Lead Paint in Housing: HUD Should Strengthen Grant Processes, Compliance Monitoring, and Performance Assessment

Lead paint in housing is the most common source of lead exposure for U.S. children. HUD awards grants to state and local governments to reduce lead paint hazards in housing and oversees compliance with lead paint regulations in its rental assistance programs. The 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Joint Explanatory Statement, includes a provision that GAO review HUD’s efforts to address lead paint hazards. This report examines HUD’s efforts to (1) incorporate statutory requirements and other relevant federal standards in its lead grant programs, (2) monitor and enforce compliance with lead paint regulations in its rental assistance programs, (3) adopt federal health guidelines and environmental standards for its lead grant and rental assistance programs, and (4) measure and report on the performance of its lead efforts. GAO reviewed HUD documents and data related to its grant programs, compliance efforts, performance measures, and reporting. GAO also interviewed HUD staff and some grantees.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) lead grant and rental assistance programs have taken steps to address lead paint hazards, but opportunities exist for improvement. For example, in 2016, HUD began using new tools to monitor how public housing agencies comply with lead paint regulations. However, HUD could further improve efforts in the following areas:

Lead grant programs. While its recent grant award processes incorporate statutory requirements on applicant eligibility and selection criteria, HUD has not fully documented or evaluated these processes. For example, HUD’s guidance is not sufficiently detailed to ensure consistent and appropriate grant award decisions. Better documentation and evaluation of HUD’s grant program processes could help ensure that lead grants reach areas at risk of lead paint hazards. Further, HUD has not developed specific time frames for using available local-level data to better identify areas of the country at risk for lead paint hazards, which could help HUD target its limited resources.

Oversight. HUD does not have a plan to mitigate and address risks related to noncompliance with lead paint regulations by public housing agencies. We identified several limitations with HUD’s monitoring efforts, including reliance on public housing agencies’ self-certifying compliance with lead paint regulations and challenges identifying children with elevated blood lead levels. Additionally, HUD lacks detailed procedures for addressing noncompliance consistently and in a timely manner. Developing a plan and detailed procedures to address noncompliance with lead paint regulations could strengthen HUD’s oversight of public housing agencies.

Inspections. The lead inspection standard for the Housing Choice Voucher program is less strict than that of the public housing program. By requesting and obtaining statutory authority to amend the standard for the voucher program, HUD would be positioned to take steps to better protect children in voucher units from lead exposure as indicated by analysis of benefits and costs.

Performance assessment and reporting. HUD lacks comprehensive goals and performance measures for its lead reduction efforts. In addition, it has not complied with annual statutory reporting requirements, last reporting as required on its lead efforts in 1997. Without better performance assessment and reporting, HUD cannot fully assess the effectiveness of its lead efforts.

GAO makes nine recommendations to HUD including to improve lead grant program and compliance monitoring processes, request authority to amend its lead inspection standard in the voucher program, and take additional steps to report on progress. HUD generally agreed with eight of the recommendations. HUD disagreed that it should request authority to use a specific, stricter inspection standard. GAO revised this recommendation to allow HUD greater flexibility to amend its current inspection standard as indicated by analysis of the benefits and costs.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have estimated  that approximately half a million U.S. children (ages 1 to 5) have blood  lead levels higher than most children’s levels. According to CDC, no safe  level of lead in the blood has been identified. When absorbed into the  body, especially in young children, lead can damage the brain and  nervous system, slow development and growth, and cause learning or  behavioral problems. According to CDC, lead-based paint hazards, such  as dust containing lead and chips from deteriorated lead-based paint, are  the most common source of lead exposure for U.S. children. Young  children are at greater risk of being exposed to lead because they often  crawl on the floor, have frequent hand-to-mouth activity, and intentionally  ingest nonfood items. Also, exposure to lead impacts young children  more because of their small body size and weight compared to adults.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) most  recent survey of housing conditions estimated that roughly 35 percent of  U.S. homes (37 million) contained some lead-based paint. Additionally,  the survey estimated that 93 percent of the homes with lead paint were  built before 1978––the year the United States banned lead-containing  paint used in housing. HUD has certain statutory responsibilities related  to reducing lead exposure in housing, which include, awarding grants to  states and local governments to help address lead paint hazards in  private, low-income housing and promulgating lead paint regulations for  HUD’s rental assistance programs.

