations are brought to the table, the situation is discussed using a four filter process to determine whether a collaborative intervention is necessary and serves to minimize the risk of unnecessary sharing of information. The four filter process, which may vary slightly in each jurisdiction, is as follows:

  • Filter 1: Home Agency Screening – Agencies identify situations that may benefit from contact with a Hub Table ensuring the criteria for acutely elevated risk is met
  • Filter 2: De-Identified Discussion – The initial discussion at the Hub Table is limited to de-identified information
  • Filter 3: Identifiable Discussion – Limited personal information is shared to help determine if other agencies are involved with the individual or family
  • Filter 4: Intervention Planning – Only three or four agencies typically remain at this level of the discussion; other agencies will be eliminated if they do not have a relevant role.
  • Note: At any stage, the four-filter process can be stopped if it is deemed that the situation no longer meets the criteria for acutely elevated risk.

Hub / Situation Tables do not perform case management, nor do they have cases they carry. The purpose of the table is to mitigate risk within 24-48 hours and connect individuals and families to services. Case management functions remain with the most appropriate agency as determined by the Hub / Situation table.

Implementation Information

Some of the critical elements for the implementation of this program or initiative include the following:

  • Organizational requirements: In-kind contributions from multiple human service disciplines including government ministries and various community agencies are needed to attend weekly or bi-weekly Hub / Situation Table meetings and door knocks.
  • Partnerships: An Information Sharing Agreement (ISA) is signed by all participating parties. Only those agencies that have signed the ISA are permitted to participate in the filter four discussion and door knocks. The ISA permits those signatory agencies representatives to collaborate and share necessary information required to address the complex needs of individuals in situations of acutely-elevated risk.
  • Training and technical assistance: Hub tables in Saskatchewan are provided free online Hub participant training through the provincial government. In Ontario, the Guidance on Information Sharing in Multi-sectoral Risk Intervention Models document, which was developed by the Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General, is available to support communities implementing these models in sharing information across sectors on situations of acutely elevated risk. Further, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Situation Table e-modules, which were developed by the OPP in collaboration with Wilfrid Laurier University, are available online, free of charge and provides an overview of the operations and practices of these tables.
  • Risk assessment tools: Limited information on this topic.
  • Materials & resources: Hub Tables in Saskatchewan and many Situation Tables in Ontario collect data through the Risk-driven Tracking Database (RTD), which provides a standardized means of gathering de-identified information on situations of elevated risk for communities implementing multi-sectoral risk intervention models, such as the Hub Model / Situation Tables.   

International Endorsements

The most recognized classification systems of evidence-based crime prevention programs have classified this program or initiative as follows:

  • Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development: Not applicable.
  • Crime Solutions/OJJDP Model Program Guide: Not applicable.
  • SAMHSA's National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices: Not applicable.
  • Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy: Not applicable.

Gathering Canadian Knowledge

Canadian Implementation Sites

The Hub Model was established in 2011 as a ‘first of its kind’ model to building safer communities and reducing crime.  It was implemented in the city of Prince Albert, and surrounding communities, many of which extend well into northern Saskatchewan. Currently, there is a total of 14 Hub tables in Saskatchewan that serve 15 communities. Further, there are currently many jurisdictions across Canada that are in the formative, implementation and operational stages of their own variation of this model. For example, in Ontario, there are approximately 70 Situations Tables or variations of the model. The RCMP and Halifax Regional Police are similarly engaged with their local partners in several area communities adding an evidence-based youth evaluation methodology to focus their Hybrid Hub model on reducing the risk factors that can lead to anti-social, self-destructive and/or criminal behaviour among young people. Finally, the City of Winnipeg recently moved forward with their Block-by-Block model.

Main Findings from Canadian Outcome Evaluation Studies

In 2020, in the province of Saskatchewan, an agency has been contracted to evaluate the Hub Model with a focus on longer term outcomes. The results will be available once complete. In addition, evaluations are being conducted locally in the province of Ontario to measure the impact of Situation Tables and findings will be available once complete.

A preliminary impact assessment of the Hub Model was conducted in 2014 by Nilson.Footnote2 This work was the first description of the Hub Model in Canada. To provide a preliminary assessment of the short-term outcomes generated, a three part methodology was designed and consisted of: ten illustrative case studies of select Hub discussions; interviews with 21 Hub discussants on their experience in the Hub; and interviews with 14 key stakeholders from the various agencies that played critical roles in the development and implementation of the project in Prince Albert.

Results from this evaluation showed the following:

  • The project has broken down long-standing institutional silos. Human service agencies are now sharing limited but necessary information, and frontline professionals are more often collaborating around the needs of their shared clients;
  • Clients are, for the most part, responding positively to collaborative interventions that are based upon offerings of support. Clients are not only gaining quicker access to services before harm even occurs, but they are gaining access to services that they were never able to reach (or successfully engage) before their situation was brought to the project;
  • Risk in most discussions is being lowered from acutely-elevated to a more manageable level of risk. This lowers the severity and probability of harm to a significant interest of the individual, the family and the community.

For more information, refer to Nilson’s (2014) publication.

Additionally, Nilson (2015) conducted a study to explore the journey that community leaders and stakeholders took to develop their own Hub Model in the Samson Cree Nation (central Alberta). This is the first on-reserve application of the model in a First Nations community. The study explores the reason for the Samson Cree Hub Model, its implementation, and stakeholder perceptions of the impact that the Hub Model is having on police, human service providers, their agencies, and the clients they serve. Interviews with community safety and wellness stakeholders, along with first-hand observations of the Samson Cree Hub Model, provide information for this research.

Findings reveal that the Hub Model is a value-added and much-needed tool for human service providers to better meet the needs of their clients. Overall, the Hub Model shows considerable promise for other First Nation communities wishing to implement a collaborative approach to reducing risk and harm.    

For more information, refer to Public Safety Canada publication’s (2016) publication.

Cost Information

No information available.


Nilson, C. (2014). Risk-driven collaborative intervention: A preliminary impact assessment of Community Mobilization Prince Albert’s Hub Model. Saskatoon, SK: Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science and Justice Studies, University of Saskatchewan. Available from:

Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General. (2016). Guidance on information sharing in multi-sectoral risk intervention models.

OPP in collaboration with Wilfrid Laurier University (2016). OPP Situation Table e-modules.

Public Safety Canada. (2016). Collaborative risk-driven intervention: A study of Samson Cree Nation’s application of the Hub Model. Source: Nilson, C. (2016). Research Report. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada. Available from:

For more information on this program, contact:

For more information on the Hub Model, contact:

Community Safety and Well-Being

600-1874 Scarth Street

Regina, Saskatchewan, S4P 4B3



For more information on Situation Tables in Ontario, contact:

Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General

Public Safety Division


Record Entry Date - 2018-03-14
Record Updated On - 2022-01-17
  1. 1

    The Hub Model / Situation Table allows for some flexibility in the way it is implemented and adapted to fit local needs, resources and specific crime issues. Indeed, the Hub Model / Situation Table is not a “one size fits all” or manualized program; rather it should be considered as a general crime prevention / community safety and well-being approach. For this reason, the model is described briefly here. To obtain detailed information on how the model has been adapted and implemented in local Canadian communities, refer to the information listed herein.   

  2. 2

    In 2012, the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science and Justice Studies, University of Saskatchewan, was invited to conduct an ongoing evaluation of the CMPA approach. This report serves as the first of several deliverables to be produced on the approach. 

Date modified: