UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Police confrontations among street-involved youth in a Canadian setting Ti, Lianping; Wood, Evan; Shannon, Kate; Feng, Cindy X.; Kerr, Thomas Aug 9, 2012

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


52383-Ti_L_et_al_Police_confrontations_among.pdf [ 53.11kB ]
JSON: 52383-1.0340698.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0340698-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0340698-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0340698-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0340698-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0340698-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0340698-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Police confrontations among street-involved youth in aCanadian settingLianping Ti1, Evan Wood1,2, Kate Shannon1,2,3, Cindy Feng1, and Thomas Kerr1,21British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, St. Paul’s Hospital, 608–1081 BurrardStreet, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 1Y62Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, St. Paul’s Hospital, 1081 Burrard Street,Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 1Y63School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall,Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z3AbstractBackground—Street-level policing has been recognized as a driver of health-related harmsamong people who inject drugs (IDU). However, the extent of interaction between police andstreet-involved youth has not been well characterized. We examined the incidence and risk factorsfor police confrontations among street-involved youth in a Canadian setting.Methods—Using data derived from participants enrolled in the At-Risk Youth Study (ARYS)between 2005 and 2011, we assessed factors associated with being stopped, searched, or detainedby police without arrest in the previous six months using generalized estimating equations (GEE)with logit link for binary outcomes.Results—Among 991 participants followed during the study period, 440 (44.4%) reported beingstopped, searched, or detained by police for an incidence density of 49.20 (95% confidenceinterval [CI]: 36.42–65.01) per 100 person years. In multivariate GEE analyses, factors associatedwith police confrontations included: male gender (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.35),homelessness (AOR = 2.05), recent incarceration (AOR = 1.78), daily cannabis use (AOR = 1.31),daily heroin injecting (AOR = 1.36), crack pipe/syringe sharing (AOR = 1.61), injection drug use(AOR = 1.37), public drug use (AOR = 2.19), sex work involvement (AOR = 1.67), and drugdealing (AOR = 1.49) (all p<0.05). In total, 19.0% of participants reported that police confiscatedtheir drug paraphernalia without arresting them. Additionally, 16.9% individuals reportedexperiencing violence at the hands of police.Conclusion—We found that various factors, such as homelessness and markers of more severeaddiction, increased the likelihood of being confronted by police, and police confrontations wereassociated with markers of health-related harm among street youth. These findings highlight theneed for social and structural interventions that best enable police to fulfill public safety andpublic order objectives without negatively influencing health behaviours of street youth.© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Send correspondence to: Thomas Kerr, PhD, Director, Urban Health Research Initiative, BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, 608- 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada, Tel: 604-806-9116, Fax: 604-806-9044, uhri-tk@cfenet.ubc.ca.Conflict of interests: None.Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to ourcustomers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review ofthe resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may bediscovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.NIH Public AccessAuthor ManuscriptInt J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 January 01.Published in final edited form as:Int J Drug Policy. 2013 January ; 24(1): 46–51. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.06.008.$watermark-text$watermark-text$watermark-textKeywordsstreet-involved youth; policing; Vancouver; illicit drug useINTRODUCTIONIllicit drug markets remain a major public order concern in many urban areas worldwide. Inresponse to the ongoing problems related to substance use in Canada, the federalgovernment launched a ‘National Anti-Drug Strategy’ in October 2007, which focusesheavily on law enforcement techniques as a means of reducing the supply and use of illicitdrugs, and the associated public order impacts (Office of the Prime Minister, 2007).Although law enforcement represents the dominant approach to addressing illicit drug use(Dauvergne, 2009; Wood & Kerr, 2005), several studies have documented the unintendednegative consequences associated with intensified enforcement approaches within drugmarkets among people who inject drugs (IDU) and sex workers (Shannon et al., 2008;Small, Kerr, Charette, Schechter, & Spittal, 2006; Werb, Wood, et al., 2008). Specifically,police crackdowns within drug and sex work markets have been associated with anunwillingness to obtain and carry sterile syringes and condoms (Chakrapani, Newman,Shunmugam, & Dubrow, 2011; Cooper, Moore, Gruskin, & Krieger, 2005), syringe sharing(Rhodes