NIABY.COM
(*Not In Anyone's Back Yard) "A group of Vancouver residents using the name NIABY (Not In Anyone's Backyard) run a savvy website..."-- Vancouver Sun, April 5th 2008
Due to the many inquiries we get at NIABY.com we have created a new FAQ page based on the latest information we now have available in 2009. This FAQ will be useful to those of you new to our site or want a general overview of the most frequently asked questions. Links from these questions go to the full articles providing more in depth detail and footnoted sources.
A. Governments are building larger and larger facilities/supportive housing for extremely complex, difficult to treat individuals who potentially bring harm to residential communities. In British Columbia, Canada, the City of Vancouver is building large 30 to greater than 100 beds supportive housing apartment blocks for drug addicts and mentally ill drug addicts in residential communities. This combination of size and difficult to treat individuals brings real risks to host communities. Read the evidence »
A. The acronym NIMBY, "Not in My Back Yard", means the facility doesn't belong near where you live. NIABY, "Not in Anyone's Back Yard", means that the proposed supportive housing or facility development doesn't belong anywhere because the size of the facility and/or the type of patient population (drug addicts or those with concurrent disorders) brings risks to any residential community. There is a lack of scientific evidence that the patient population can be effectively treated in a community environment in large apartment projects and facilities.
A. Read this special article from a neighbourhood who successfully fought against a proposed large drug treatment facility using the NIABY principles. Success for CCRS »
A. It should not be up to a neighbourhood to prove that a facility is ineffective or unsafe; it is up to the service providers to prove that the proposed facility will be effective and safe.
Policy makers, Non Profit agencies and governments providing supportive housing for complex patients, should be held accountable. This means:
Good intentions are not enough before any large supportive housing or facility is built in any residential community. The non profit housing provider needs to present conclusive scientific evidence to the host neighbourhood that the facility and its off site treatments are effective. The evidence should be provided by high quality experiments published in scientific journals that the proposed patient population to be housed in the facility can be effectively treated in community environments without risks to host neighbourhoods.
When an expert or bureaucrat gives an opinion about the proposed facility/supportive housing being effective and safe, the opinion should always be backed up with the evidence (peer reviewed high quality scientific papers) and presented to the community for scrutiny. The Expert, should write a PLAIN English report which shows the source of any data or evidence supporting his or her opinion. If the experts fails to present high quality evidence for effectiveness of proposed facility and or supportive housing than the facility should not be built in residential communities.
The Non Profit or government agency (ie BC Housing) should post the proposed facility operational and management plans on their websites. This allows the community to scrutinize and evaluate the effectiveness of the proposal. There should be no approval for any facilities before operational management plans are posted for public scrutiny. Proof of effectiveness and safety should be demonstrated and backed up with high quality, properly referenced scientific evidence.
The posted on website proposal—including operational management plans—should include:
- Size of facility. How many apartments? How many beds?
- A precise definition of who is going to be housed and treated at the supportive housing.
- The scientific documentation to show that the proposed facility/housing is proven, safe and effective and will not bring harm to the host community.
- List all specific treatments (in detail, either at the facility or off site) the patients are participating in and show that the treatments are effective and proven. Any claims of effectiveness are required to be backed with published scientific experiments posted on website. The above also applies to case management and interventions recommended by case management.
- How the Non Profit Agency or the government funding agency (ie BC Housing) are going to measure and monitor specific outcomes to show effectiveness and how they are going to report this to the neighbourhood on an annual basis.
- Total operational and management costs of running the facility, including all costs such as staffing, outside treatment costs per patient, not just costs of managing and maintaining of the building.
- As the Non profit will be measuring and monitoring meaningful outcomes at the proposed facility, contingency plans should be presented to show what the Non Profit plans to do if it has failed to measure or monitor the facility in an accountable manner.
- After rigorous measuring and monitoring, if the facility has been shown to be ineffective or cause harm the facility should close with a report published on internet saying why.
Embracing and embedding the principles of accountability and transparency will give rise to competency. A Non Profit agency demonstrates competency by:
The posted on website proposal—including operational management plans—should include:
- Measure what you manage. Non profits agencies can demonstrate competency by having clear, measureable and meaningful outcomes reported to the public on a frequent basis. Outcomes measurements should measure effectiveness of treatments. Here are the expected outcomes to be measured in addiction treatment programs: lost to treatment (drop outs), substance use, number of patients using substances, mental state, relapses, arrests (including negative interactions with police recorded as "assist to general public"), quality of life, function, obtaining and keeping a job.
- Know the difference between measuring outputs (quantity ie how many went through a drug treatment program) and outcomes (quality ie how many got drug free and stayed drug free). Present quality data not quantity data.
