Mobilizing the CSWB measurement community: Reflections from the Interactive National Dialogue on Research, Evaluation, and Analysis of Hub/Situation Tables in Canada (January 24–25, 2017: Toronto)

In January of 2017, evaluators (n = 15), analysts (n = 14), and supporters (n = 34) of the “Hub Model of Collaborative Risk-Driven Intervention” gathered in Toronto to spearhead a national dialogue on measurement. For the first time in Canada, key stakeholders involved in Hub/Situation Tables mobilized to explore opportunities to share, collaborate, and build capacity for future development of knowledge, evidence, and practice. In co-hosting this event, Cal Corley (Community Safety Knowledge Alliance), Laura Huey (University of Western Ontario), and I (University of Saskatchewan), believed that by bringing the measurement and practitioner/ policy communities together for shared dialogue, we would better understand the challenges, opportunities, and next steps toward not only building scientific rigour around the Hub Model, but facilitating shared ownership and motivation for ongoing measurement and analysis. Since the launch of Canada’s Hub Model in 2011, a growing body of literature has continued to inform us of the achieved target group, process, progress, and early outcomes of Hub/Situation Tables. In particular, analyses of table data (Campbell, 2016; Global Network for Community Safety, 2016; Gray, 2016; Lamontagne, 2015; Nilson, 2016a; North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit, 2015; Winterberger, 2015) inform us of risk factors, agency involvement, and intervention outcomes. Evaluations of Hub/Situation Tables report on service access for clients (Babayan, Landry-Thompson & Stevens, 2015; Ng & Nerad, 2015; Nilson, 2014), benefits to agencies (Nilson, 2016b; Nilson 2017a), client satisfaction (Brown & Newberry, 2015; Nilson, 2017a); improved clientservice provider relationships (Nilson, 2016c; Nilson, 2017a), improved agency-to-agency communication (Ng & Nerad, 2015), improved community relationships (Brown & Newberry, 2015; Litchmore, 2014), table performance (Clement, 2016), risk reduction (Brown & Newberry, 2016), and client outcomes (CMPA, 2016; Newberry & Brown, 2017). Other research contributions on the Hub Model explore cost-savings analysis (Sawatsky, Ruddell & Jones, 2017), key indicators in community safety and well-being (Nilson, 2015), suggestions for future methodology (Nilson, 2016d), and opportunities for offering remote presence applications of collaborative risk-driven intervention through communication technology (Nilson, 2017b). During the past six years, many of the researchers, evaluators, and analysts responsible for this growing body of knowledge connected with one another informally. However, periodic phone calls or e-mails could never replace the value of face-to-face dialogue. Therefore, in bringing everyone together, we wanted to maximize our collective potential for exploring how we can strengthen measurement of the Hub Model. In doing so, a series of topics were selected—each with a representative of the measurement community facilitating the dialogue. In opening the event, Cal Corley (Community Safety Knowledge Alliance) invited us to use this event as the starting point for ongoing dialogue on improved measurement for community safety and well-being. Following this, I provided an overview of the current state of evaluation/ analysis across Canada. Next, Laura Huey (University of Western Ontario) discussed the importance of strengthened methods and deliverables. Taking us into the evening, Norm Taylor (Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being) delivered a keynote address on the role of fidelity, data access, and evidence in the future of community safety and well-being. On the second day, Claudia Tenuta and Emily Jefferson (Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) provided an overview of Ontario’s experience with the Hub/Situation Table Database (Nilson, Winterberger & Young, 2015). Following this, Markus Winterberger (Community Mobilization Prince Albert) facilitated dialogue on opportunities to improve the database. Later in the morning, Journal of COMMUNITY SAFETY & WELL-BEING