et al., 2004), reductions in access to health and harm reduction services (Mimiagaet al., 2010; Small et al., 2006), and violence (Shannon et al., 2009; Werb, Rowell, Kerr,Montaner, & Wood, 2011).Rhodes’ Risk Environment Framework has been applied extensively to identify the role thatsocial, structural and environmental factors operating within drug markets play in shapingrisk among IDU, and has further helped elucidate how policing interventions can function associal-structural drivers of adverse health outcomes within this population (Rhodes, 2002;Rhodes, Singer, Bourgois, Friedman, & Strathdee, 2005). While the impact of policeconfrontations on adult IDU has been described previously (Aitken, Moore, Higgs, Kelsall,& Kerger, 2002; Werb, Wood, et al., 2008), less is known about interactions between policeand street-involved drug using youth in a Canadian setting. As well, little attention has beenpaid to how contextual conditions elevate risk for confrontations with police. Therefore,applying a Risk Environment perspective, we undertook the present study to examine theprevalence of and factors associated with being stopped, searched, or detained by policewithout arrest among street-involved youth in Vancouver, Canada. As well, given concernsregarding the potential of police to interfere with HIV prevention efforts (Werb, Wood, etal., 2008), we sought to assess the prevalence of police confiscation of sterile syringes andother drug paraphernalia. Lastly, given persistent concerns regarding drug law enforcementand violence (Marshall, Fairbairn, Li, Wood, & Kerr, 2008; Shannon et al., 2008) we alsosought to assess the prevalence of violent interactions involving police.METHODSThe At-Risk Youth Study (ARYS) is an ongoing prospective cohort study of street-involvedyouth in Vancouver. This study has been described in detail previously (Wood, Stoltz,Montaner, & Kerr, 2006). In brief, snowball sampling and extensive street-based outreachwere conducted to recruit participants into the study. The term “street-involved youth” hasbeen defined as a young person who spends a substantial amount of time on the street orwho is heavily engaged in the street economy (Marlatt, 2002), and may include youth whoare absolutely, periodically, or at imminent risk of being homeless (Daly, 1996). Personswere eligible for the study if they were between 14 and 26 years of age, had used illicitdrugs other than or in addition to marijuana in the past 30 days and provided informedTi et al. Page 2Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 January 01.$watermark-text$watermark-text$watermark-textconsent. At baseline and semi-annually thereafter, participants complete an interviewer-administered questionnaire and provide blood samples for HIV and hepatitis C (HCV)serology. The questionnaire elicits socio-demographic data as well as information regardingparticipants’ drug use and other behavioural and economic data such as sex workinvolvement, income generation sources, housing, incarceration experiences, and encounterswith police. All participants receive a monetary stipend of $20 CDN after each visit. Thestudy has been approved by the University of British Columbia/Providence Health CareResearch Ethics Board.All participants who completed a baseline survey and were seen for study follow-upbetween December 2005 and November 2011 were included in the study. For the presentanalyses, the primary outcome of interest was having reported being ’jacked up’ (i.e.stopped, searched or detained without arrest) by police in the previous six months. Wefocused on non-arrest events since less is known about the factors associated with this formof police interaction compared to events that end in arrest and incarceration. Further,previous analyses focused on adult IDU have pointed to the harms associated with this formof police activity (Werb, Wood, et al., 2008). Independent variables in this analysis includedan array of socio-demographic and behavioural characteristics, as well as, consistent withthe Risk Environment Framework, we considered variables reflective of social, structural,and environmental conditions, including: age (per year older), gender (female vs. male),Aboriginal ancestry (yes vs. no), current homelessness (yes vs. no), recent incarceration (yesvs. no), daily cannabis use (yes vs. no), daily crack use (yes vs. no), daily crystalmethamphetamine use (yes vs. no), daily heroin injecting (yes vs. no), overdose (yes vs. no),shared crack pipes and/or syringes (yes vs. no), any injection drug use (yes vs. no), bingedrug use (yes vs. no), public drug use (yes vs. no), sex work involvement (yes vs. no), anddrug dealing (yes vs. no). Unless otherwise indicated, all variables refer to activities in theprevious six months. Participants were defined as homeless if they reported currently livingon the street or having no fixed address.Univariate and multivariate statistics were used to identify factors associated with being‘jacked up’. We also calculated the incidence density of being ‘jacked up’ by police amongparticipants by dividing the number of new events (i.e. participants reporting new events ofbeing ‘jacked up’) by the person-years of the at-risk population. Since analyses of factorspotentially associated with our outcome of interest included serial measures for each subject,we used generalized estimating equations (GEE) for binary outcomes with logit link for theanalysis of correlated data to