Co-Producing Policy Solutions: Community-Engaged Research in Industry Standards Boards

Background and Purpose: Amid declining labor standards and increasingly restrictive labor legislation at both federal and state levels, novel policy mechanisms are needed to enhance worker voice and improve job quality. Industry standards boards, a policy model well-established in parts of Europe, are gaining traction in the U.S. as a locally adaptable strategy to address sectoral labor inequities, which contribute to disparities in health and wellbeing. Framed by a community-engaged research approach, this study explores how research-informed policy solutions can emerge when social work researchers, workers, and advocates collaborate to shape labor policy through participatory structures like industry standards boards. This sector, often excluded from mainstream labor research, provides a critical site for examining the promise and limitations of industry standards boards as a vehicle for labor policy innovation and equity.

Methods: We use a longitudinal, mixed methods case study design to evaluate the implementation and impact of the Detroit Industry Standards Board for Arena Workers (hereafter, the Board). Quantitative data were collected via a pre-post longitudinal survey supplemented by three interim pulse surveys, capturing measures of worker wellbeing, job quality, employer outcomes, and of the Board’s alignment with procedural justice. Participants were recruited through union list-servs, shift-change flyering, and a public research website. Qualitative data—including field notes, semi-structured interviews, and public documents such as Board meeting minutes and news coverage—were analyzed to identify organizational and contextual facilitators and barriers to Board functioning.

Results: Analyses reveal significant heterogeneity by job type within the sample, reflecting gendered and racialized occupational segregation. White, male workers in stagehand and maintenance roles report significantly higher job quality and wellbeing compared to disproportionately Black and female workers in cleaning and gameday positions. Although worker awareness and engagement with the Board was generally limited, the Board was perceived by arena workers as a procedurally just and potentially effective mechanism for policy influence. Key barriers to Board functioning included limited employer buy-in, constrained policy levers due to state preemption, and gaps in knowledge regarding policies that contribute to job quality by Board members. Facilitators included technical support and community-engaged data collection facilitated by the social work research team, high levels of intra-Board collaboration, Board members' strong community ties and relevant work experience, and the benefits of the tripartite governance model.

Conclusions and Implications: In the context of retrenchment in federal labor protections and limitations on local policy authority, industry standards boards may offer a viable alternative pathway for labor reform. Preliminary evidence from the Detroit Industry Standards Board for Arena Workers suggests that, when supported by technical expertise and collaborative governance structures, these bodies can function as meaningful vehicles for enhancing equity and job quality—particularly for workers marginalized by race and gender. The project further underscores the potential role of social work researchers in advancing practice-oriented labor policy through collaborative, community-engaged approaches.