A great deal of work by staff and volunteers of local
groups and staff at “CEHRC central” has made it possible for community
residents to use low-tech tools to investigate high-risk homes and document
environmental health hazards. Most local groups are identifying hazards in a
significant percentage of homes investigated, and most are assisting families
where immediate hazards are found. But documenting hazards and giving advice
to individual families are not the ultimate objectives of CEHRC. CEHRC’s
higher goal is for local groups to use data as a tool for community organizing
and advocacy to hold property owners and government agencies accountable for
addressing unhealthy housing on a broader, even community-wide, scale.
Documenting hazards in many homes in a community proves
that there is a serious, extensive, and overlooked problem – and points
to the need for effective action by owners and government agencies. It allows
advocates to say: “Here’s concrete evidence that human health hazards
are widespread in our community’s homes. Since these hazards are not now
being addressed, we demand immediate improvements in laws, policies, programs
and enforcement to protect our children.”
Usually, the housing crisis facing low-income families
is viewed as an affordability problem. Focusing on the relationship between
substandard housing and human health (especially children’s health) can
be powerful new leverage for advocates to win meaningful government action to
increase resources for affordable housing.
Deciding what objectives to pursue is up to each local
organization and community residents. This paper outlines examples of the kinds
of victories local organizations might win by leveraging data documenting health
hazards in housing. The topics covered in this paper are:
Code inspectors routinely visit homes in substandard condition,
and have the power to compel property owners to correct violations cited. The
code enforcement system therefore presents obvious opportunities for advocates
to secure solutions to unhealthy housing. In most jurisdictions, many housing-related
health hazards (e.g., peeling paint, pests) are already considered health or
housing code violations. In other places, the underlying causes of these hazards
(e.g., water leaks) may be code violations. Effective enforcement of codes,
and integration of health hazards into existing codes and enforcement systems,
can go a long way toward making housing more healthful.
Advocates can use hazard investigation results (including
photographic evidence of substandard conditions) to support their demands for
tougher, smarter code enforcement that treats peeling paint and other substandard
conditions important to residents’ health as urgent health and safety
hazards. The fact that the hazards documented are presently being ignored is
clear evidence of the need for additional action. Some things advocates can
demand include:
Requiring code inspectors to check for lead dust hazards
whenever a peeling paint violation is identified.
Requiring code inspectors to perform a full investigation
of a home in which hazards have been identified.
Requiring that code inspectors be trained in lead dust
sampling.
Including lead-contaminated dust and lead in soil hazards
as code violations.
Banning unsafe work practices for activities that repair
or disturb painted surfaces.
Requiring property owners to use workers trained in
lead-safe work practices to correct violations.
Demanding that additional code inspectors be hired.
Demanding that code enforcement be targeted to highest
risk neighborhoods and properties (blocks where problem buildings are concentrated,
multiple properties owned by landlords with a history of any code violations,
other units in buildings where violations have been identified, etc.).
Creating and funding receivership programs that transfer
operational control of substandard properties from negligent owners to building
managers appointed and supervised by a judge.
The Alliance has written a paper
discussing 10 opportunities to leverage code enforcement to further lead poisoning
prevention.
2. Tenant
Organizing / Legal Advocacy
With or without specific legal rights, tenants can demand
repairs and good maintenance from their landlord far more effectively if they
organize and work
together. This applies to tenants who live in different properties owned by
the same landlord as well as those who live in multi-unit buildings or complexes.
There’s safety and power in numbers. The larger and more united the group
of tenants working together for improvements, the more likely they will win
meaningful improvements.
Many rights of tenants are found in state or local tenant-landlord
law, housing codes or court decisions. Educating the tenants about their legal
rights helps them weigh the potential gains and risks of getting involved in
advocacy campaigns and often reduces fear about standing up for their rights.
Having accurate information also makes it more likely that tenants will follow
proper procedures and exercise their rights to the maximum extent possible.
Attorneys specializing in housing and/or tenant-landlord
law can provide valuable support to tenants. If owners stonewall tenant demands,
public interest or volunteer attorneys can help tenant groups exercise their
legal rights, including bringing their cases to housing court or, in some jurisdictions,
to small claims court. Laws and courts vary from place to place, but data documenting
health hazards can often be the crucial evidence that establishes standing in
court and makes the difference in winning meaningful remedies. In some jurisdictions,
tenants may pay rent to an escrow account for needed repairs instead of to a
landlord in violation.
3. Community-Based Maintenance
and Repairs
Creating a community-based “delivery system”
for making and keeping homes safe is a natural extension of training community
residents in hazard assessment, health education and community organizing. As
advocacy and organizing trigger action to control hazards, these projects should
employ workers who live in the affected community.
Local groups may be able to start a small community-based
business or non-profit subsidiary that delivers healthy housing repair and maintenance
services. Building upon basic skills obtained from the federal Lead Sampling
Technician and lead-safe work practices courses, workers can acquire additional
expertise and qualifications through other training and work experience. Contracting
to perform lead dust clearance testing required in most HUD-assisted housing
could be a new source of income to help sustain such businesses. A federal law
known as “Section 3” (of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968) requires recipients of HUD funding to give contracting and hiring preferences
to firms that employ low-income community residents or residents of HUD-assisted
properties. (See HUD's Section
3 page for more information.) In some communities, there may be
non-profit groups that utilize volunteer tradespeople to provide home repairs
to qualified properties. Providing appropriate training in safe work practices
for such volunteers can help make these groups a part of the solution. Alternately,
community based organizations can advocate for the use of small contractors
whose employees live in the community.
4.
Generating Resources for Safe Repairs Targeted to Highest Risk Homes
Perhaps the biggest barrier to addressing housing related
health hazards in substandard housing is the scarcity of available funding.
