DESCRIPTION OF THE STRATEGY
Requiring property owners to provide information on lead hazards to tenants and to inform tenants how to report deteriorating paint can increase tenant awareness of the risk of lead hazards and assist them if paint deterioration problems develop. Notices can be delivered or mailed to tenants or posted in the building to inform occupants of basic lead hazard control measures, ask them to report deteriorated paint, and provide them with the information necessary to report conditions of concern. This strategy is effective only to the extent that property owners promptly and safely repair deteriorated paint and its causes. This type of notice to tenants is required in Vermont, Rhode Island, and housing subject to HUD’s lead-safe housing rule: public housing, housing subsidized by a variety of HUD assistance programs (including the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program), and properties that HUD is selling.
This strategy can increase tenant awareness of the risk of lead hazards and increase the likelihood that property owners are made aware if paint deterioration develops, which, in turn, increases the likelihood of corrective action.
Lead exposure is reduced if deteriorated paint is repaired more promptly and in a lead-safe manner.
Property owners and occupants will become more aware of the hazards associated with deteriorated lead paint and will pay more attention to paint condition. Code enforcement personnel may also pay more attention to deteriorated paint.
Scope of Potential Impact
City - or - County - Wide
Specific (Targeted) Population
|Health Department||Code or Building Inspection Agency|
The requirement to notify could be considered self-enforcing, but governmental enforcement efforts can greatly improve awareness and compliance. Very minimal staffing within a health or code enforcement agency (0.2-0.5 FTE) could create a basic education and outreach program to increase landlord awareness of the requirement. High-profile enforcement actions against egregious violations and/or spot-checking properties for compliance would be a reasonable starting point for additional enforcement efforts. Staffing levels for enforcement could be further increased to the point where additional staff produces diminishing returns. To the extent that increased reporting to landlords of deteriorated paint does not prompt safe repairs by landlords, additional hazard inspection and enforcement may be needed.
Other resource requirements:
Additional staff dedicated to ensuring landlord compliance probably could be funded mostly or entirely from penalties assessed against non-complying landlords.
State or local legislation would need to be enacted to create the notice requirement and enforcement authority to ensure compliance.
This requirement seems cost-effective no matter how passively or aggressively it is enforced. Without enforcement, some compliance will occur at virtually no cost. Additional resources spent on landlord outreach and education and/or enforcement should increase compliance substantially. Penalties against non-compliant landlords would increase in proportion to resources spent on enforcement and cover or at least offset costs of enforcement.
No seasonal or cyclical considerations. Timeline to implement depends on the legislative process.
Moderate. The existence of this policy in two states and throughout most federally assisted housing demonstrates its feasibility.
The impact of this policy is directly related to the degree to which it is promoted and enforced among landlords. Some resources would have to be committed initially in order to demonstrate cost effectiveness of promotion and enforcement. This is most likely to happen if policy makers are shown or convinced that enforcement efforts can pay for themselves.