Achieving Equitable Community Health Protection: Demolition Dust and Policy in Cleveland, OH, Detroit, MI, & Windsor, ON

Background and Purpose 

Demolition has become a physical, cultural, and socioeconomic phenomenon, and is relevant to achieving equitable environmental quality.  Employed to right-size, revitalize, and stabilize cities, demolition has a primarily positive reputation.  However, it can increase particle pollution by releasing fugitive dust, which can contain bacteria, lead, mold, un-remediated asbestos, and other harmful particles, causing serious respiratory, cardiovascular, and developmental disorders.  Social workers’ presence is acknowledged in numerous EJ conflicts, and post-disaster interventions and research.  However, demolition hazards have escaped investigation and response.

This study was informed by the Health in All Policies Approach, which seeks formal inclusion of health impact considerations in all policy and practice decisions, at all levels of government.  Specifically, this study analyzes the applicability of the Responsible Demolition Safety Protocols (RDSPs), created in 2007 by the East Baltimore Revitalization Initiative, to produce local policy and practice changes.  Did demolition-related city codes, ordinances, bylaws, and demolition bid specifications in Cleveland, OH, Detroit, MI, and Windsor, ON follow RDSP best practice recommendations to reduce environmental risk to vulnerable populations? This analysis is important to the study of how policy shapes individual, family, and community well-being.

Methods

I chose Detroit, MI, as the central case in this comparative case study, for the number and pace of demolitions.  Purposive sampling led to the inclusion of Cleveland and Windsor.      A three-city sample size is suitable since their characteristics represent a range of revitalizing cities, and offer relevant peer lessons.   Content analysis was used to examine policy documents, with relevant language analyzed and results summarized in tables.  The RDSP recommendations served as predetermined codes (e.g., the site security category included fencing, barriers, entry limitation).   

Results

Codes, ordinances, and bylaw reviews revealed that none of the cities had measures for monitoring demolitions, or educating, assisting or providing residents with clean up tools.  Windsor alone expected covered waste removal, and clean soil placement.  Cleveland and Detroit required community notification; safe debris removal and disposal; and independent environmental testing.  Cleveland and Windsor’s policies contained several site security and street and sidewalk clean-up measures.  Detroit had not updated relevant policies since 1984.

Departments or entities directly responsible for issuing bid specifications/contractor instructions in Detroit and Cleveland constructed relatively detailed and health conscious expectations.  Both required worker safety training for lead; site security; hazardous substance removal and disposal; dust reduction; post-demo clean-up; and soil remediation.  Detroit’s site security, and hazardous material removal and disposal requirements were more stringent than RDSPs recommendations.  Windsor bid specifications were only accessible to registered, membership dues-paying vendors.  

Conclusions and Implications

Though demolition is pervasive, legislators in Detroit, Cleveland, and Windsor have not sufficiently adopted protective, or revised existing, policy.  When compared to the RDSPs, the policies and bid specifications reviewed did not rise to the level of Health in All Policies. 

As part of our Grand Challenge environmental work, social workers could acquire then provide environmental health knowledge and training for policy-makers and community members, then convene stakeholders to facilitate health protective policy creation and implementation.