Abstract
This study considers the relationship between juvenile detention centers and hazardous waste (Superfund) sites in nine western states in the United States. It asks whether there is a pattern of toxic industrial sites being placed within close spatial proximity of juvenile detention centers, and whether this proximity may result in greater health risks for the youths being imprisoned. Through use of Aeronautical Reconnaissance Coverage Geographic Information System (ArcGIS), it was determined that, out of 167 sites housing juveniles, four are within one mile of at least one Superfund site, and 49 are within 5 miles of at least one Superfund site. In addition, examination of the health consequences of proximity to certain toxics suggests that there are legitimate dangers associated with being housed in a juvenile detention facility located near a Superfund site. Although there is no disproportionate proximity compared with the general population, any citing of juvenile detention centers near toxic sites, or the siting of toxic sites near juvenile detention centers, is an instance of environmental injustice, as juveniles are unable to choose where they are housed, and juvenile detention centers disproportionately house youth of color, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth, and disabled youth.
Introduction
In the late 1970
For more than four decades, scholars in the field of environmental justice (EJ) studies have documented trends at all geographic scales in which “exposures to pollution and other environmental risks are unequally distributed by race and class.” 4 This problem of environmental injustice extends to Superfund sites; whereas the area within 3 miles of Superfund sites includes only 16% of the U.S. population, and it includes 19% of Black Americans and 23% of Hispanic/Latinx persons. In addition, 38% of the U.S. population is considered part of a minority group, whereas 49.3% of people living within 1 mile and 49.7% of people living within 3 miles of Superfund sites are minorities. Overall, 14.7% of the U.S. population is below the poverty line, whereas 16.7% of those who live within 1 mile of Superfund sites are living in poverty. 5 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) writes, “While there is no single way to characterize communities located near [Superfund] sites, this population is more minority, low income, linguistically isolated, and less likely to have a high school education than the U.S. population as a whole. As a result, these communities may have fewer resources with which to address concerns about their health and environment.” 6
The populations housed in the prisons and jails of the United States are similarly disproportionately people of color and low-income people. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, as of January 2019, 38% of the inmates in their facilities were Black. 7 However, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that only 13.4% of people living in the United States are Black or African American. 8 The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) points out that, “Though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately 32% of the US population, they comprised 56% of all incarcerated people in 2015” and that “the imprisonment rate for African American women is twice that of white women.” 9
Recent scholarship concludes that prisons are sites that are often linked to public and environmental health threats, indicating that the prison system is an emerging area of concern for EJ scholars and activists. 10 In 2016, Paige Williams and the Prison Ecology Project conducted a study in which they examined the proximity of adult detention facilities to Superfund sites. They found that “at least 589 federal and state prisons are located within three miles of a Superfund cleanup site on the National Priorities List, with 134 of those prisons located within just one mile.” 11 Their study, however, did not consider juvenile facilities. This research begins to fill that gap.
Research methods
For this study we tracked 167 juvenile detention locations in the Western United States. These include county- and state-run traditional detention and correctional facilities. Youth correctional camps (including fire camps), youth centers, transition centers, and group homes were not included because the population sizes of those facilities are quite small and location data are unreliable. All of these detention centers are or were located in nine states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington). The choice to focus on these states represented a desire to capture trends occurring in the Western United States, as a first step toward an eventual national-scale analysis. Addresses for juvenile detention centers were retrieved from detention center or corrections facility websites, or acquired through e-mail correspondence with administrative staff of the detention centers or corrections departments. With respect to exploring spatial proximity to environmental hazards, we tracked 264 Superfund sites, including those that have been proposed for the National Priorities List, sites currently on the list, and sites that have been deleted from the list. The list of Superfund sites, the status of these sites, and their contaminants were gathered from the USEPA's Superfund website.
