1/x:
At ~1pm I'm presenting at #CrimCon about 'Public Support for Safe Injection Facilities'

Watch free on @CrimCon's Stream 4:
https://zoom.us/j/95152671630?pwd=UWpEWTBRaE11Nm52NkhNdXFEZnJKZz09

This post will be a thread about the study/findings.

My coauthors: @stone_prof @68TRXInked @JohnCluverius
#AcademicTwitter

2/x:
"What's a Safe Injection Facility?"

-A clinics where individuals can use drugs while watched by medical staff, in case of overdose.
-SIFs don't provide drugs or help users inject.
-They already operate in Canada, Europe, AUS, ...but not yet in the US (legally/officially).

3/x:
About to start (8 mins)! I'm third in line to present.

#CrimCon Stream 4: https://zoom.us/j/95152671630?pwd=UWpEWTBRaE11Nm52NkhNdXFEZnJKZz09

#AcademicTwitter #crimtwitter

4/x:
I won't livestream this, but up first is @ERFiss and colleagues with "Student Perceptions of the #MeToo Movement"

...and then Laura lesue on "Fear of Crime and Trust in Police: Exploring Neighborhood Dynamics in Central America"

5/x:
14 years in #academia and I still get butterflies in my tumtum before presenting.

6/x:
SIFs are controversial. For some background on just one case in the US, see this thread:
https://twitter.com/abgutman/status/1328346599806865409

So far there are no legally authorized 'above board' SIFs operating in the US (that I'm aware of)

7/x:
So the question our project asked was, ‘how can you influence public support for SIFs’ via labels and information framing.

Label: Safe injection facility [SIF] vs. overdose prevention site [OPS]

Info framing: Neutral vs. crime control benefits vs. public health benefits

8/x:
Our study used a sample of 932 US respondents (Rs) via YouGov.

We randomly assigned Rs to 1 of 6 groups, based on 2 labels (SIF vs. OPS) and 3 information frames.
This meant each group got a different 'message' about these facilities.

9/x:

Everyone got the neutral definition (swapping SIF/OPS label as needed)
--2 control groups got JUST this definition (SIF/OPS)
--2 crime control groups & 2 public health groups ALSO received follow up information on the benefits of these facilities....

10/x:
These benefits were supposedly taken from “a recent Canadian documentary” [lies!]

The follow up info was 9 bullet points of similar-sounding benefits, from either a CC or PH focus.
We used similar anecdotes/names/etc. with different frames: e.g., "Tammy, whose son..."

11/x:
After the vignette, we asked Rs to gauge support for these facilities being used in the United States (DV1) on a -10 (strongly oppose) to +10 (strongly support) scale.

AFTER this Q, we asked about support for these facilities in R’s own neighborhood (DV2).
NIMBY ALERT!!!

12/x:
What did we find?
US-level general support:

-SIF with no info had slight support (~.4). Adding info bumped up support a little, but still meh.

-Using the OPS label boosted support a LOT (~3 w/no info), especially when paired with public health info (>4)

13/x:
Local/neighborhood support --> NIMBY effects
-Local support always lower than general/US support w/in groups
-SIF label groups had consistent slight opposition (-)
-Changing the label to OPS boosted support into the ‘support’ range (+), esp. w/ OPS+public health info.

14/x:
Something crazy: The SIF-control group had LOWER general/US support (~.4) than any of the OPS groups' LOCAL support!
That is, OPS groups were more likely to support a facility IN THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD than SIF groups were to support these facilities in the US generally!

15/15:
Takeaways:
1. CALL IT AN OVERDOSE PREVENTION SITE!
2. 'Safe Injection Facility' label = you lose support
3. Just b/c folks support these *waves arms* somewhere in the US don't mean they want a neighborhood facility
4. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY
5. If UR reviewer 2 on this, be cool