determine factors associated with being stopped, searched, ordetained by police without arrest. These methods provided standard errors adjusted bymultiple observations per person using an exchangeable correlation structure. Therefore,data from every participant follow-up visit were considered in this analysis. As a first step,GEE univariate analyses were conducted to obtain unadjusted odds ratios and 95%confidence intervals for variables of interest. The multivariate model was then fit using -an apriori-defined statistical protocol based on examination of the quasi-likelihood under theindependence model criterion (QIC) for GEE and p-values (Pan, 2001). First, a preliminarymodel was constructed including all variables significant in bivariate analysis at p<0.05.Following this, each variable with the highest p-value was removed sequentially, with thefinal model including the set of variables associated with the lowest QIC. As a subanalysis,participants were asked to report whether police ever confiscated their drug paraphernalia(e.g., sterile syringes, crack pipes) without arresting them. Additionally, we askedparticipants to report whether they had experienced violence at the hands of police in thepast six months. More specifically, of the participants who reported “yes” to having beenattacked, assaulted (including sexual assault), or suffered any kind of violence in the last sixmonths, those who responded “yes” to ever being attacked by police were considered asTi et al. Page 3Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 January 01.$watermark-text$watermark-text$watermark-texthaving experienced what they believed to be violence at the hands of police. All statisticalanalyses were performed using SAS software version 9.1. All p-values are two-sided.RESULTSOf the 991 participants eligible for the present analysis, 310 (31.3%) were female and themedian age at baseline was 19.8 years (interquartile range [IQR} = 21.9–23.7). In total,23.6% were of Aboriginal ancestry, and 36.4% and 38.6% reported homelessness andinjection drug use at baseline, respectively. These participants contributed to a total of 2,939observations during the follow-up period. Of these individuals, 344 participants (34.7%)reported being ‘jacked up’ in the previous six months at baseline and a total of 440participants (44.4%) reported being ‘jacked up’ during the 72-month study period for anincidence density of 49.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 36.42–65.01) per 100 personyears.Table 1 shows the results of the bivariate and multivariate GEE analyses of factorsassociated with being stopped, searched, or detained by police without arrest in the last sixmonths. In bivariate GEE logistic analyses, being ‘jacked up’ was significantly associatedwith: male gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.47; 95%CI: 1.16–1.87), current homelessness (OR =2.59; 95%CI: 2.14–3.15), recent incarceration (OR = 2.13; 95%CI: 1.73–2.63), dailycannabis use (OR = 1.59; 95%CI: 1.24–2.04), daily crack use (OR = 1.72; 95%CI: 1.44–2.04), daily crystal methamphetamine use (OR = 1.64; 95%CI: 1.38–1.95), daily heroininjecting (OR = 1.92; 95%CI: 1.55–2.39), overdose (OR = 1.30; 95%CI: 1.00–1.69), crackpipe and/or syringe sharing (OR = 2.20; 95%CI: 1.84–2.63), any injection drug use (OR =2.02; 95%CI: 1.67–2.45), binge drug use (OR = 1.57; 95%CI: 1.33–1.87), public drug use(OR = 2.45; 95%CI: 1.36–4.41), sex work involvement (OR = 2.02; 95%CI: 1.50–2.73), anddrug dealing (OR = 1.90; 95%CI: 1.59–2.27).In multivariate GEE analyses, factors that remained significantly associated with beingstopped, searched, or detained by police without arrest included: male gender (adjusted oddsratio [AOR] = 1.35; 95%CI: 1.05–1.73), homelessness (AOR = 2.05; 95%CI: 1.67–2.52),recent incarceration (AOR = 1.78; 95%CI: 1.42–2.24), daily cannabis use (AOR = 1.31;95%CI: 1.02–1.68), daily heroin injecting (AOR = 1.36; 95%CI: 1.03–1.79), crack pipe/syringe sharing (AOR = 1.61; 95%CI: 1.33–1.95), any injection drug use (AOR = 1.37;95%CI: 1.07–1.76), public drug use (AOR = 2.19; 95%CI: 1.22–3.90), sex workinvolvement (AOR = 1.67; 95%CI: 1.20–2.33), and drug dealing (AOR = 1.49; 95%CI:1.24–1.80). Of the 991 participants included in this study, 188 (19.0%) unique individualsreported that police took away their drug paraphernalia without arresting them at some pointduring the study period. Additionally, 167 (16.9%) of participants reported experiencingviolence at the hands of police at some point during the study period.DISCUSSIONDuring the study period, a high proportion (44.4%) of our study sample reported beingstopped, searched, or detained by police without arrest in the last six months. Variablessignificantly and independently associated with this form of police confrontation included adiverse set of individual and contextual factors, including: male gender, homelessness,recent incarceration, daily cannabis use, daily heroin injecting, crack pipe/syringe sharing,any injecting, public drug use, sex work involvement, and drug dealing. We also found thatduring the study period, almost one-fifth (19.0%) of the sample reported that policeconfiscated their drug paraphernalia without arresting them and 16.9% reportedexperiencing what they believed to be violence by police without arrest in the previous sixmonths.Ti et al. Page 4Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 January 01.