Housing in Delaware for the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Population.

Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) encounter numerous barriers in attempting to access housing. Those barriers - financial, physical, and cultural in nature - have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 public health emergency and the related, or co-occurring, shifts that have characterized the housing market in the United States, and Delaware specifically, over these last three years. In this brief introductory research report, we examine the system of housing supports and their availability to individuals with IDD through a subset of those served by the state's Division of Developmental Disabilities Services through interviews with representatives across the housing support system. Our findings fall into four areas of work: scale and scope; housing availability; housing assistance; and housing supports. We find that: the estimated scale of the housing crisis (in terms of homelessness and insecurity) affecting this population is much greater than the general population, but in line with other national estimates for individuals with IDD; there is limited available housing that is accessible to individuals with IDD available in the state; there is limited assistance available for navigating the housing that might be available; and that there are too few options for providing more supports for individuals living, or trying to live, independently. We conclude with a few suggested recommendations that could provide more reliable data and tracking of need and a call for research that connects housing for individuals with IDD into the growing body of research looking at the relationship between access to housing and health.

Accommodating Developmental Disabilities in the Social Determinants of Health:: A Brief Inquiry into the Applicability of Metrics to the Lives of Individuals with Developmental Disabilities in Delaware.

This commentary outlines the methods and findings of a preliminary study examining the fitness of the Social Determinants of Health in their current conceptualizations for accommodating the specific and general experiences of individuals with developmental disabilities and suggests recommendations for both additional research and policy interventions. The study is based on research conducted with individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities living in Delaware and other stakeholders working in this community. There is currently extensive literature concerning the validity and importance of including the social determinants of health in healthcare decision-making, but very little research exists around the intersection of developmental disabilities and these determinants. This commentary provides additional detail and added emphasis to calls previously made in this Journal to align social determinants with developmental disabilities and the importance of considering the SDOH in policy measures aimed at supporting this population. The ultimate aim of the work presented here is to explore how the State's interest in putting the SDOH to work generally can be aligned to accommodate the needs and interests of individuals with I/DD and to identify future research and policy interventions in support of these efforts.

Realities of environmental toxicity and their ramifications for community engagement.

Research on community responses to environmental toxicity has richly described the struggles of citizens to identify unrecognized toxins, collect their own environmental health facts, and use them to lobby authorities for recognition and remediation. Much of this literature is based on an empiricist premise: it is concerned with exploring differences in how laypeople and experts perceive what is presumed to be a singular toxic reality that preexists these varying perspectives. Here, we seek to reexamine this topic by shifting the focus from facts to facticity-that is, by exploring the many types of knowledge that communities develop about toxicity and how these knowledges articulate with the ideas of scientific and governmental authorities about what kinds of information are valid bases for policymaking. In making this shift, we are influenced by work in semiotic anthropology and science and technology studies (STS), which emphasizes that lived experience generates distinct realities rather than different perceptions of the same underlying state. Using this framework, we present an analysis of oral history interviews conducted in 2013-14 in the small American town of Ambler, Pennsylvania. Part of Ambler's legacy as a nineteenth- and twentieth-century center of asbestos manufacture is that it is home to two massive asbestos-containing waste sites, one of which was being remediated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the time of this study. Our interviews demonstrate that even asbestos, a toxin with a well-established public narrative, is a fundamentally different object for different members of the Ambler community. For many of these individuals, the epistemology and practices of the EPA are incongruent with or tangential to their toxicity-related experiences and their consequent concerns for the future. As such, our findings suggest caution in framing the community engagement efforts of environmental health agencies primarily as facilitations of citizen science; this approach does not acknowledge the multiplicity of toxic realities.

Why the toxic substances control act needs an overhaul, and how to strengthen oversight of chemicals in the interim.

The Toxic Substances Control Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate industrial chemicals not covered by other statutes. Today there are more than 83,000 such chemicals. However, the law is widely perceived as weak and outdated, and various stakeholders have called for its reform, citing the EPA's inability to regulate the use of asbestos, among other substances. We analyze the flaws in the act and suggest ways in which the EPA might better position itself to manage chemical risks and protect the public's health. In addition to the new tools and technologies it is adopting, the agency needs new allies-both inside and outside the government-in its efforts to identify and control hazardous chemicals.

Negotiated identities of chemical instrumentation: the case of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, 1956-1969.

What is an NMR spectrometer? Beginning with this seemingly simple question, I will explore the development of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy between the years 1956 and 1969 from two vantage points: the organic chemists who used the new instrument, and Varian Associates-the makers of the first NMR spectrometers-. Through an examination of the articles and advertisements published in the Journal of Organic Chemistry, I will draw two conclusions. First, organic chemists and Varian Associates (along with other actors) are co-responsible for the development of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (i.e., NMR spectroscopy was not created by a single actor). Second, by changing the way NMR spectrometers are used, organic chemists attempted to change to the identity of the instrument. Similarly, when Varian Associates advertised their NMR spectrometers in a different way, they, too, attempted to change the identity of the instrument.