|
|
|
|
|
About Building Blocks | Search
Building Blocks for Primary Prevention
Using Code Enforcement and Other Systems
|
|
|
|
Conduct Periodic Housing Code Inspections
|
|
|
|
Click here for PDF version or MS Word version
|
|
|
|
DESCRIPTION OF THE STRATEGY
Code enforcement systems that operate solely in response to tenant complaints, although the prevailing norm nationwide, are highly ineffective and have limited impact. This approach fosters the decline of rental housing conditions since tenants may not know how to register complaints or may be reluctant to complain out of fear of retaliation by the landlord. In contrast to sole reliance on complaint-based approaches, proactive, periodic inspection programs can advance primary prevention more meaningfully. Both New Jersey and Los Angeles have committed to inspecting multi-family rental properties every 3-5 years. Such preemptive code inspections also can be more narrowly targeted to high-risk neighborhoods, as the City of Milwaukee is doing.
BENEFITS
Immediate/Direct
Results:
Problems such as lead hazards are routinely identified by an inspection, documented, and brought to the attention of the rental property owner. Code officials can ensure that when housing code violations are corrected, the work is done in a lead-safe manner.
Public Health
Benefits:
A periodic rental housing inspection program helps to ensure that multi-family rental housing units comply with basic health and safety standards. Periodic inspections foster pro-active maintenance, because property owners cannot expect to remain “outside the system.” By promoting routine preventative maintenance on a widespread basis, and improving the quality of the rental housing stock, periodic inspection programs can help to prevent lead hazards—even in rental housing units that would be missed under a complaint-based inspection program.
Other
Indirect/Collateral Benefits:
Periodic inspection programs, when coupled with an effective enforcement regimen, can generate fees sufficient to offset the cost of the program. Regular inspections help to maintain the quality of the rental housing stock over the long term in a cost-effective manner.
Scope of Potential Impact
Statewide City - or - County - Wide Neighborhood/Community
PRIMARY ACTOR(S)
|
KEY PARTNER(S)
|
Code or Building Inspection Agency
| Health Department
Local prosecutors
Community-based Organizations
Tenants
Property Owners
|
CRITICAL ELEMENTS
Staff
requirements:
When moving from a complaint-based inspection program to a periodic system, additional inspectors may initially be required because a periodic inspection program also must accommodate complaints. Under an effective periodic inspection program, the number of complaint-based inspections will decrease over time. Where periodic inspections have been mandated, few inspections are undertaken in response to complaints. In New Jersey, for example, periodic inspections have been mandated for over thirty years, and few inspections currently are undertaken in response to complaints. Under the state’s periodic inspection program, approximately 115 inspectors conduct approximately 162,000 inspections in dwelling units annually, and re-inspect about 127,000 of those units.
Other resource requirements:
As additional code inspectors are employed, they must be provided essential equipment and technical support, including vehicles and computers.
Institutional
capacity required:
Statutory authority is required in order to give housing code inspectors authority to enter rental housing to conduct regular inspections. Statutes should specify the universe of units to be inspected (e.g., rental housing in buildings with two or more units); how frequently inspections are to be conducted; what type of notice is required for each party (owner and tenant); funding sources for inspections (e.g., any fees imposed upon rental property owners to cover inspection costs); and enforcement provisions, including penalties for non-compliance. Newly hired inspectors will need to be qualified to conduct inspections, issue notices of violation, and commence enforcement actions. Experienced inspectors will require continuing education to ensure that they are aware of any new standards or technological advances.
Cost
considerations:
Even if the costs of periodic inspections are passed along directly to tenants, these programs need not have an adverse effect on affordable housing. When Los Angeles adopted its Systematic Code Enforcement Program in 1998, the city hired 67 new housing inspectors. The program was initially funded by a $1.00 per unit fee each month, which since has been increased to $2.27. New Jersey uses a sliding scale to determine the per-unit inspection fee imposed upon owners, dependent upon the number of units inspected. The maximum per-unit fee is $43 every five years.
Timing issues:
Hiring and training of additional inspectors may take several months. In addition, landlords will need to be made aware of the new requirements, will need to receive guidance in building improvement requirements, and will need to incorporate periodic inspection language into leases. Tenants will also need education on the new requirements and procedures.
Feasibility of
Implementation:
High. These programs are feasible and effective, assuming they are adequately funded and enforced.
Potential Obstacles/Barriers
Perhaps the greatest obstacle facing periodic inspection programs is generating the political will necessary to put the programs in place.
