Cited by 36Homelessness and Social IssuesHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Turning a blind eye: Implementation of harm reduction in a transitional programme setting

Pauly, Bernadette, Wallace, Bruce, Barber, Katrina·2018·Drugs Education Prevention and Policy

Abstract

Background: Substance use and homelessness often overlap. Harm reduction is an evidence-based response to reducing harms of use rather than preventing use per se. While harm reduction is a key principle of Housing First, there has been limited research related to the implementation of harm reduction within programmes that aim to end homelessness.Methods: As part of a community-based research study, we conducted 29 qualitative interviews with staff and residents in two transitional programmes. We used interpretive description to analyze the data and generate practice relevant recommendations.Results: Being abstinent was not a criterion for programme eligibility but participants identified “getting and coming clean” as a programme goal. While harm reduction was official policy and safer use supplies were available, there was a zero tolerance policy for substance use onsite and sanctions for use. In the wake of a persistent culture of abstinence and conflicting policies related to substance use and harm reduction, staff turned a blind eye to substance use in an effort to prevent harms.Conclusion: The findings of this study highlight tensions between abstinence and harm reduction policies and the problems associated with the implementation of harm reduction as waiving requirements for sobriety, distribution of clean supplies, and tolerating discrete use in an environment that restricts use as fulfilling harm reduction mandates. Partial or incomplete implementation of harm reduction and a failure to shift norms related to substance use and harm reduction may contribute to harms of overdose, intoxication and stigma as well as tensions between residents.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09687637.2017.1337081

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Challenges from flexibility and broader social structures may pose a key risk to program fidelity, as practices may differ between agencies and service providers, leading to partial or incomplete implementation of harm reduction.

    “These challenges may pose a key risk to program fidelity, as practices may differ between agencies and service providers, leading to partial or incomplete implementation of harm reduction (Pauly et al., 2018).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pauly, B., Wallace, B., & Barber, K.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Addictions Research of British Columbia, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada,
  • University of Victoria (CA)
Venue
Drugs Education Prevention and Policy
Published
2017-06-23
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
21-30
ISSN
  • 0968-7637 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-3370
OpenAlex
W2718052529
Cited by
36
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
6.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Drugs Education Prevention and Policy (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Homelessness and Social Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
harm reduction, homelessness, substance use, abstinence, Housing First, implementation, zero tolerance policy, employee attitudes, stigma, drug overdose

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review