Image of two women standing next to each other with their arms linked together in front of a blue circle.
What impact do overdose prevention centers have?

They reduce overdose deaths.

A reduction in overdose deaths.

These sites reduce overdose deaths in the neighborhoods they are located in. 1 One study from Vancouver showed a 35% drop in overdose deaths in the area where the OPC opened. 2 In Sydney, Australia, the opening of a site resulted in a dramatic drop in emergency calls for overdoses during its hours of operation.3 Early results from New York City’s OPC suggests the site reduced overdose risk for those who used them.4
.

Download the fact sheet
%
drops in overdoses within a 1000m radius around OPC sites in Toronto in one year. 5
%
drops in overdoses after an OPC opened in a neighborhood in Vancouver. 6
%
decrease in overdoses experienced for those who used an OPC after six months. 7
An image of a hand with naloxone and fentanyl test strips in front of an orange background.

They connect people to treatment.

People are connected to treatment.

These sites also connect people to treatment. Research shows that using an OPC increases the amount of people who use treatment services like medication assisted treatment. 8 9 10 11 At OPCs there are often counselors on site, some of who are peers. Research shows these counselors are effective at helping people get into treatment.


Download the fact sheet
%
of OPC clients enrolled in treatment after two years in one study. 12
Image of an overdose prevention center located within a neighborhood.

They save communities money.

There are significant cost savings.

OPCs save cities money. They reduce the amount of overdoses and infections. Studies have looked into the cost-effectiveness of these sites across different American cities. These studies have all found reduced healthcare costs. There are fewer visits to the emergency room, fewer ambulance rides, and fewer hospital stays. 13 14 15 This saves money and reduces the burden on emergency service staff. By giving out safe supplies and teaching people about using safely, the risk of infections like HIV can be reduced. Furthermore, these infections can need years of treatment, which can be costly. 16 

Download the fact sheet
$million
could be saved in Baltimore with an OPC 17
$million
could be saved in Boston with an OPC 18
$million
could be saved in San Francisco with an OPC 19
Image of a brown checkered table with dollar bills and coins on it.
$million
could be saved in Baltimore with an OPC 17
$million
could be saved in Boston with an OPC 18
$million
could be saved in San Francisco with an OPC 19
$million
could be saved in Baltimore with an OPC 17
$million
could be saved in Boston with an OPC 18
$million
could be saved in San Francisco with an OPC 19

They make our communities safer.

They reduce litter & don’t increase drug use.

By offering a safer place to use drugs, these sites also keep the community safe. OPCs provide a place to dispose of needles and other used drug equipment, which decreases the amount of litter on the street.20 21 Studies have also shown that these sites do not increase drug use or drug selling activity in the area. There are also no increases in violent crimes like assault or robbery.22,2324 In fact, one study looked at an unsanctioned site in the US for five years and found that there was a decrease in crime.25

Download the fact sheet
%
drop in public drug use 12 weeks after a OPC opened in Vancouver. 26
Image of 7 people standing next to each other holding prescription bottles and naloxone.

They reduce infections.

OPCs prevent infections.

OPCs reduce the spread of HIV and other infectious diseases. They provide access to basic healthcare, sterile supplies, and spread knowledge on safer drug use practices. Research has estimated that these sites reduce HIV infection rates by 6%-11% amongst those who use them.27 28 Studies have also shown that using these sites reduces the risk of getting abscesses.  People are also more likely to seek treatment for drug-related skin injuries (like soft tissue infections) at these sites compared to a hospital.29 People who use these sites are also likely to report using harm reducing approaches including using new syringes when they use drugs.30 31 Data from one site in the US shows that those who used an OPC were less likely to go to the emergency room and the hospital. 32 

