PHA Didn’t Have Adequate Oversight of Lead-Based Paint in Its Housing

HUD takes enforcement of the Lead Safe Housing Rule seriously.

HUD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority’s management of lead‐based paint in its public housing program. It was picked for audit based on the office’s assessment of the risks of lead-based paint in public housing. The risk factors assessed included the age of buildings, the number of units, household demographics, and reported cases of childhood lead poisoning.

The audit’s objectives were to determine whether the housing authority complied with HUD’s requirements for children with elevated blood lead levels (EBLL) and adequately managed lead‐based paint and lead‐based paint hazards in its public housing units.

Lead Safe Housing Rule

The Lead Safe Housing Rule (LSHR) requires specific actions or procedures that PHAs are required to perform when dealing with lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards. The LSHR applies to target housing, which is defined as any housing constructed before 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless a child under 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing) or any zero-bedroom dwelling. In January 2017, HUD published an amendment to the Lead Safe Housing Rule on responding promptly to cases of children under age 6 living in certain categories of HUD-assisted housing who have elevated blood lead levels.

PHAs are required to have lead-based paint inspections to identify the presence of lead-based paint in their public housing developments. If lead-based paint is identified in an inspection, a lead-based paint risk assessment is required to determine whether the lead- based paint presents a hazard.

Audit Findings

In a prior audit, OIG found that HUD generally didn’t monitor whether PHAs had implemented lead-based paint hazard reduction and documented the activities at their public housing developments. This creates a heightened risk that PHAs won’t identify or address lead-based paint hazards in a timely manner, placing individuals and families at increased risk of exposure to the invisible dangers of lead-based paint.

Here, the housing authority is one of the first established and largest PHAs in the country, with about 6,500 public housing units. The majority of the units were constructed before 1978, the oldest having been constructed in 1937.

Noncompliance with reporting and verification requirements. OIG found that the PHA didn’t comply with HUD’s reporting and verification requirements for cases of children with EBLLs. Specifically, it didn’t report all 10 confirmed cases of children with an EBLL to HUD or notify HUD that it was unable to verify four additional cases. Further, for six out of ten of the confirmed cases, the PHA didn’t complete adequate environmental investigations to appropriately determine the source of each child’s lead poisoning.

Failure to manage lead-paint hazards. The audit also found that the PHA didn’t adequately manage lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards in its public housing. Specifically, of a sample of 24 units that the housing authority managed as lead free, OIG determined that the PHA didn’t maintain sufficient documentation to support that 15 units and their associated developments didn’t contain lead-based paint. In addition, for a sample of 66 units that contained lead-based paint, OIG determined that the PHA didn’t ensure that the lead-based paint inspection and risk assessment reports for 31 units included required information.

Disclosure failures. Additionally, OIG reviewed a sample of 77 units, consisting of 67 units with lead-based paint and 10 units that had a child with a confirmed EBLL, and determined that the PHA didn’t perform visual assessments for 59 units within the required time frame, including nine units that had a child under 6 years of age with a reported EBLL and provide accurate lead disclosures to tenants for 38 units, including five units that later had a child with a reported EBLL.

Failure to follow up. Last, OIG reviewed three units for which a reevaluation was required, since the lead-based paint inspection for those units identified deteriorated paint and, thus, required hazard reduction, and determined that the PHA didn’t reevaluate those three units every two years as required.

According to the audit, the issues related to reporting and notifying HUD of children with EBLLs and the associated environmental investigations occurred because the housing authority disregarded HUD’s requirement for reporting EBLL cases to HUD and stated that it wasn’t aware of certain HUD requirements for managing cases of children with EBLLs, even though HUD had published the LSHR and issued Office of Public and Indian Housing notices regarding PHAs’ requirements for managing children with EBLLs.

Lack of oversight. OIG concluded that the PHA lacked adequate policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that it complied with the LSHR requirements for managing housing units that contain lead-based paint. Additionally, the PHA lacked oversight of: (1) the lead-based paint inspection and risk assessment reports to ensure that they contained required elements; (2) the timeliness of its visual assessments, which it combined with the performance of annual physical inspections; and (3) its property managers to ensure that accurate lead-based paint disclosures were provided to prospective tenants.

Recommendations

OIG recommended that the Director of the Cleveland Office of Public Housing require the housing authority to:

• Develop and implement adequate procedures to ensure that confirmed EBLL cases, unconfirmed EBLL cases, and environmental investigations are reported to HUD;
• Develop and implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that environmental investigations are completed when required;
• Perform a search for historical lead-based paint documentation to support the lead-free status of its units and the associated developments, and if adequate documentation is not found, complete a lead-based paint inspection of the developments to determine whether they are lead free; and
• Implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that visual assessments for lead-based paint are completed at least every 12 months, reevaluations are completed when required, and accurate lead disclosures are provided to prospective and current tenants. 

OIG also recommended that the Director of the Cleveland Office of Public Housing work with HUD’s Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes to provide training to the housing authority’s staff on the appropriate testing methodology for confirming that a child has an EBLL and for managing lead‐based paint and assess whether the lead-based paint inspections and risk assessments with missing elements are sufficient to support the lead-based paint status of the PHA’s properties.

EBLL Response and the Lead Safe Housing Rule

The Lead Safe Housing Rule (LSHR) for pre-1978 housing applies to all target housing that’s federally owned or receiving federal assistance. Target housing is any housing constructed prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities or any zero-bedroom dwelling unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing.

In 2017, as a result of an amendment to the LSHR, owners are required to respond promptly to cases of children under age 6 living in Public Housing units, Housing Choice Voucher units, and Project-Based Voucher units who have elevated blood lead levels (EBLLs).

What’s an Elevated Blood Lead Level (EBLL)?

A blood lead level of 5 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dl) or higher, is considered an EBLL.

What Actions Are Triggered by a Confirmed EBLL?

PHAs and owners must take action if a child under age 6 in federally assisted housing built before 1978 has an EBLL. Once a PHA or owner has been notified of a verified EBLL, the following steps are required:

• The PHA will immediately verify the EBLL report. If verified, owner is required to notify the local HUD Field Office, LeadRegulations@hud.gov, and local health department within five business days of receiving the verified report.
• The PHA will ensure a certified assessor performs an environmental investigation in the unit and common areas within 15 days of the verified report.
• The PHA will notify the resident and other building residents of the results of the environmental investigation within 15 days of receiving the results.
• If the environmental investigation identified lead-based paint hazards, the PHA or owner will make all necessary repairs within 30 days. To protect the resident from further exposure to lead hazards in housing while the work is being done, the household may have to move out of the unit temporarily. A certified lead-based paint abatement or renovation firm will have expertise on all aspects of relocation, control, and clearance.
• Once the repairs are complete, the unit will be tested and certified to be lead-safe. The PHA will provide a “clearance examination report” that explains what was done and ask the resident to report any deteriorated paint or other problems with the work areas. The owner is responsible for notifying all building residents that work is complete and of any hazard reduction activities undertaken. The owner must provide documentation to the local HUD Field Office within 10 business days of completion of clearance.