$watermark-text$watermark-text$watermark-textOf particular concern is the finding that approximately one-fifth of individuals reportedhaving their drug paraphernalia (e.g. syringes, pipes) confiscated by police without anyarrest. While it is encouraging that Vancouver has an established sterile drug paraphernaliadistribution program and there is widespread access to this type of service, it is possible thatconfiscation of sterile drug paraphernalia by police may promote high-risk behaviours (i.e.,syringe sharing) and vulnerability to disease transmission among this subpopulation. This isconsistent with findings from a similar study involving adult IDU, which found that amongthose who had their syringes confiscated, several reported immediately borrowing a usedsyringe (Werb, Wood, et al., 2008). Our study also revealed that 16.9% of participantsexperienced what they perceived to be violence at the hands of police in the previous sixmonths, indicating that street-level policing is a contributing factor to experiences ofviolence among street-involved youth. Consistent with previous reports of police violencedirected at highly marginalized populations in the downtown eastside of Vancouver (DTES),the fear of police harassment and violence has consequentially prevented many individualsfrom accessing health and harm reduction services (Human Rights Watch, 2003; Pivot LegalSociety, 2004). Therefore, reforms to policing practices are needed to ensure that policeactions do not undermine public health efforts, including those focused on preventing thetransmission of infectious diseases (Chakrapani et al., 2011). Partnering public health andpublic order objectives with policing strategies may have success in minimizing negativehealth consequences among street-involved youth (DeBeck et al., 2008).Our findings are consistent with a previous study showing high rates of police confrontationamong adult IDU in the DTES (Werb, Wood, et al., 2008), with male youth being morelikely to experience police confrontation compared to female youth. This gender differencemay be due to the fact that a larger proportion of male street-involved youth report priorinjection drug use and other high-risk behaviours (DeMatteo et al., 1999; Kerr, Marshall, etal., 2009), and are overrepresented in the criminal justice system (Public Health Agency ofCanada, 2006). Our study also revealed that recently incarcerated youth were significantlyand positively associated with being stopped, searched, or detained by police without arrest.This may also reflect previous involvement with the criminal justice system, as youth whohold criminal records may be more likely to be known to police (Cohen & Amon, 2008).Moreover, street-involved youth who have been recently incarcerated are also morevulnerable to recidivism (Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001; Dunnet, 2008; Myner, Santman,Cappelletty, & Perlmutter, 1998), thereby making them highly susceptible to future policeconfrontation. Interventions to address the underlying causes of crime among youth, such asimproving the socio-economic status of the subpopulation by providing stable housing andlow-threshold employment opportunities, and by providing access to voluntary drug andalcohol addiction treatment, may have potential to reduce recidivism in this setting(Greenwood, 2011; United Nations, 2004). As well, given the known harms associated withincarceration (McReynolds & Wasserman, 2011; Milloy et al., 2008), efforts should bemade to divert street-youth away from correctional environments and into treatmentprograms.Several drug use behaviours were found to be associated with being stopped, searched ordetained by police without arrest. Our finding indicating that street-involved youth who usecannabis daily were more likely to experience confrontations with police may reflect the factthat smoking cannabis produces visible smoke as well as a distinct scent that may be easilyidentified by police. Other visible drug use behaviours found to be linked with policeconfrontation included daily heroin injecting and injection drug use. The visible act ofpreparing and injecting drugs, as well as the presence of drug paraphernalia on their person,marks an individual as a drug user and consequently, that individual may be more likely tobe confronted by police (Cooper et al., 2005; Rhodes et al., 2006). That sharing of smokingand/or injecting paraphernalia was also independently and significantly associated withTi et al. Page 5Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 January 01.$watermark-text$watermark-text$watermark-textbeing stopped, searched, or detained by police without arrest is of particular concern. Giventhat previous research has demonstrated that sharing of crack pipes and syringes is linked todifficulty accessing drug paraphernalia (Kerr, Fairbairn, et al., 2009; Ti et al., 2011), andfear of police confrontation prevent many individuals from accessing harm reductiondistribution sites (Rhodes et al., 2006), it is possible that this high risk behaviour may beintensified due to these circumstances. Improving access to drug paraphernalia by extendingoperation hours of distribution sites and increasing mobile and outreach resources may havepotential for success in this setting. As well, police could be encouraged to avoid positioningthemselves close to outlets that distribute drug use paraphernalia, as this may discourageaccess among vulnerable populations.Of particular concern is that