Download the fact sheet
%
drop in reported abscesses after OPC use. 33
%
reductions in needle sharing behavior after OPC use. 34 35
Image of a red broken heart with a bandage around it, holding it together.
  1. Potier C, Laprévote V, Dubois-Arber F, Cottencin O, Rolland B. Supervised injection services: what has been demonstrated? A systematic literature review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014 Dec 1;145:48-68. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.10.012. Epub 2014 Oct 23. PMID: 25456324.
  2. Marshall BD, Milloy MJ, Wood E, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study. Lancet. 2011 Apr 23;377(9775):1429-37. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62353-7. Epub 2011 Apr 15. PMID: 21497898.
  3. Salmon AM, van Beek I, Amin J, Kaldor J, Maher L. The impact of a supervised injecting facility on ambulance call-outs in Sydney, Australia. Addiction. 2010 Apr;105(4):676-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02837.x. Epub 2010 Feb 9. PMID: 20148794.
  4. Harocopos A, Gibson BE, Saha N, et al. First 2 Months of Operation at First Publicly Recognized Overdose Prevention Centers in US. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(7):e2222149. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.22149
  5. Rammohan I, Gaines T, Scheim A, Bayoumi A, Werb D. Overdose mortality incidence and supervised consumption services in Toronto, Canada: an ecological study and spatial analysis. Lancet Public Health. 2024 Feb;9(2):e79-e87. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00300-6. PMID: 38307685.
  6. Marshall, B. D., Milloy, M-J., Wood, E., Montaner, J. S., & Kerr, T. (2011). Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study. The Lancet, 377(9775), 1429–1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(10)62353-7
  7. Lambdin, B.H., Davidson, P.J., Browne, E.N. et al. Reduced Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalisation with Use of an Unsanctioned Safe Consumption Site for Injection Drug Use in the United States. J GEN INTERN MED 37, 3853–3860 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07312-4
  8. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Zhang R, Stoltz JA, Lai C, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Attendance at supervised injecting facilities and use of detoxification services. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun 8;354(23):2512-4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc052939.
  9. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Zhang R, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Rate of detoxification service use and its impact among a cohort of supervised injecting facility users. Addiction. 2007 Jun;102(6):916-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01818.x.
  10. DeBeck K, Kerr T, Bird L, Zhang R, Marsh D, Tyndall M, Montaner J, Wood E. Injection drug use cessation and use of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011 Jan 15;113(2-3):172-6. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.07.023. Epub 2010 Aug 30.
  11. Kimber J, Mattick RP, Kaldor J, van Beek I, Gilmour S, Rance JA. Process and predictors of drug treatment referral and referral uptake at the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2008 Nov;27(6):602-12. doi: 10.1080/09595230801995668.
  12. DeBeck K, Kerr T, Bird L, et al. Injection drug use cessation and use of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;113(2):172-176. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.07.023
  13. Hood JE, Behrends CN, Irwin A, Schackman BR, Chan D, Hartfield K, Hess J, Banta-Green C, Whiteside L, Finegood B, Duchin J. The projected costs and benefits of a supervised injection facility in Seattle, WA, USA. Int J Drug Policy. 2019 May;67:9-18. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.12.015. Epub 2019 Feb 23.
  14. Irwin A, Jozaghi E, Weir BW, Allen ST, Lindsay A, Sherman SG. Mitigating the heroin crisis in Baltimore, MD, USA: a cost-benefit analysis of a hypothetical supervised injection facility. Harm Reduct J. 2017 May 12;14(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s12954-017-0153-2.
  15. Irwin, A., Jozaghi, E., Bluthenthal, R. N., & Kral, A. H. (2017). A Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Potential Supervised Injection Facility in San Francisco, California, USA. Journal of Drug Issues, 47(2), 164-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042616679829
  16. Harocopos A, Gibson BE, Saha N, McRae MT, See K, Rivera S, Chokshi DA. First 2 Months of Operation at First Publicly Recognized Overdose Prevention Centers in US. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jul 1;5(7):e2222149. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.22149.
  17. Behrends CN, Paone D, Nolan ML, Tuazon E, Murphy SM, Kapadia SN, et al. Estimated impact of supervised injection facilities on overdose fatalities and healthcare costs in New York City. J Subst Abuse Treat 2019;106:79–88.
  18. Armbrecht E, Pandey R, Fazioli K, Chapman R, Pearson SD, Rind D, et al. Supervised Injection Facilities and Other Supervised Consumption Sites: Effetiveness and Value. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review; 2021.
  19. Behrends CN, Paone D, Nolan ML, Tuazon E, Murphy SM, Kapadia SN, et al. Estimated impact of supervised injection facilities on overdose fatalities and healthcare costs in New York City. J Subst Abuse Treat 2019;106:79–88.
  20. Coye AE, Bornstein KJ, Bartholomew TS, Li H, Wong S, Janjua NZ, Tookes HE, St Onge JE. Hospital Costs of Injection Drug Use in Florida. Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Feb 1;72(3):499-502. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa823.
  21. Wood E, Kerr T, Small W, Li K, Marsh DC, Montaner JS, Tyndall MW. Changes in public order after the opening of a medically supervised safer injecting facility for illicit injection drug users. CMAJ. 2004 Sep 28;171(7):731-4. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1040774. 
  22. Myer, A. J., & Belisle, L. (2018). Highs and Lows: An Interrupted Time-Series Evaluation of the Impact of North America’s Only Supervised Injection Facility on Crime. Journal of Drug Issues, 48(1), 36-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042617727513
  23. Freeman K, Jones CG, Weatherburn DJ, Rutter S, Spooner CJ, Donnelly N. The impact of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) on crime. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2005 Mar;24(2):173-84. doi: 10.1080/09595230500167460.
  24. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Lai C, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Impact of a medically supervised safer injecting facility on drug dealing and other drug-related crime. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2006 May 8;1:13. doi: 10.1186/1747-597X-1-13
  25. Davidson PJ, Lambdin BH, Browne EN, Wenger LD, Kral AH. Impact of an unsanctioned safe consumption site on criminal activity, 2010-2019. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021 Mar 1;220:108521. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108521. Epub 2021 Jan 11. 
  26. Wood E, Kerr T, Small W, Li K, Marsh DC, Montaner JS, Tyndall MW. Changes in public order after the opening of a medically supervised safer injecting facility for illicit injection drug users. CMAJ. 2004 Sep 28;171(7):731-4. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1040774. PMID: 15451834; PMCID: PMC517857.
  27. Pinkerton SD. How many HIV infections are prevented by Vancouver Canada’s supervised injection facility? Int J Drug Policy. 2011 May;22(3):179-83. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2011.03.003. Epub 2011 Mar 29. PMID: 21450450.
  28. Andresen MA, Boyd N. A cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of Vancouver’s supervised injection facility. Int J Drug Policy. 2010 Jan;21(1):70-6. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.03.004. Epub 2009 May 6. 
  29. Small W, Wood E, Lloyd-Smith E, Tyndall M, Kerr T. Accessing care for injection-related infections through a medically supervised injecting facility: a qualitative study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008 Nov 1;98(1-2):159-62. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.05.014.

