Who knew the site was coming to Harlem?

(And when did they know it?)

Political Engagement

The DoHMH report highlights that “Strong political engagement of local stakeholders—including the New York City Police Department (NYPD), District Attorneys, and local elected officials—was critical to not only mitigate risks of local enforcement against OPC [Opioid Prevention Center] operations, but also to ensure successful service provision.” And that their work began with the release of a feasibility report in 2018.



By 2021, the NYC Department of Health seemed to have identified locations for the first safe injections sites and begin its “local political engagement strategy” – targeting neighborhoods where leaders showed “at minimum, neutrality” and citing Department of Sanitation complaints of syringe litter:



• “Following the City’s renewed commitment to OPCs in 2021, the NYC Health Department conducted briefings for a number of local elected officials and NYC District Attorneys to secure support for or, at minimum, neutrality towards OPCs… One significant component of the NYC Health Department’s local political engagement strategy was to consistently advocate for OPCs as the evidence-based, structural response to not only the overdose crisis, but also public drug use and syringe litter—neighborhood quality of life issues that were particularly salient during the summer of 2021.”

DOHMH ignored East Harlem's Community Board's moratorium

"...on the siting of any NEW drug rehabilitation,
chemical dependency, or treatment centers"

Community Engagement

Earlier that same year, Community Board 11 issued a moratorium in March on any new treatment facilities for the next 12 months noting that “the siting of drug rehabilitation, chemical dependency, or treatment centers across our district is often done with little or no notice to our community.” The moratorium also uses facts uncovered from GHC’s Freedom of Information Act requests that showed 82% of patients using those facilities were commuting into the neighborhood. And that the neighborhood hosts 15.4% of the City’s capacity, but “only has 4.1% of the need for these services.”



By the summer and early fall of 2021, the Department of Health seems to have identified sites and partners and claims to have conducted “critical” community engagement:



• "As with any service provided to the public, we viewed community engagement and education as critical to the success of OPCs, particularly given the stigma that substance use providers and participants often face. Prior to implementation, the NYC Health Department conducted general educational briefings with local community groups and leaders in neighborhoods across the city, including those where the OPCs would be located. This entailed conducting broad public education and engagement about harm reduction as an approach to drug use and the overdose crisis, while incorporating information about OPCs as an additional public health strategy to prevent fatal overdoses. Similar to political engagement strategies, materials used for community engagement further emphasized the strong evidence supporting the impact of OPCs in improving public safety and addressing concerns about syringe litter and public drug use."



This community engagement did not include informing Community Board 11 that East Harlem was selected as the community to house the nation's first SIS as evidenced by months of planning.



Evidence that the Department of Health did not involve the local Community Board and local residents in their planning is referenced in 'Lesson Learned' where it is noted that the Community Board and others only expressed concern after the SIS opened: 



• "Following launch, the City faced opposition from Community Boards and certain advocacy groups in East Harlem and Washington Heights. In East Harlem in particular, the local Community Board felt that the opening of an OPC in their community would contribute to an 'oversaturation' of social services in the area."



East Harlem's concern regarding the existing oversaturation of social services and addiction programs in particular, had been codified in a moratorium that had been delivered to elected officials eight months before the SIS officially opened. A significant amount of planning for locating the SIS in East Harlem, therefore, was conducted well after the community had approved a moratorium to attempt to address the structural oversaturation of East Harlem.

“...the siting of drug rehabilitation, chemical dependency, or treatment centers across our district is often done with little or no notice to our community.”

- Community Board 11