the present study found sex work involvement to be a strongpredictor of being stopped, searched, or detained by police without arrest. Within a highlycriminalized sex work environment, this association supports a growing body of evidence ofthe structural conditions that render street-involved sex workers particularly vulnerable toadversarial interactions with police (Maher & Dixon, 1999; Shannon et al., 2008).Specifically, in Canada, criminalized laws such as the Bawdy House provision that prohibitsex workers from working in managed or cooperative indoor environments (e.g. brothels)leave the most marginalized sex workers with little option but to engage potential clients inpublic settings, thus making them more visible to police (Vancouver Sun, 2010; Zerbisias,2010). This finding is of concern given past evidence indicating that among female sexworkers in Vancouver, displacement due to enforcement pressure is associated withdisruptions in access to HIV prevention materials such as condoms and sterile syringes,particularly among youth (Shannon et al., 2008). Accordingly, structural interventions aimedat amending Canada’s criminalized sex work laws are needed to reduce negativeconfrontations with police among sex workers and promote access to HIV prevention toolsamong sex workers. Although a recent court case in Ontario struck down the lawsprohibiting bawdy houses, communicating laws, which disproportionally affects street-levelsex workers, was upheld (BBC News, 2012; Nixon, 2012). Communicating laws refers tolaws that restrict soliciting in public for the purpose of prostitution (Pivot Legal Society,2004). Advocates continue to express concern for the safety of street-level sex workersgiven that this highly marginalized subpopulation will remain vulnerable to abuse, violence,and confrontations with police (Duffy, Singer, & Ionova, 2012; Fournier, 2012). Further,this decision is expected to be appealed by the federal government of Canada and thereforeit is uncertain whether the recent decision in Ontario will hold (Postmedia News, 2012).Our findings also indicated that drug dealing was independently associated with reports ofpolice confrontations. This is consistent with previous studies demonstrating that street-involved youth continue to be involved in high-risk income generating activities commonwithin drug markets as a means to support their drug use behaviour and basic survival needs(Kerr, Marshall, et al., 2009; O’Grady & Gaetz, 2004). However, a study in Vancouverindicated that almost half of IDU involved in these income-generating activities werewilling to engage in alternative, low-threshold employment if given the opportunity(DeBeck et al., 2011). Prior research has demonstrated that social factors such as poverty,unstable housing, and drug dependence are drivers of youth participation in high-incomegenerating activities (Chettiar, Shannon, Wood, Zhang, & Kerr, 2010; Lankenau, Clatts,Welle, Goldsamt, & Gwadz, 2005; Werb, Kerr, Li, Montaner, & Wood, 2008). Therefore, inorder to reduce engagement in illegal income generation activities associated with the drugmarket (e.g. drug dealing) among street-involved youth, and thereby minimize policeconfrontations in this setting, structural interventions that focus on providing alternativelow-threshold employment opportunities for street-involved youth are needed.Ti et al. Page 6Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 January 01.$watermark-text$watermark-text$watermark-textConsistent with previous studies indicating a significant association between homelessnessand policing among adult IDU (Volkmann et al., 2011), we found that street-involved youthwho reported being homeless at some point during the study period were also highlyvulnerable to street-level policing. This may reflect the fact that they are more likely tospend time on the street and be immersed in drug markets and related activities compared toyouth who do not report homelessness (Mastro, Cunningham, Medrano, & van Dam, 2012).We also found that public drug use was independently associated with being stopped,searched, or detained by police without any arrest. Those who engage in public drug use arevulnerable to police confrontations by virtue of the fact that they are more likely to be seenconsuming drugs or being intoxicated within public settings (Small, Rhodes, Wood, & Kerr,2007). Considering the high prevalence of homelessness and public drug use among street-involved youth (DeMatteo et al., 1999; Marshall, Kerr, Qi, Montaner, & Wood, 2010;Rachlis, Wood, Zhang, Montaner, & Kerr, 2009), additional efforts to address theseenvironmental determinants of risk among this subpopulation may be of greater benefit thanefforts that focus solely on modifying individual behaviour. These include structural andenvironmental interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing harm and riskamong youth and adult drug users, including the provision of stable housing opportunities,the establishment of supervised injection facilities, and improved access to drug and alcoholtreatment centres (Frankish, Hwang, & Quantz, 2005; Hadland, Kerr, Li, Montaner, &Wood, 2009; Hillis et al., 2012; Stoltz et al., 2007).Our study has several important limitations. Firstly, ARYS is not a random sample of street-involved youth, and therefore may not be generalizable to other settings (Wood et al., 2006).Secondly, given that this study relied primarily on self-report, we