  30. Marshall BD, Wood E, Zhang R, Tyndall MW, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Condom use among injection drug users accessing a supervised injecting facility. Sex Transm Infect. 2009 Apr;85(2):121-6. doi: 10.1136/sti.2008.032524. Epub 2008 Sep 23.
  31. Stoltz JA, Wood E, Small W, Li K, Tyndall M, Montaner J, Kerr T. Changes in injecting practices associated with the use of a medically supervised safer injection facility. J Public Health (Oxf). 2007 Mar;29(1):35-9. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdl090. Epub 2007 Jan 17. 
  32. Lambdin BH, Davidson PJ, Browne EN, Suen LW, Wenger LD, Kral AH. Reduced Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalisation with Use of an Unsanctioned Safe Consumption Site for Injection Drug Use in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Nov;37(15):3853-3860. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-07312-4. Epub 2022 Jan 12.
  33. P Roux, M Jauffret-Roustide, C Donadille, L Briand Madrid, C Denis, I Célérier, C Chauvin, N Hamelin, G Maradan, M P Carrieri, C Protopopescu, L Lalanne, M Auriacombe, the COSINUS Study Group , Impact of drug consumption rooms on non-fatal overdoses, abscesses and emergency department visits in people who inject drugs in France: results from the COSINUS cohort, International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 52, Issue 2, April 2023, Pages 562–576, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyac120 
  34. Kerr T, Tyndall M, Li K, Montaner J, Wood E. Safer injection facility use and syringe sharing in injection drug users. Lancet. 2005;366(9482):316–8.
  35. Kennedy, M.C., Karamouzian, M. & Kerr, T. Public Health and Public Order Outcomes Associated with Supervised Drug Consumption Facilities: a Systematic Review. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 14, 161–183 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-017-0363-y‌