The Water Crisis in Flint, Michigan
The water crisis at Flint resulted from a series of poor decisions by city officials dating back to the 1960s. In 1967, the City of Flint switched from the Flint River to the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) as the primary source of drinking water (Masten, Davies & Mcelmurry, 2016). The switch was geared at ensuring sufficient water quantities for the city’s growing population (Masten et al., 2016). The decision, however, opened up the Flint River to unregulated discharges from municipalities and industries as well as continued failure by officials to properly treat the water (Masten et al., 2016). After 1967, for instance, the Flint Water Service Center only treated the Flint River water two to four times a year; yet the agency had permitted the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System to discharge treated water back into the river (Masten et al., 2016). Worryingly, city officials ignored all these elements in 2014 when, in a bid to save money, they switched back to the Flint River from the DWSD, allowing lead-contaminated water to flow through aging pipes into hundreds of residents’ homes (Masten et al., 2016). Soon after the switch, residents began to complain of smelly, foul-tasting and dark-colored water (Masten et al., 2016). Several independent tests found lead levels in water sampled from residents’ homes to be way higher than the 15 parts per billion levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency (Ruckart et al., 2019).

The Affected Population

It is estimated that close to 140,000 Flint residents were exposed to drinking water contaminated with lead and other harmful agents (Ruckart et al., 2019). Children are particularly at risk of adverse outcomes with lead exposure. Studies have associated lead exposure in childhood, even in very low levels, with speech and hearing problems, behavior and learning problems, slowed growth and development, skin rash, and damage to the nervous system and brain (Ruckart et al., 2019). In adults, lead exposure is associated with a high risk for high blood pressure, as well as kidney, heart, and legionnaires disease (Ruckart et al., 2019). Sources associate two outbreaks of Legionnaires disease reported in Flint between 2014 and 15 to the switch to Flint River (Ruckart et al., 2019; Masten et al., 2016). The outbreaks resulted in 91 cases of illness and 12 deaths (Ruckart et al., 2019; Masten et al., 2016).

The Social Ecological Model

The socio-ecological model adopts a multifaceted approach to health by recognizing the interactions between individuals and their environment in a social system, and the effect of the same on health (Barry & Honore, 2009). The model acknowledges the complex interplay between social and ecological factors in influencing health outcomes and potential prevention strategies. It considers the interplay between relationship, individual, community, and societal factors (Barry & Honore, 2009).

The individual level is concerned with personal level factors such as age, education level, and personal attitudes that increase the likelihood of becoming a victim or perpetrator of adverse health outcomes (Barry & Honore, 2009). The relationship level explores close relationships with family members, partners, and circle peers that influence health behavior (Barry & Honore, 2009). The community level focuses on settings such as neighborhoods, workplaces, and schools where social relationships occur and attempts to identify the characteristics of the same that increase the risk of becoming a victim or perpetrator of adverse outcomes (Barry & Honore, 2009). Finally, the societal level explores the broad factors at the societal level such as cultural norms and traditions that influence the climate within which individuals make health decisions.

Rationale for the Socio-Ecological Model

The proposed intervention targets over 100,000 flint residents of different age, educational level, and who hold different beliefs. This necessitates the use of a technique or model that acknowledges numerous levels of...…as a way of increasing access to clean drinking water at all times.

Societal Level

This level focuses on developing social and educational policies to help change social and cultural norms at the societal level. Specific strategies at this level could include liaising with local school boards to include water treatment processes in the school curriculum; and partnering with civil society groups to ensure that the city develops proper legislation to govern the assignment of water treatment contracts and ensure that public officials who fail to act responsibly are held accountable.

Strengths and Limitations of the Socio-Ecological Model in this Intervention

The greatest strength of the socio-ecological model is that it focuses on prevention as opposed to treatment. By using precepts of the socio-ecological model as the framework for the intervention, the intervention is able to adopt a framework focused on preventing a repeat of a water crisis in Flint, which is less costly than one focused on treating the effects of such a crisis. Further, most people do not adequately understand issues of water treatment, the methods involved in the same, and components of unsafe water, among other things. The socio-ecological model emphasizes the idea of educating people as a way of empowering them to take responsibility for their lives and lead healthier lifestyles (Kilanowski, 2017). The emphasis on education is crucial when it comes to complex topics such as water treatment, which the masses do not adequately understand. The greatest limitation, however, is that the success of the intervention depends on the extent to which resident believe that they are at risk and are motivated to change their behavior (Glanz et al., 2015). The socio-ecological model ignores these dimensions and does not provide a means for enhancing individual’s motivation and perceived susceptibility. For this reason, there may be a need to incorporate elements from other theories such as the theory of planned behavior into the intervention.…