The actual proximity to Superfund sites that may pose a safety or health risk remains unclear. This is, in part, due to the fact that all Superfund sites are distinct—each has varying concentrations of different contaminants. The buffer distances of 1, 1.8, 3, and 5 miles were chosen based on their use in other important studies of spatial proximity to hazardous waste sites. For instance, in their study of the relationship between hazardous facilities and income dynamics, Downey and Crowder use both 400-foot square grid cells and 1.5 mile radii. They found that “environmental racial inequality is pervasive” in the nine regions they studied. 12 In Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty, the authors use a 1.8-mile radius “because it falls within the radius that numerous studies have noted adverse health and property value impacts.” 13 They point out that “people of color make up the majority of those living in host neighborhoods within 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) of the nation's hazardous waste facilities.” 14 Similarly, the EUROHAZCON study found that “residence within 3 km [or 1.8 miles] of a landfill site was associated with a significantly raised risk of congenital anomaly.” 15 The authors concluded that, “There was a fairly consistent decrease in risk with distance away from these sites.” 16 A study of the health effects of living near landfills defined its exposed population as those who lived within 3 km of landfills. 17
While seeking to understand the spatial relationship between facilities for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes and communities of color, Anderton et al. used both census tracts and a 2.5-mile radius. 18 In their analysis of prisons in close proximity to Superfund sites from 2016, Paige Williams and researchers at the Truthout media organization used 1- and 3-mile radii. 19 Finally, the USEPA and Office of Emergency Land Management's document titled “Population Surrounding 1,836 Superfund Remedial Sites” from October of 2017 discusses the populations surrounding Superfund sites by using the radii of 1 and 3 miles. 20 Thus, after executing a comprehensive survey and consideration of buffer distances and distance to hazard measurements across the literature, we concluded that although there is no consensus on best practices, a reasonable approach would be to use four different distances. Therefore, using Aeronautical Reconnaissance Coverage Geographic Information System (ArcGIS), we determined which juvenile detention centers were within 1, 1.8, 3, and 5 miles of at least one Superfund site. This required buffer analysis (which allowed for the creation of radii around each detention center). To determine where there was overlap in the periods in which the juvenile detention center and the Superfund site were in existence, the dates that Superfund sites were proposed for the National Priorities List (found on the USEPA Superfund website) were used. Proposed dates were used (rather than the listing date), as it is likely that toxics were present at the site when it was proposed for the list. For some juvenile detention centers, we were unable to locate the date they began housing juveniles. Thus, this study does not test for spatial correlations; rather, we provide a count of the number of detention facilities within certain distances or radii in relationship to Superfund sites. The four distances around each detention center allowed us to determine which and how many Superfund sites were within those radii, but we did not gather information on the exact distances between each Superfund site and detention center.
Findings
After completing the buffer analysis, we found that at least 40 juvenile detention centers are or were within 5 miles of at least one Superfund site when temporal overlap was considered. The results for within 3, 1.8, and 1 miles were 18, 6, and 3 sites, respectively, when examining temporal overlap. Tabulated results can be found in Appendix Tables A1–A6.
At the <5-mile radii level, we found 68 total pairings of detention centers and Superfund sites, when not considering temporal overlap. This number differs from the 40 detention centers discussed earlier, because some detention centers are within 5 miles of more than one Superfund site. Narrowing this down to only sites with overlapping time frames, there were 55 pairings with known temporal overlap, and where we know whether the detention center or the Superfund Site came first. Further, we found that in 39 cases, the detention center was housing juveniles before the Superfund site was proposed for the National Priorities List.
Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall: a short case study
The results of this study (Appendix Tables A1–A6) reveal how many juvenile detention centers are within different distances of Superfund sites. Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall, in Los Angeles, California, provides an example of a detention center that is in close proximity to many Superfund sites—it is within 5 miles of four Superfund sites. All four of these Superfund sites are currently on the National Priorities List and were proposed for the National Priorities List after Los Padrinos began housing juveniles in 1957—one was proposed in 1998, one in 2001, and two in 2011. The primary contaminants of concern at these sites are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including trichloroethylene (TCE), which is discussed in more detail next. The American Lung Association explains that exposure to some VOCs “can irritate the eyes, nose, and throat, can cause difficulty breathing and nausea, and can damage the central nervous system as well as other organs.” They also point out that “some VOCs can cause cancer.” 21
To gather information on the demographics of the youth incarcerated at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall, we used data from Los Padrinos High School, where all minors without General Education Diplomas (GEDs) held at the prison attend. During the 2017–2018 school year, 38.4% of the students at this school were Black or African American. White students made up only 3.7% of the school population. 22 This is despite the fact that only 7.1% of Los Angeles County's children are African American or Black, whereas 18.2% of them are white. 23 In addition, 100% of the students at this school were socioeconomically disadvantaged, 25% were English learners, 32.9% had disabilities, and 19.5% were foster youth. 24 Given that all four of these sites were proposed for the National Priorities List, this suggests the possibility that this neighborhood was targeted for placements of multiple polluting industries. The race, income level, and ability of the youths at Los Padrinos, and the fact that these youths did not choose to be placed in this potentially dangerous location, make this a clear instance of environmental injustice. Exposure to any toxicant or environmental pollutant on juveniles with still growing minds and bodies could result in health effects that follow any minor held at this facility long after their time is served. 25
Potential health impacts
The next section examines the health effects of Superfund contaminants that appear in the data repeatedly (at least five times). These are tetrachloroethylene (PCE), VOCs, TCE, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy metals. These compounds can be found in the soil, groundwater, surface water, or air on and around Superfund sites, and they can impact the body through contact with these contaminated substrates.
The PCE exposure often occurs through inhalation, and acute exposure to vapors may have negative impacts on the central nervous system, or may cause death. 26 Over long periods of exposure, PCE may cause changes to vision, neurobehavioral effects, weight gain, and irritation to respiratory, dermal, and ocular systems. The USEPA, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the National Research Council, and the National Toxicology Program have classified PCE as a potential human carcinogen. 27
The VOCs appear in our data set eighteen times. Examples of common VOCs include PCE and formaldehyde. Exposure to formaldehyde may result in irritation to the eyes, upper respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, or skin. 28
Exposure to TCE, an industrial solvent, can occur through inhalation, and acute exposure may cause “central nervous system depression, loss of consciousness, and even death.” Exposure may also impact the immune system, kidneys, male reproductive system, liver, and developing fetuses. Those who are exposed may also experience irritation in their dermal and ocular systems or may have depressed bodyweight gain. 29 Creosote, which is “the name used for a variety of products that are mixtures of many chemicals,” can be absorbed through the stomach, skin, lungs, or intestines. Exposure at low levels over a long period can cause respiratory tract irritation, cornea damage, skin damage, and sunlight sensitivity. It is likely that effects in children are similar to those in adults. 30
People can be exposed to PCBs, which are “synthetic organic chemicals,” through inhalation or ingestion of contaminated foods. At high levels, PCB exposure can cause rashes and acne. Some studies have pointed to gastrointestinal discomfort, lung and nose irritation, fatigue, depression, and changes in liver and blood as health impacts of exposure to PCBs. 31
Heavy metals also appear in our data 18 times. Examples of heavy metals that may cause problems for human health are arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. Lead exposure is of most concern with regard to children, for whom it may cause neurotoxic effects. Arsenic exposure is known to increase cancer risk, and it may cause skin lesions. 32 In sum, proximity to or drift from contaminants at Superfund sites may present significant health risks for populations residing nearby, and that includes juveniles incarcerated in detention facilities in the Western United States.