may have underestimatedsocially undesirable behaviours such as drug dealing and sex work involvement (Des Jarlaiset al., 1999). In addition, it may be difficult to assess whether police confrontationsexperienced by street-involved youth was legally justified or excessive based on self-reported data. Lastly, the statistical methods used in our study only examine characteristicsthat co-occur with being stopped, searched, or detained by police without arrest. Furtherresearch examining these temporal dynamics would be required to understand the causalrelationships between being police confrontations and the factors considered herein.In summary, we found that over a third of street involved youth in our cohort reported beingstopped, searched, or detained by police without any arrest. Our findings revealed that theseindividuals were more likely to be male, homeless, recently incarcerated, sex workers, and adaily user of cannabis or heroin injector. They were also more likely to report crack pipe/syringe sharing, public drug use, and drug dealing. These analyses suggest that variousindividual and contextual factors elevate risk for confrontations with police among street-involved youth. Given that many participants in this study reported that police hadconfiscated their sterile drug use paraphernalia, and that many had been subject to perceivedviolence by police, these findings further suggest that policing is contributing to the social-structural production of harm among street-involved youth in Vancouver. Although somedegree of law enforcement presence is needed in some situations involving street-youth(e.g., in the case that street-youth are presented as a risk to themselves or to others), ourfindings point to the need for various social and structural interventions, as well asinterventions that better harmonize policing and public health efforts.AcknowledgmentsThe authors thank the study participants for their contribution to the research, as well as current and pastresearchers and staff. We would specifically like to thank Deborah Graham, Peter Vann, Caitlin Johnston, SteveKain, and Calvin Lai for their research and administrative assistance. The study was supported by the US NationalInstitutes of Health (R01DA028532) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP 102742). Thomas KerrTi et al. Page 7Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 January 01.$watermark-text$watermark-text$watermark-textand Kate Shannon are supported by the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. Kate Shannon is alsosupported by CIHR and US NIH.ReferencesAitken C, Moore D, Higgs P, Kelsall J, Kerger M. The impact of a police crackdown on a street drugscene: evidence from the street. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2002; 13:193–202.BBC News. Ontario brothel ban quashed by appeal court. BBC News; 2012 Mar 26. Retrieved fromhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17520140Chakrapani V, Newman P, Shunmugam M, Dubrow R. Social-structural contexts of needle andsyringe sharing behaviours of HIV-positive injecting drug users in Manipur, India: a mixed methodsinvestigation. Harm Reduction Journal. 2011; 8(9)Chettiar J, Shannon K, Wood E, Zhang R, Kerr T. Survival sex work involvement among street-involved youth who use drugs in a Canadian setting. Journal of Public Health. 2010; 32(3):322–327.[PubMed: 20061578]Cohen J, Amon J. Health and Human Rights Concerns of Drug Users in Detention in GuangxiProvince, China. PLoS Medicine. 2008; 5(12):e234. [PubMed: 19071954]Cooper H, Moore L, Gruskin S, Krieger N. The impact of a police drug crackdown on drug injectors’ability to practice harm reduction: A qualitative study. Social Science and Medicine. 2005; 61:673–684. [PubMed: 15899325]Cottle C, Lee R, Heilbrun K. The Prediction of Criminal Recidivism in Juveniles: A Meta-Analysis.Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2001; 28:367–394.Daly, G. Homeless: Policies, Strategies, and Lives on the Street. London: Routledge; 1996.Dauvergne, M. Trends in police-reported drug offences in Canada. Statistics Canada; 2009.DeBeck K, Wood E, Qi J, Fu E, McArthur D, Montaner J, Kerr T. Interest in low-thresholdemployment among people who inject illicit drugs: implications for street disorder. InternationalJournal of Drug Policy. 2011; 22(5):376–384. [PubMed: 21684142]DeBeck K, Wood E, Zhang R, Tyndall M, Montaner J, Kerr T. Police and public health partnerships:Evidence from the evaluation of Vancouver’s supervised injection facility. Substance AbuseTreatment, Prevention and Policy. 2008; 3(11)DeMatteo D, Major C, Block B, Coates R, Fearon M, Goldberg E, King S, et al. Toronto Street Youthand HIV/AIDS: Prevalence, Demographics, and Risk. Journal of Adolescent Health. 1999;25:358–366. [PubMed: 10551667]Des Jarlais D, Paone D, Milliken J, Turner C, Miller H, Gribble J, Shi Q, et al. Audio-computerinterviewing to measure risk behaviour for HIV among injecting drug users: a quasi-randomisedtrial. Lancet. 1999; 353:1657–1661. [PubMed: 10335785]Duffy, A.; Singer, Z.; Ionova, M. Sex workers see little change here. Ottawa Citizen; 2012 Mar 27.Retrieved from http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/workers+little+change+here/6363135/story.htmlDunnet, A. The Cedar Project: Vulnerability to Recidivism Among Aboriginal Young People WhoUse Drugs. Simon Fraser University; Vancouver: 2008.Fournier, S. Ontario prostitution ruling leaves street sex workers at risk: advocates. The Province. 