- Make a policy of never using testimonials (stories) and poster children (persons telling their story) in reports, media press releases, video etc. as evidence of effectiveness or positive measurements of outcomes. Rather, present outcomes evidence and how you measured and defined outcomes.
A. A Key Concept: Watch out for experts using research jargon and never get intimidated by an "expert". Ask them what the research means in PLAIN English. Ask for the papers the expert is drawing conclusions from - the proof source. The expert should be able to explain in writing, what the papers mean in clear simple terms, and what relevance it has to the proposed facility. You do not want an expert's opinion; you want the expert to present scientific evidence clearly, simply, in a PLAIN English written document for the neighbourhood to scrutinize.
Tip!
Most likely the experts haven't read the paper either. Often, the expert has just done a quick review of the research paper, usually only reading the abstract (that’s a summary at the beginning of the paper) and has taken no time to actually read the whole research paper.
Tip!
You must clarify definitions with experts. What you think something means may not be how the expert defines it. The expert(s) may use this to their advantage.
See our Tip Sheet for more details »
A. NIABY.com defines effectiveness as getting drug free, staying clean and sober, getting a job and staying out of trouble. If your neighbourhood is going to host a 20, 30 to 100+ beds for addicts in treatment, you want to know how effective drug treatments are. Below are articles which explain the drug free at time of discharge from a treatment program is below 10%. With such low effective rates most addicts living in the facility will be acquiring and using drugs and/or alcohol.
Read the evidence and learn how the drug addiction treatment industry - including governments - make addiction treatment results appear much better than they actually are ...
Treatment Results from the UK »
Treatment Program Effectivenes »
Drug Testing »
A. The letters give you templates and ideas so you can draft impactful letters to your "experts" and politicians about the proposed facility in your neighbourhood.
Here are some examples to help you:
Letter to Daryl Burham, Coast Mental Health »
Where is your Risk Management Strategy? »
City Hall - Where is your Evidence? »
City Hall - Be Accountable, Responsible and Transparent »
A. Check out the NIABY.com Media Room »
A. Do not count on your Rate Payers' or your Neighbourhood Residents' Association. Each individual resident association is different. In some cases they will lead the fight demanding scientific accountability, and transparency and neighbourhood safety and security. Other cases, in fear of being labeled "politically incorrect" they will declare "neutrality". In rarer cases, the residents' association will actually endorse large supportive housing projects for complex, difficult to treat patients despite clear scientific evidence this population in large buildings bring risks to host communities. You will need to determine where your own local Residents' Association stands.
Tip!
Require Conflict of Interests Disclosures. Any neighbour who is employed by, acts as a consultant for, or is a lobbyist for the drug treatment or supportive housing industry needs to disclose their conflict of interest to the neighbourhood community each time they write, publicly speak, lobby or advocate for facilities development to fellow residents from the neighbourhood, governments or talk to the media.
A. Read the following to prepare you ...
Yes, this really happened! - The Public Consultation Process »
Their strategy - Preview on Propaganda »
A. Yes. Definitely. This is one thing that we at NIABY.com can absolutely guarantee you to expect. Instead of providing sound scientific evidence to show effectiveness, calling you names is almost always the main supportive argument that will be used in support of the facility. We never fail to be amazed at the depth and breadth of creativity and originality by those in support of large facilities and/or employed in the addictions treatment industry when they want to insult or intimidate you.
Tip!
Remember, calling you names is most often a tactic to deflect or stop you from pointing out that the Non Profit agency and governments have failed to provide any conclusive scientific evidence that the proposed treatments and facility are proven effective and will not bring harm to neighbourhoods.
A. Almost all mentally ill drug addicts relapse and use drugs again very quickly.
Read more ...
What is Abstinent-Contingent Supportive Housing? »
CARMHA Report »
Essential Primer for Health Care Professionals »
New Science »
A. Unfortunately yes. Especially those that are also addicts (called dual diagnosis or concurrent disorders). Read this section carefully to understand who brings risks to your community and who does not ...
Do the severely mentally ill commit more violent crime than the general population? »
In 2008 Experts Guess at Best Mental Health Treatments »
City Hall - Running on Empty »
A. Here's an example. RainCity Housing Fraser Street facility in Vancouver has been in operation since August 2007. Since then it is estimated to cost (in 2004 Canadian dollars) - $$$$$ - to run the facility for its 30 residents. Here are the current results from its operation.
A. NIABY.com appreciates any constructive feedback. You can contact us anytime.
A. Yes, you can. Most of what you need is probably on the website. We also appreciate hearing from neighbourhoods about their own experiences with NIABY campaigns. This information helps us plan for future website offerings. We help groups throughout North America making sure that proposed facilities are scientifically proven effective, and bring no risks or harm to residential communities.
Good intentions - no matter how well meaning - are not proof of effectiveness.
Revised April 21, 2009.