HARM

REDUCTION
WORKERS AND
POLICE OFFICERS
AN INVESTIGATION INTO WAYS THEY CAN
WORK TOGETHER EFFECTIVELY.
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

Introduction – The Big Picture

• Socially and politically, substance use disorder is being defined as a public health issue as
opposed to a crime issue.

• The opioid crisis has emerged as a driving force for social change and acceptance of harm
reduction approaches including more social and political support for supervised injection
sites.

Background – Why this research?

• Harm reduction workers and police are forced to work within the same area and often with
the same people.

• Both groups have drastically different objectives for their work.

• Harm reduction approaches have gained power socially and politically over drug policing
practices.

• We know that police practices impact the ability of an SIS to function effectively.
LITERATURE REVIEW

• Current research on SIS’s has focused

extensively on the benefits of public health
outcomes such as reducing the rates of
infectious disease and decreasing public drug
use.
• Those in law enforcement argue that only
superficial consideration has been given in the
research to the question of SIS increasing crime
in surrounding neighbourhoods.
• This has contributed to the divide among law
enforcement professionals and harm reduction
activists, as current practices do not actively
advocate for a collaborative approach.
RESEARCH
What influences harm reduction workers and police officers to
QUESTION work collaboratively?
• Purpose of the study: This leading study is set to provide an
opportunity to evaluate how the relationship between
harm reduction workers and police officers are taking
shape in new SIS’s and serve as a means of understanding
how to effectively build collaborative relationships by
finding shared values and common goals between harm
reduction and law enforcement.
• Significance/implication for practice and policy: We aim to use
our findings to inform both law enforcement and harm
reduction policies and procedures, and best practices for
eliciting support to meet each group’s objectives and
mandates while keeping the best interests of service users
at the forefront.
METHODOLOGY - OVERVIEW

• Mixed method. Exploratory sequential cross sectional

design.
• Data Collection
• Quantitative Police Crime Data
• Qualitative Interviews
• Quantitative Survey
• Data Analysis
• Grounded Theory
• Coded data using research software
• Analysis of coded data to identify and refine
themes
METHODOLOGY – RECRUITMENT & SAMPLING

• Recruitment:Both police officers and harm reduction workers will be recruited with
permission from their management. We would like to be the ones to identify and invite
participants. Participants will be identified by reviewing HR and scheduling records to ensure
that we are meeting the criteria for the purposeful sampling methods. We will then send each
participant an email explaining the research study, its purpose and inviting them to
participate.

• Quantitative Data – Crime data (assaults, drug trafficking, drug possession, theft, break-ins) to
provide a baseline of police activity in the vicinity of the SIS. We will also look at the
frequency and reasons for calls to the SIS to provide us with information about how harm
reduction workers are dealing with crisis's at the SIS that require the involvement of police.

• Qualitative Interviews – A purposeful sampling method will be used to include harm reduction
workers and police officers who work day/night shifts, part-time/full-time and who are newer
vs more experienced. Six harm reduction workers and 10 police officers will be interviewed
(out of a possible 12 harm reduction workers and 40 police officers).

• Quantitative Survey – We will strive to reach all harm reduction workers who work in the SIS
(12) and all police officers who work in the central division (40) to complete the survey.
METHODOLOGY – QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS

For what purpose?

• Using an inductive approach allows us to look at the context as a
whole and understand the different variables that make it up. In this
way, we hope to be able to identify informal and formal ways that
support collaborative work between harm reduction workers and
police officers.
• Qualitative interviews allows us to authentically understand the
position of different participants in the study.
• Qualitative methods allow us to observe unspoken behaviours like
body language, attitudes and feelings which will shed light on the
context.
METHODOLOGY – QUANTITATIVE SURVEYS

For what purpose:

• Surveys are typically used in program evaluation, yield results quickly, and allow for
the development of a representative picture of the attitudes and characteristics of
a larger population.

• The themes identified in our qualitative interviews will be the basis for
constructing our survey questions

• Apply a deductive process to test our ideas and preliminary findings against the
observations from the qualitative phase (interviews with participants).

• The goal is to further corroborate, align, and build upon the interview findings and
gain a greater in-depth perspective into the relationship among identified variables.

• Used to help establish the extent of agreement between police and harm reduction
workers. This will include what each group believes to be helpful or not.
METHODOLOGY - DATA ANALYSIS

• Grounded Theory - Provides a particular framework for data analysis.

• Allows us to summarize our observations from qualitative interviews to determine indicators
and concepts as we move through our study.
• This theory has had previous success in similar studies which set out to understand how
particular factors influence the relationship between two groups.
• We expect that through this theory we will come to better understand what impacts
(negatively and positively) the ability of these two groups to work collaboratively.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

• Social Desirability Bias - our participants may hold

personal views that do not align with their
occupational views impacting honest reporting/validity
• Cross-population Generalizability – we would need
to study similar sites with comparable population
sizes, drug using cultures, and similar provincial laws
and legislation
• Buy-in from law enforcement and the willingness of
leadership to allow participation in the study
ETHICS

• Addressing economic harm (job security). Mitigated by getting approval from

leadership and ensuring the data is confidential.

• Confidentiality of documentation (anonymous participant coding, separation of

participant personal information, consents and data, locked cabinets, minimal key
holders, encrypted passwords).

• Confidentiality of interview setting (private setting, confidential space)

• Ensuring informed consent, clarity about the purpose of the study and
confidentiality methods (free/voluntary, informed and on going, including situations
where this may change) and contact information for the researchers.

• What's the incentive? An opportunity to contribute to knowledge advancement.

May make each groups job easier by identifying common goals and shared ways of
working together.

• The research proposal will go through a Research Ethics Board and adhere to all
criteria in the Tri-Council, Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans.
DISSEMINATION/ACTION PLANS

• Peer reviewed article published in an academic journal.

• Stakeholders targeted: Academic researchers, policy makers, researchers in professional
associations (social work, chiefs of police, police unions), public health officials and advocacy
groups on both sides.

• Executive summary.
• Stakeholders targeted: Harm reduction worker/police officer newsletters, harm reduction and
law enforcement management, professional associations, the media, public health officials.
• The researchers own the data.
• The information will be available internationally in English.
REFERENCES

Engel, R.J., & Schutt, R.K. (2014). Fundamentals of social work research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
Fischer, B., & Allard, C. (2007). Feasibility study on “supervised drug consumption” options in the City of Victoria.
Victoria, BC: Centre for Addictions Research of British Columbia (CARBC), University of Victoria.
Ontario Association of Police Chiefs. (2012). SUPERVISED INJECTION SITES A Position Paper by Ontario’s
Police Leaders. Prepared by OACP Substance Abuse Committee.
The Canadian Press. (2017, December 18). Opioid deaths in Canada expected to hit 4,000 by end of 2017.
CBC News Health Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca.
Watson,T. M., Bayoumi, A., Kolla, G., Penn, R., Fischer, B., Luce, J., & Strike, C. (2012).
Police perceptions of supervised consumption sites (SCSs): a qualitative study. Substance use & misuse, 47(4),
364-374.