Content

 

About Building Blocks

 

Search

 

Building Awareness and Public Support

Building Capacity for Lead Safety

Collaborations, Partnerships, and Incentives

Financing and Subsidies

Lead Safety and Healthy Homes Standards

Targeting High Risk Homes

Using Code Enforcement and Other Systems

 

 

Appendices

 

 

Building Blocks Full Text [PDF]

 

 

CDC-Funded Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Programs

 

 

Produced by the Alliance for Healthy Homes and the Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

 

 

 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

 


Acknowledgements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About Building Blocks | Search Building Blocks for Primary Prevention

Using Code Enforcement and Other Systems

 

Abate Lead Hazards and Recover Costs when Owners Fail to Act

 

Click here for PDF version or MS Word version

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE STRATEGY

Strong enforcement powers and sufficient resources to compel compliance are essential to any effective lead poisoning prevention program. In order to ensure that lead hazards cited by violation orders are controlled when property owners fail to act, enforcement officials can be authorized to abate hazards using agency or contractors’ crews and recoup the costs along with any unpaid penalties by placing a lien on the property.   

 

BENEFITS

Immediate/Direct Results:  Homes containing lead hazards are immediately made lead-safe.

 

Public Health Benefits:  The cycle of poisoning, where one unit poisons multiple children, is stopped.

 

Other Indirect/Collateral Benefits: Since the agency is carrying out or overseeing the work, it is more likely to be done correctly and without harming current occupants.

 

Scope of Potential Impact

Statewide

Regional (e.g. multi-county)

City - or - County - Wide

Neighborhood/Community

 

PRIMARY ACTOR(S)
KEY PARTNER(S)
Health Department
Code or Building Inspection Agency
Local prosecutors
Housing Agency

 

CRITICAL ELEMENTS

Staff requirements: Limited to writing lead hazard control work specifications, ensuring acceptable completion including clearance, and administrative communications to collect costs or impose lien.

 

Other resource requirements: Access to qualified crews, contracted or in-house, to perform the lead hazard control.

 

Institutional capacity required:   Agencies will need statutory authority to enter the premises and do the work, as well as to place a lien on the property. In addition, the agency will need capacity to perform independent clearance testing.

 

Cost considerations: Need for working capital or other financing to pay for the repair work pending recovery of costs when the property is sold or refinanced.

 

Timing issues: None.

 

Feasibility of Implementation:  Moderate. Political will is needed to supersede owners’ rights, to allow the city or its agents authority to enter the property and perform lead hazard control, and to impose liens. Strategy is best used within a continuum of approaches that include voluntary compliance and financing mechanisms.  

 

Potential Obstacles/Barriers

May require relocation of occupants; these costs would be included in the owner indebtedness to the city.  

 

Additional Resources

 

 

 

ILLUSTRATION OF STRATEGY IN PRACTICE

Title 6 of the Philadelphia Code and Regulations gives the Department of Public Health (DPH) the authority to issue correction orders to owners (or their agents) of housing units found to have lead-based paint hazards. If an owner does not comply with the order, the City files a case in Philadelphia’s special “lead court.” The city may seek a range of remedies, including the use of City funds to abate the hazard and recovery of those costs from the owner. If the property owner fails to reimburse the city, the court may place a lien on the subject property for the amount of abatement costs and other related expenses. This process has been a powerful motivator for property owners, who are now more likely to proactively correct lead hazards—or at least comply with orders before the case gets to court.

 

Jurisdiction or Target Area
Philadelphia, PA

 

Primary Actor

City of Philadelphia Law Department, Health and Adult Services Unit


Staffing utilized

There are no staff dedicated to implementing this strategy. When abatement is needed, crews from the city’s lead hazard control program can be assigned and the labor cost is included in the amount billed to the property owner or added to the lien.

 

Other resources utilized

The Department of Health provides justification for the cases, including lead inspection checklists and laboratory records on EBLs. The Law Department also has access to a list of property owners who have requested assistance. 

 

Factors essential to implementation

The combination of a dedicated lead court, consistent enforcement, and outreach to landlords to make sure they understand that they must comply or they will be prosecuted enables the City to avoid using this strategy.

 

Limitations/challenges/problems encountered

The City is unlikely to recover the costs of lead hazard control because homes with deferred maintenance and serious hazards, which often already have tax liabilities or other liens attached, sell for as low as five to ten thousand dollars. As a result, this measure is used only when owners qualify for no other programs. Also, determining the identity of the property owner is sometimes challenging and takes a considerable amount of time.

 

Magnitude of Impact/Potential Impact

The provision has not been used because the Law Department has been able to use other means to resolve the 1,700 cases that it has filed with the Court.

 

Potential for Replication

High.

 

Contact for Specific Information
Lynda Moore
Chief Deputy
Health and Adult Services
215-683-5137
lynda.moore@phila.gov
Richard Tobin
Director
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
215-685-2788
richard.tobin@phila.gov

 

References for additional information

 

Next Building Block
Attach Property-Specific Lead Hazard Information to Property Deeds