2012Mar 26. Retrieved from http://www.theprovince.com/news/Ontario+prostitution+ruling+leaves+street+workers+risk+advocates/6361985/story.htmlFrankish C, Hwang S, Quantz D. Homelessness and Health in Canada. Canadian Journal of PublicHealth. 2005; 96:S23–S29.Greenwood, P. Preventing and Reducing Youth Crime and Violence: Using Evidence-Based Practices.Sacramento: Governor’s Office of Gang and Youth Violence Policy; 2011.Hadland S, Kerr T, Li K, Montaner J, Wood E. Access to drug and alcohol treatment among a cohortof street-involved youth. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2009; 101(1–2):1–7. [PubMed:19081203]Hillis S, Zapata L, Robbins C, Kissin D, Skipalska H, Yorick R, Finnerty E, et al. HIV seroprevalenceamong orphaned and homeless youth: no place like home. AIDS. 2012; 26(1):105–110. [PubMed:21881479]Ti et al. Page 8Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 January 01.$watermark-text$watermark-text$watermark-textHuman Rights Watch. Abusing the Abuser: Police Misconduct, Harm Reduction, and HIV/AIDS inVancouver ( No 15: 2(B)). New York: Human Rights Watch; 2003. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/canada/canada0503.pdfKerr T, Fairbairn N, Hayashi K, Suwannawong P, Kaplan K, Zhang R, Wood E. Difficulty accessingsyringes and syringe borrowing among injection drug users in Bangkok, Thailand. Drug AlcoholRev. 2009; 29:157–161. [PubMed: 20447223]Kerr T, Marshall B, Miller C, Shannon K, Zhang R, Montaner J, Wood E. Injection drug use amongstreet-involved youth in a Canadian setting. BMC Public Health. 2009; 9(171)Lankenau S, Clatts M, Welle D, Goldsamt L, Gwadz M. Street careers: homelessness, drug use, andsex work among young men who have sex with men (YMSM). International Journal of DrugPolicy. 2005; 16:10–18. [PubMed: 18185845]Maher L, Dixon D. Policing and public health: Law enforcement and harm minimization in a street-level drug market. British Journal of Criminology. 1999; 39(4):488–512.Marlatt, G. Harm Reduction: Pragmatic Strategies for Managing High-Risk Behaviors. New York: TheGuilford Press; 2002.Marshall B, Fairbairn N, Li K, Wood E, Kerr T. Physical violence among a prospective cohort ofinjection drug users: A gender-focused approach. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2008; 97:237–246. [PubMed: 18487025]Marshall B, Kerr T, Qi J, Montaner J, Wood E. Public injecting and HIV risk behaviour among street-involved youth. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2010; 110:254–258. [PubMed: 20456875]Mastro T, Cunningham J, Medrano T, van Dam J. Youth and HIV: the intersection of homelessness,orphaned status, injection drug use and sexual risk. AIDS. 2012; 26:111–113. [PubMed:22126814]McReynolds L, Wasserman G. Self-injury in incarcerated juvenile females: Contributions of mentalhealth and traumatic experiences. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2011; 24(6):752–755. [PubMed:22113950]Milloy M, Wood E, Small W, Tyndall M, Lai C, Montaner J, Kerr T. Incarceration experiences in acohort of active injection drug users. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2008:1–7.Mimiaga M, Safren S, Dvoryak S, Reisner S, Needle R, Woody G. We fear the police, and the policefear us : structural and individual barriers and facilitators to HIV medication adherence amonginjection drug users in Kiev, Ukraine. AIDS Care. 2010; 22(11):1305–1313. [PubMed: 20640954]Myner J, Santman J, Cappelletty G, Perlmutter B. Variables Related to Recidivism Among JuvenileOffenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 1998; 42:65–80.Nixon, G. Ontario Appeal Court strikes down ban on brothels. CBC News; 2012 Mar 26. Retrievedfrom http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/26/ontario-appeal-court-sex-trade-laws-monday.htmlO’Grady B, Gaetz S. Homelessness, Gender and Subsistence: The Case of Toronto Street Youth.Journal of Youth Studies. 2004; 7(4):397–416.Office of the Prime Minister. Speech October 4, 2007: Prime Minister pledges crackdown on drugcriminals, compassion for their victims. Government of Canada; 2007. Retrieved from : http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=352609&Pan W. Akaike’s Information Criterion in Generalized Estimating Equations. Biometrics. 2001; 57(1):120–125. [PubMed: 11252586]Pivot Legal Society. Voices for Dignity: A Call to End the Harms Caused by Canada’s Sex TradeLaws. Vancouver: Pivot Legal Society; 2004. Retrieved from http://www.pivotlegal.org/sites/pivotlegal.org/files/voicesfordignity.pdfPostmedia News. Feds to review legal options following prostitution court ruling. The Vancouver Sun.2012 Mar 26. Retrieved from http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Feds+review+legal+options+following+prostitution+court+ruling/6360636/story.htmlPublic Health Agency of Canada. Street Youth in Canada: Findings from Enhanced Surveillance ofCanadian Street Youth, 1999–2003. Public Health Agency of Canada; 2006. Retrieved from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/std-mts/reports_06/pdf/street_youth_e.pdfTi et al. Page 9Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 January 01.$watermark-text$watermark-text$watermark-textRachlis B, Wood E, Zhang R, Montaner J, Kerr T. High rates of homelessness among a cohort ofstreet-involved youth. Health Place. 2009; 15(1):10–17. [PubMed: 18358759]Rhodes T. The risk environment : a framework for understanding and reducing drug-related harm.International Journal of Drug Policy. 