Additional Resources
1. | - City of Milwaukee, Department of Neighborhood Services Administration, 841 N. Broadway, Room 104, Milwaukee, WI 53202, 414-286-3441 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ILLUSTRATION #1 OF STRATEGY IN PRACTICE Under Los Angeles’ Systematic Code Enforcement Program (SCEP), adopted in 1998, every residential rental property with two or more units must be inspected on a regular basis (currently, units are inspected at least once every five years). The program was funded initially by a $1.00 per unit per month fee paid by property owners, which, under the law, can be passed on to tenants. Low-income tenants strongly supported the passage of the program, including the monthly fee, which since has been increased to $2.27. Los Angeles is in the process of incorporating lead hazard screening into its periodic inspections, including requiring lead-safe work practices when repairs are undertaken. To complement the SCEP, a loan program has been created to provide funds to small apartment owners to help them finance repairs. Jurisdiction or Target AreaLos Angeles, CA Primary ActorLos Angeles Housing Department, Code Enforcement Bureau
Staffing utilizedMore than 57 inspectors devote their time solely to proactive inspections. An additional 22 inspectors respond to tenant complaints. Some of the inspectors that deal with complaints also assist with re-inspections in units found to be out of compliance during the scheduled inspections. Other resources utilizedN/A Factors essential to implementation Successful implementation of a periodic inspection program requires, first and foremost, adequate staff to carry out inspections. Inspectors must be well trained, not only to identify code violations, but also to deal effectively with tenants. In Los Angeles, advocates have conducted trainings for inspectors to help them deal with cultural and/or language issues that may arise with tenants.
Another key to the success of the SCEP program is that a loan program has been put in place to help small landlords make repairs. Finally, effective enforcement is critical to the success of a period code inspection program. While the city experienced some initial problems with cases stalling in the courts, hearing officers are increasingly successful at moving cases forward. In addition to a commitment to enforcement on the part of agency staff, adequate prosecutorial resources must be dedicated to enforcement. Limitations/challenges/problems encountered Initially, obtaining funds for the program was a challenge. However, the City increased the monthly inspection fee that rental property owners pay. Magnitude of Impact/Potential ImpactThe current schedule for inspections allows for rental units to be inspected every five years. Each year, about 150,000 units are inspected, however, the city hopes to increase that figure to 180,000. Potential for ReplicationVery high. These programs are readily replicated. Contact for Specific Information References for additional information | ILLUSTRATION #2 OF STRATEGY IN PRACTICE Multiple dwellings (defined to include buildings with three or more units), hotels, and motels are required under New Jersey’s Hotel and Multiple Dwelling law to be inspected at least once every five years. The state imposes a per-unit inspection fee every five years upon owners according to a sliding scale, dependent upon the number of units to be inspected: $43 per unit for one to seven units; $27 for eight to 24 units; $23 for 25 to 48 units, and $16 for 49 units and up. The state also collects approximately $4 million annually in penalties, enough to cover the program’s costs when combined with the inspection fees. New Jersey law gives the Department of Community Affairs authority to adjust the program’s fees to cover the cost of the program. In January 2004, New Jersey’s Governor signed a law requiring periodic inspections to include checks for lead hazards. Jurisdiction or Target AreaNew Jersey Primary ActorBureau of Housing Inspection (BHI), which is part of the Division of Codes and Standards in New Jersey’s Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
Staffing utilizedThe state employs 65 inspectors (FTEs), and approximately 150 municipal inspectors (FTEs) to conduct all inspections on behalf of the state. Municipalities are reimbursed for their inspection costs through a State-Local Cooperative Housing Inspection Program. Code inspectors must be licensed. Other resources utilizedA computerized tracking system is required to track compliance and enforcement. Factors essential to implementation 1. Inspection fees and penalties for non-compliance must be sufficient to cover the costs of the inspection program.
2. A streamlined enforcement process minimizes the resources needed to ensure compliance:
a. If an owner fails to contest a violation within 15 days of receiving a citation, the owner is deemed to admit to the violation.
b. If the owner fails to remedy the violation in a timely manner, BHI imposes a penalty and sets a deadline for compliance.
c. Owners who fail to comply and pay the penalty are pursued in court, where they are barred from contesting the violation.
d. Once BHI obtains a judgment, it can impose a lien on the owner’s assets—both personal and corporate. Limitations/challenges/problems encountered One limitation on New Jersey’s program is that it does not address buildings with fewer than three dwelling units. Efforts have been underway to include those buildings in the periodic inspection program, but have not succeeded to date. Magnitude of Impact/Potential ImpactNew Jersey’s periodic inspection program inspects approximately 162,000 dwelling units per year, and over time, achieves compliance in 95% of cases. Potential for ReplicationVery high. These programs are readily replicated and highly effective. Contact for Specific Information References for additional information | 1. | - New Jersey Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law, N.J.S.A. § 55:13A-1 et seq. | | | 2. | - New Jersey Administrative Code, § 5:10 et seq. | | | 3. | http://www.state.nj.us/dca/codes/ - New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Division of Codes and Standards | | |
|
|
|