Advocates should consider strategies to win additional funding to meet their
objectives.
In many cities, HUD’s lead hazard control and healthy
homes grants programs are major sources of funding for healthy housing repairs.
This year, HUD will make a supplemental $50 million for lead hazard control
available competitively to the 25 major urban areas with the worst problems.
Cities of all sizes can apply for an additional $96 million available for lead
hazard control grants. If your city agencies have not considered applying for
these funds, they should. Advocates may improve their city’s chances of
winning HUD lead or healthy homes grants by incorporating into funding proposals
documentation of the extent and severity of hazards in local housing. HUD requires
that government agencies partner with community based organizations to qualify
for lead hazard control grants.
Advocates also can work to secure other sources of funds
for repairs. For example, a few locales (Massachusetts; California; Rhode Island;
Cook Co., IL) have created dedicated funding streams to subsidize hazard control
activities in response to advocates’ demands.
Finally, cities, counties and
states receive federal housing and community development funds through their
CDBG and HOME entitlements. Federal block grants can be used for a wide
variety of activities, with priorities largely determined by the local political
process.
5. Leveraging the Federal Lead
Disclosure Law
Federal
law requires landlords and their agents to disclose lead hazards
to their tenants. Unfortunately, in many communities, owners of very low-income
rental properties – the very properties that typically pose the most serious
lead hazards – ignore the disclosure law completely: no pamphlet delivery,
no information disclosure, no paperwork whatsoever. To the extent that disclosure
occurs, many landlords check the “Don’t Know” box, claiming
ignorance about lead-based paint or lead hazards in their properties. Although
the law carries no requirements for owners to check for hazards or to take corrective
action if hazards are identified, it does provide for fines up to $11,000 per
violation and treble damages in some cases – which can give advocates
new leverage.
Federal agencies have demonstrated this law’s potential
for catalyzing corrective action. HUD, EPA, and the Department of Justice have
obtained court decisions and consent decrees requiring violators to get lead
inspections and control hazards in all their properties. In many cases, health
departments and community-based organizations have assisted HUD and EPA in identifying
chronic violators who own or manage multiple rental properties. Altogether,
disclosure enforcement actions by federal agencies and U.S. attorneys have prompted
private landlords to perform inspections and risk assessments to ensure that
more than 150,000 units are lead-safe and to invest more than $14 million in
lead abatement work.
Yet the full potential of the disclosure law has only begun
to be realized. Advocates across the country are finding many other promising
strategies to leverage the disclosure law, including:
Helping document violations of the disclosure law, including
documenting property owners’ failure to deliver the EPA pamphlet or
disclose known information and, in some cases, identifying the actual owner
of a problem property.
Providing rental property owners data about lead paint
hazards in their properties obtained through hazard assessments.
Informing tenants in high-risk neighborhoods of their
rights under the federal fair housing and lead disclosure laws.
Reporting to appropriate fair housing agencies landlords
who respond to concern over lead hazards by discriminating against families
with children.
Reporting disclosure violations by recalcitrant landlords
to HUD, EPA, and U.S. Attorneys.
6. Effective Enforcement
of Federal Lead-Safe Housing Requirements
In September 2000, new HUD lead safety requirements took
effect for most HUD-assisted properties built before 1978. While requirements
– and compliance – vary from program to program, even the most basic
HUD rules require a “floor” of lead safety measures (visual inspections,
safe paint repair, clearance testing) that could well be adapted as a standard
for much of a community’s private housing stock. (In general, lead safety
requirements vary among programs based on HUD’s financial investment in,
and duration of relationship to, the property, as well as the age of the structure.)
Non-lead health hazards related to substandard conditions (water leaks, moisture
and ventilation problems, pest infestation) may also be significantly reduced
through better enforcement of HUD’s housing quality standards (HQS).
Privately owned properties that are part of the Section
8 rental voucher program are the HUD-assisted properties most likely to contain
lead paint hazards and thus offer the best opportunity for advocates to have
a significant impact on lead safety through advocacy for proper enforcement
of the rules. Advocates can also target other properties covered by the rules,
such as older public housing and project-based Section 8 and other project-based
rental assistance properties. (For example, the Cleveland Tenants Organization
is pursuing ways to use the Mark-to-Market program to control hazards in older
housing.) We note, however, that most properties with project-based rental assistance
were built after 1960 and therefore are less likely to contain significant lead
paint hazards. Likewise, because of the federal rules, these properties as well
as public housing, should already have received hazard control treatments or
even full abatement. Advocates my find that prevalence of lead hazards in such
properties and compliance with the federal rules varies from national averages,
so some environmental testing may be warranted.
Information about what lead safety requirements apply to
particular housing programs can be found on HUD's website on this
page.
7. Enacting New Laws
Most cities and states do not have strong laws that require
environmental health hazards to be identified and safely repaired before a child’s
health is harmed. Many places do require environmental investigations of residences
for lead paint hazards after a poisoned child is identified, but even then hazards
are often not fixed – or are not fixed safely. For other environmental
health hazards such as radon, carbon monoxide, mold, and pests, laws are either
non-existent or (as is often the case for cockroach and rodent infestation)
written so that the remedies (inappropriate spraying of pesticides) can cause
other health problems. New laws are needed that reflect sound science.
Data documenting hazardous conditions in local housing
can provide advocates with strong justification for new laws to address the
problem. Examples of new legislation that might be sought (in addition to measures
described in the “Code Enforcement” section) include:
Requiring owners to periodically test for and correct
hazards.
Requiring maintenance and painting practices designed
to prevent hazards.
8. Other Strategies
Get the attention of landlords who want to do the right
thing and help them obtain training in lead safe work practices.
Enforce state or local lead safe work practice requirements
and bans on unsafe work practices (where these exist).