2002; 13:85–94.Rhodes T, Judd A, Mikhailova L, Sarang A, Khutorskoy M, Platt L, Lowndes C, et al. InjectingEquipment Sharing Among Injecting Drug Users in Togliatti City, Russian Federation:Maximizing the Protective Effects of Syringe Distribution. Journal of Acquired ImmuneDeficiency Syndromes. 2004; 35:293–300. [PubMed: 15076245]Rhodes T, Platt L, Sarang A, Vlasov A, Mikhailova L, Monaghan G. Street Policing, Injecting DrugUse and Harm Reduction in a Russian City: A Qualitative Study of Police Perspectives. Journal ofUrban Health. 2006; 83(5):911–925. [PubMed: 16855880]Rhodes T, Singer M, Bourgois P, Friedman S, Strathdee S. The social structural production of HIVrisk among injecting drug users. Social Science and Medicine. 2005; 61:1026–1044. [PubMed:15955404]Shannon K, Kerr T, Strathdee S, Shoveller J, Montaner J, Tyndall M. Prevalence and structuralcorrelates of gender based violence among a prospective cohort of female sex workers. BritishMedical Journal. 2009; 339(b2939)Shannon K, Rusch M, Shoveller J, Alexson D, Gibson K, Tyndall M. Mapping violence and policingas an environmental structural barrier to health service and syringe availability among substance-using women in street-level sex work. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2008; 19:140–147.[PubMed: 18207725]Small W, Kerr T, Charette J, Schechter M, Spittal P. Impacts of intensified police activity on injectiondrug users: Evidence from an ethnographic investigation. International Journal of Drug Policy.2006; 17:85–95.Small W, Rhodes T, Wood E, Kerr T. Public injection settings in Vancouver: Physical environment,social context and risk. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2007; 18:27–36. [PubMed:17689341]Stoltz J, Wood E, Miller C, Small W, Li K, Tyndall M, Montaner J, et al. Characteristics of youngillicit drug injectors who use North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility.Addiction Research and Theory. 2007; 15(1):63–69.Ti L, Buxton J, Wood E, Zhang R, Montaner J, Kerr T. Difficulty accessing crack pipes and crack pipesharing among people who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada. Substance Abuse Treatment,Prevention and Policy. 2011; 6(34)United Nations. World Youth Report 2003. New York: United Nations; 2004.Vancouver Sun. Conservatives must retreat on changes to bawdy-house law. Vancouver Sun; 2010Aug 19.Volkmann T, Lozada R, Anderson C, Patterson T, Vera A, Strathdee S. Factors associated with drug-related harms related to policing in Tijuana, Mexico. Harm Reduction Journal. 2011; 8(7)Werb D, Kerr T, Li K, Montaner J, Wood E. Risks Surrounding Drug Trade Involvement AmongStreet-Involved Youth. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 2008; 34:810–820.[PubMed: 19016187]Werb D, Rowell G, Kerr T, Montaner J, Wood E. Effect of drug law enforcement on drug marketviolence: a systematic review. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2011; 22(2):87–94. [PubMed:21392957]Werb D, Wood E, Small W, Strathdee S, Li K, Montaner J, Kerr T. Effects of police confiscation ofillicit drugs and syringes among injection drug users in Vancouver. International Journal of DrugPolicy. 2008; 19:332–338. [PubMed: 17900888]Wood E, Kerr T. Measuring the public health impact of police activities on illicit drug users.International Journal of Drug Policy. 2005; 16:148–149.Wood E, Stoltz J, Montaner J, Kerr T. Evaluating methamphetamine use and risks of injectioninitiation among street youth: The ARYS study. Harm Reduction Journal. 2006; 3(18)Zerbisias, A. Bawdy politics: Critics say new regulation endangers sex workers’ lives. The Star; 2010Aug 27.Ti et al. Page 10Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 January 01.$watermark-text$watermark-text$watermark-text$watermark-text$watermark-text$watermark-textTi et al. Page 11Table 1Bivariate and multivariate GEE analysis of factors associated with being stopped, searched, or detained bypolice without arrest in the last six months (n=991)CharacteristicUnadjusted AdjustedOdds Ratio (95% CI) p - value Odds Ratio (95% CI) p - valueAge (per year older) 0.99 (0.81–1.21) 0.92 - -Gender (male vs. female) 1.47 (1.16–1.87) <0.01 1.35 (1.05–1.73) 0.02Aboriginal ethnicity (yes vs. no) 0.96 (0.74–1.24) 0.74 - -Current homelessness (yes vs. no) 2.59 (2.14–3.15) <0.01 2.05 (1.67–2.52) <0.01Recent incarceration* (yes vs. no) 2.13 (1.73–2.63) <0.01 1.78 (1.42–2.24) <0.01Daily cannabis use* (yes vs. no) 1.59 (1.24–2.04) <0.01 1.31 (1.02–1.68) 0.04Daily crack use* (yes vs. no) 1.72 (1.44–2.04) <0.01 - -Daily crystal meth use* (yes vs. no) 1.64 (1.38–1.95) <0.01 - -Daily heroin use* (yes vs. no) 1.92 (1.55–2.39) <0.01 1.36 (1.03–1.79) 0.03Overdose* (yes vs. no) 1.30 (1.00–1.69) 0.05 - -Shared crack pipe/syringe* (yes vs. no) 2.20 (1.84–2.63) <0.01 1.61 (1.33–1.95) <0.01Any injecting* (yes vs. no) 2.02 (1.67–2.45) <0.01 1.37 (1.07–1.76) 0.02Binge drug use* (yes vs. no) 1.57 (1.33–1.87) <0.01 - -Public drug use* (yes vs. no) 2.45 (1.36–4.41) <0.01 2.19 (1.22–3.90) <0.01Sex work involvement* (yes vs. no) 2.02 (1.50–2.73) <0.01 1.67 (1.20–2.33) <0.01Drug dealing* (yes vs. no) 1.90 (1.59–2.27) <0.01 1.49 (1.24–1.80) <0.01GEE: generalized estimating equationCI: confidence interval*Activities/events in the previous 6 monthsInt J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 January 01.


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items