|
DESCRIPTION OF THE STRATEGY
Federal law requires owners of most pre-1978 rental properties to disclose information about lead hazards to tenants at the time of lease or lease renewal. The law provides significant penalties for violations and authorizes enforcement by HUD, EPA, and DOJ. Using “results-oriented” enforcement, federal agencies have investigated cases referred by local agencies and others and generated $14,000,000 in lead safety investments by landlords in 150,000 housing units. Health departments and community-based organizations can facilitate enforcement locally by identifying and reporting owners of poorly maintained buildings who fail to comply with disclosure requirements to EPA, HUD, or US attorneys. Health departments can strengthen federal enforcement by providing information on documented poisonings and lead hazards in non-compliant properties.
BENEFITS
Immediate/Direct
Results:
Landlords who have violated the federal lead hazard disclosure law are encouraged to evaluate, control, and prevent lead hazards in multiple units in exchange for reduced fines.
Public Health
Benefits:
Tenants living in units where hazards have been controlled or prevented are less likely to be exposed to lead hazards. Future tenants will receive information they need to make informed housing choices and protect their families from lead hazards. Owners forced to follow the disclosure law will be motivated to address lead hazards to avoid having to disclose them.
Other
Indirect/Collateral Benefits:
This is a good way to target problem landlords, particularly owners of properties responsible for repeat poisonings. If federal agencies pursue results-oriented enforcement, working with federal authorities in bringing enforcement actions against property owners may persuade landlords to address lead hazards in all units they own or manage as well as yield funding for education, outreach, screening, and other prevention activities. Through Community Health Improvement Projects (CHIPs) and Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), a few large and well-publicized enforcement cases will also get the attention of other property owners and hopefully motivate them to comply with the disclosure law and address lead hazards in their properties.
Scope of Potential Impact
Statewide Regional (e.g. multi-county) City - or - County - Wide Neighborhood/Community
PRIMARY ACTOR(S)
|
KEY PARTNER(S)
|
Health Department
Community-based Organizations
| Code Inspection Agency
Property Taxation Agency
Attorney General
HUD, DOJ, and/or EPA
Tenants
|
CRITICAL ELEMENTS
Staff
requirements:
Number of FTEs can vary greatly, depending on the level of involvement of the agency reporting violations. Simply reporting violations identified in the course of regular activities entails very little extra work. Systematically providing information on EBLs, the presence of lead hazards, code violations, and documentation of disclosure violations; profiling owners; intervening in the enforcement action; and influencing settlements to ensure they include projects needed by the affected community may require 1-2 FTEs per year over two or more years.
Other resource requirements:
Institutional
capacity required:
Address-specific information about lead hazards is necessary. Access to EBL data, tax assessor’s records, and data on housing code and other violations is helpful. Local or state lead laws are not required for the implementation of this strategy.
Cost
considerations:
This is a very cost-effective strategy—a relatively small investment of time and resources can reap tens of thousands of dollars in property owner investments in lead safety and other prevention projects. There is no evidence that results-oriented enforcement of the disclosure law has adversely affected housing affordability.
Timing issues:
Typically, it can take more than one year for federal agencies to complete enforcement action, from the investigation through the settlement stage; some cases may take even longer. It can take another two or more years for defendants to complete the work agreed to in the settlements.
Feasibility of
Implementation:
Very high. This is an easy strategy for local and state entities to implement, because federal agencies conduct the investigation and enforcement work once cases are referred.
Potential Obstacles/Barriers
Some tenants may be reluctant to report non-compliance or provide documentation for fear of landlord retaliation. It is important to communicate these fears when reporting cases for enforcement to federal agencies so that steps can be taken to protect tenants and safeguard their rights.
Also, follow-up monitoring is needed to ensure that landlords implement settlement agreements properly. Federal agencies have the ability to collect penalties if agreements are not honored.