Conclusion
Just like their counterparts designed for adults, juvenile detention centers disproportionately house people of color. For example, in 2014, Black children were only 14% of the nation's youth population, 33 but there were 42% of detained children in the United States. 34 A 2013 study of juvenile incarceration rates between 1997 and 2006 found that, at juvenile institutions, “Blacks are overrepresented at a margin of more than 3 to 1 when considering their representation in the population.” 35 These statistics exemplify a problem known as disproportionate minority confinement—people of color are incarcerated at much higher rates than white Americans.
Juvenile detention centers also disproportionately house lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) youth. Only between 7% and 9% of all youth nationwide are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, whereas 20% of all youth in juvenile justice facilities and 39.4% of girls in juvenile justice facilities are lesbian, gay, or bisexual. 36
An understanding of whether the Superfund site or the juvenile detention center came first is important for assigning responsibility for this environmental injustice. Although this could mean that polluting companies consciously or unconsciously placed their toxic sites near juvenile detention centers, an important thing to consider is that, in cases where a juvenile detention center opened before an associated Superfund site was proposed for the National Priorities List, it is difficult to know whether the toxins were spilled before or after the detention center opened because the EPA does not provide data on when toxics began to spill at each site. Therefore, it is difficult to be sure that a juvenile detention center actually began housing juveniles before the toxics were present.
Relatedly, one of the central counter-arguments to the environmental injustice thesis is the minority move-in hypothesis. 37 In circumstances where populations—often low-income people and people of color—are living and working in areas contaminated by toxic waste, the minority move-in hypothesis tries to answer the question of whether the people or the toxics were in the area first. It posits that, in many cases, low-income people and people of color move into neighborhoods already contaminated by toxic waste due to low land prices and lower property values. This narrative conveniently shifts the blame away from toxic industries and government institutions, in particular, and from the deeply racist dynamics of capitalism more generally. 38 In a major study, researchers found that evidence to support the minority move-in hypothesis is quite weak, because in the majority of cases, toxic industries followed affected populations after residents moved in, not the other way around. 39 With respect to our research on juvenile detention centers, even in cases where a detention center began housing juveniles after a polluting industry began spilling toxics, the people inside the facility bear absolutely no responsibility for living near the site because they have no choice as to where they are incarcerated. They are forced into facilities from which they cannot escape. In cases where detention centers are near Superfund sites, juveniles (who are disproportionately LGBTQ youth and/or youth of color) are likely forcibly exposed to dangerous contaminants without their knowledge. This makes the incarceration of juveniles near Superfund sites a clear case of environmental injustice.
When juvenile detention centers are sited near Superfund sites (or when toxic industries are sited near juvenile detention centers), environmental injustice is present because queer youth and youth of color are disproportionately affected. This is true despite the fact that this study finds that juvenile detention centers are not disproportionately close to Superfund sites, because children are housed near toxic terrain without their consent and, likely, without their or their parents' knowledge.
This study faced two key limitations. The first is that we were unable to access the dates for the opening of some juvenile detention centers. This made it challenging to know whether there was temporal overlap with Superfund sites and, therefore, whether a given detention center began housing juveniles before or after the Superfund site was proposed for the National Priorities List. The second limitation was that we focused exclusively on Western states. In the future, we plan to expand the scope of this research to examine juvenile detention centers in states outside of the Western United States. In addition, future research should examine the proximity of juvenile and adult detention facility locations to hazardous waste sites other than Superfund sites, since there is a considerable range of other hazardous land uses and pollution point sources across the nation. Finally, there are numerous opportunities to analyze other instances of environmental injustice within prisons, such as those having to do with water, food, and extreme temperatures, which previous research on adult prisons has found to be highly relevant to EJ studies. 40
Footnotes
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
Funding Information
No funding was received for this article.
Appendix
Number of Sites Within Select Distances (Miles) of the Nearest Superfund Site
| <1 mile | <1.8 miles | <3 miles | <5 miles | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent of time overlap | 4 | 7 | 23 | 49 |
| Dependent on time overlap | 3 | 6 | >18 | >40 |