Kelly Socia
Assistant Professor of Criminology and Justice Studies, University of Massachusetts, Lowell
Key Findings
- There was U.S. and local support for safe site facilities, but favor for both was driven by the type of label used to describe the facilities.
- Public support was higher when safe sites were labeled overdose prevention sites than when they were labeled safe injection facilities.
- Local support for safe sites is consistently lower than general U.S. support for safe sites.
- Being labeled either “overdose prevention site” or “safe injection facilities” was more influential than the inclusion of additional information about safe sites.
- Respondent perception of the opioid epidemic as a local or national issue also played a role in U.S. and local support of safe sites.
- Respondents who perceived opioid addiction as a national epidemic showed more U.S. support for safe sites, but less local support.
- Respondents who perceived opioid addiction as a local epidemic showed more local support for safe sites.
Description
In the article, “Focus on prevention: The public is more supportive of ‘overdose prevention sites’’ than they are of ‘safe injection facilities’,” Kelly Socia and his co-authors examined national and local public perceptions of preventative methods to decrease opioid-related overdoses. The practice of providing safe spaces and tools for individuals using drugs under the supervision of a medical professional is a preventative measure used to reduce overdose deaths in Canada, Australia, and other European countries. In the United States, these safe sites have faced opposition from non-user public groups. In this article, Socia and colleagues examined support for safe sites as a general policy (U.S. support) as well as placing safe sites in the respondent’s community (local support). Through a national web-based survey of 1,200 U.S. adults, researchers tested six different framing conditions to understand differences in the public’s perception. The results showed that there was both U.S. and local support for safe site facilities but favor for both was driven by the type of label used to describe the facilities. Public support was higher when safe sites were labeled overdose prevention sites than when they were labeled safe injection facilities. Across conditions, local support for safe sites is consistently lower than general U.S. support for safe sites. Researchers noted that being labeled either “overdose prevention site” or “safe injection facilities” was more influential than the inclusion of additional information about the use of safe sites as crime prevention or public health tools. Respondent perception of the opioid epidemic as a local or national issue also played a role in U.S. and local support of safe sites. Respondents who perceived opioid addiction as a national epidemic showed more U.S. support for safe sites but less local support. Similarly, respondents who perceived opioid addiction as a local epidemic showed more local support for safe sites. Authors note the potential for this information to be used by community organizations and policymakers to better frame proposals for safe sites as a harm reduction tool.