Additional Resources
1. | Marcheta Gillam,
Legal Aid Society of Cincinnati,
513-241-9400,
mgillam@lascinti.org | 2. | Lorisa Seibel,
Durham Affordable Housing Coalition,
919-683-1185, ext. 25,
lorisa@dahc.org | 3. | Beth McKee-Huger,
Greensboro Housing Coalition,
336-691-9046,
rachelltv@aol.com | 4. | Tom Neltner,
Improving Kids’ Environment,
317-283-6111,
neltner@ikecoalition.org | 5. | Linda Kite,
Healthy Homes Collaborative,
213-386-4901, ext. 107,
lkite@psr.org | 6. | Joe Diorio,
Mahoning County District Board of Health,
330-270-2855, ext. 142,
jdiorio@mahoning-health.org | 7. | New Jersey Citizen Action,
732-246-4772 | 8. | Ed Norman,
North Carolina Children’s Environmental Health Branch,
919-715-3293,
Ed.Norman@ncmail.net | 9. | http://www.afhh.org/res/res_pubs/disclosure_strategies_paper.pdf - Strategies for Making the Most of the Federal Lead Hazard Disclosure Law | 10. | http://www.afhh.org/res/res_pubs/disclosure_documenting_violations_guide.pdf - Guide to Identifying and Documenting Disclosure Law Violations | 11. | http://www.afhh.org/res/res_pubs/disclosure_Innovative_SEPs_and_CHIPs.pdf - Innovative SEPs and CHIPs for Inclusion in Lead Hazard Disclosure Settlements |
|
ILLUSTRATION #1 OF STRATEGY IN PRACTICE CDPH, HUD, DOJ, EPA Region 5, and the Illinois Department of Public Health entered into discussions regarding disclosure enforcement. CDPH identified owners and management companies of properties with large numbers of EBL children and frequent and repeat violations of Chicago’s municipal code requirement that all properties be maintained in a lead-safe manner. HUD and EPA investigated whether disclosure had occurred in these properties. Where disclosure violations were found, CDPH performed additional inspections, which added the threat of municipal actions to the negotiations over the federal violations. These activities resulted in four settlements. CDPH has begun the process again with new property management companies/owners in violation of local laws. Jurisdiction or Target AreaChicago Primary ActorChicago Department of Public Health (CDPH)
Staffing utilizedApproximately 0.75 FTEs per year over 2 years, including an epidemiologist, clerks, the director of the program, attorneys, and inspectors. Other resources utilizedTax assessor’s database. Factors essential to implementation The key components are a clean database of EBLs and local law violations, a good working relationship with federal enforcement officials, and a strong local lead law. Limitations/challenges/problems encountered HUD typically takes the lead in monitoring implementation of the agreements, but does not have the resources to monitor all cases nationally; CDPH is involved but does not have dedicated funding for this activity. Magnitude of Impact/Potential ImpactThe four companies agreed to conduct lead hazard control in a total of 8,642 units at an estimated cost of $6 million. To date, 477 units have been made lead safe and more than $750,000 has been spent on testing and abatement. In addition, the settlements included $77,000 for blood lead screening and $100,000 for abatement of 10 housing units owned by low-income property owners. Potential for ReplicationLow. Unless there is a strong local law and resources to proactively inspect properties, it would be difficult for health departments to fully replicate the Chicago experience—but many elements are worth replicating. Contact for Specific Information References for additional information |
ILLUSTRATION #2 OF STRATEGY IN PRACTICE Through health department data, the tax assessor’s database, and a number of other data sources, Brown University students working for CLAP were able to determine that of 887 properties owned by 204 owners had poisoned 2,644 children. CLAP profiled these owners, documented disclosure violations in their properties, and provided this information to the Attorney General’s office, which in turn prioritized the cases and forwarded them to EPA Region 1. CLAP continues to document and report disclosure violations as tenants provide tips. Jurisdiction or Target AreaRhode Island Primary ActorChildhood Lead Action Project (CLAP)
Staffing utilized1 to 1.5 FTEs per year, over four years. Other resources utilizedBrown University students did much of the initial research. Through a contract between Brown University and the Rhode Island Department of Health, the students had access to health department EBL data. The information they compiled was sent directly to the federal agencies. Factors essential to implementation Important components are a good working relationship with the AG’s Office, as well as networking and building relationships with various agencies to gain access to records. Limitations/challenges/problems encountered EPA Region 1 is now poised to act on the cases referred by CLAP—two years after CLAP supplied the documentation. Magnitude of Impact/Potential ImpactSo far, one case has been prosecuted, resulting in abatement of 12 units plus the contribution of $3,000 for community-based organizations working on lead poisoning prevention. In addition, the owner was fined $16,000 and was required to make five presentations about lead-based paint hazards: three to tenants and two to landlords. Potential for ReplicationVery high. Any state or local health departments could easily replicate CLAP’s strategy since they have ready access to EBL data. Contact for Specific Information References for additional information |