The 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Joint Explanatory Statement,  Division K, includes a provision for GAO to report on HUD’s policies,  procedures, and processes for addressing lead paint hazards in housing.  This report examines HUD’s efforts to (1) incorporate statutory  requirements and other relevant federal standards in its lead grant  programs; (2) monitor and enforce compliance with lead paint regulations  for its rental assistance programs; (3) adopt federal health guidelines and  environmental standards for lead paint hazards in its lead grant and rental  assistance programs; and (4) measure and report on its performance  related to making housing lead-safe. The provision also directs GAO to  review opportunities to improve coordination and leveraging of public and  private (i.e., nonfederal) sources of funds to reduce federal costs  associated with identifying and remediating lead paint hazards.  Information about nonfederal sources of funds used by grantees as part  of HUD’s lead grant programs is included in appendix I of this report.

In this report, we examine lead paint hazards in housing and we focus on  HUD’s lead hazard control grant programs and its two largest rental  assistance programs that serve the most families with children: the  Housing Choice Voucher (voucher) and public housing programs.

To address the first objective, we compared HUD’s lead grant programs’  processes with statutory requirements and federal internal control  standards. For example, we reviewed HUD’s annual notices of funding  availability to identify the criteria HUD has used to evaluate grant  applications and determine the extent to which the 2017 notices  incorporated statutory requirements. We also compared HUD’s lead grant  program processes to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  requirements for competitively awarded grants. To review the extent to  which grant awards have gone to counties with indicators of lead paint  hazard risk, we analyzed HUD’s grant data from 2013 through 2017 and  county-level U.S. Census Bureau data on the age of housing and poverty  level of individuals in the United States. HUD’s grant data were not  available electronically before 2013, when the agency started using  grants management software. We determined the HUD and Census data  were sufficiently reliable for our purposes––to identify the locations and  grant award amounts for HUD grantees and to identify counties with older  housing and individuals living in poverty. Additionally, we interviewed  HUD staff about the agency’s grant application and award processes. To  obtain information and perspectives from HUD grantees, we also  reviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 20 grant applications and  interviewed 10 of the 20 grantees. We conducted site visits to 5 of the 10  grantees we interviewed. We selected these grantees to achieve variation  in geographic locations and the type of HUD grants they had previously  received, among other things.

To address the second objective, we reviewed relevant laws and HUD’s  lead paint regulations and guidance and internal memorandums related to  its efforts to monitor and enforce compliance with these regulations. We  reviewed HUD databases used to monitor compliance and observed HUD  staff demonstrating these databases. We reviewed HUD documentation  of instances of potential noncompliance by public housing agencies  (PHA) with lead paint regulations and enforcement actions HUD has  taken. We compared HUD’s regulatory compliance monitoring and  enforcement approach to federal internal control standards. We  interviewed HUD staff about internal procedures for monitoring and  enforcing compliance of lead paint regulations. To address the third  objective, we compared HUD’s programs and regulations with relevant  CDC health guidelines and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  standards. We also interviewed staff from CDC and EPA to obtain  information about their health guidelines and environmental standards  related to lead.

To address the fourth objective, we reviewed HUD documentation related  to performance goals, measures, program evaluations, and reporting  requirements, including HUD’s recent annual performance reports. We  compared HUD’s practices against leading practices for assessing  program performance and federal internal control standards. Finally, we  interviewed HUD staff to understand performance goals, measures, and  reporting HUD has used to assess its lead efforts. Appendix II contains a  more detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2017 to June 2018 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Federal Agencies and Key Regulations Related to Lead Paint Hazards

While HUD has primary responsibility for addressing lead paint hazards in  federally-assisted housing, EPA also has responsibilities related to setting  federal lead standards for housing. EPA sets federal standards for lead  hazards in paint, soil, and dust. Additionally, EPA regulates the training  and certification of workers who remediate lead paint hazards. CDC  sets a health guideline known as the “blood lead reference value” to  identify children exposed to more lead than most other children. As of  2012, CDC began using a blood lead reference value of 5 micrograms of  lead per deciliter of blood. For children whose blood lead level is at or  above CDC’s blood lead reference value, health care providers and public  health agencies can identify those children who may benefit the most  from early intervention. CDC’s blood lead reference value is based on the  97.5th percentile of the blood lead distribution in U.S. children (ages 1 to  5), using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination  Survey. Children with blood lead levels above CDC’s blood lead  reference value have blood lead levels in the highest 2.5 percent of all  U.S. children (ages 1 to 5). HUD, EPA, and the Department of Health and  Human Services (HHS) are members of the President’s Task Force on  Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. HUD co- chairs the lead subcommittee of this task force with EPA and HHS. The  task force published the last national lead strategy in 2000.

The primary federal legislation to address lead paint hazards and the  related requirements for HUD is the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard  Reduction Act (Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of  1992). We refer to this law as Title X throughout this report. Title X  required HUD to, among other things, promulgate lead paint regulations,  implement the lead hazard control grant programs, and conduct research  and reporting, as discussed throughout this report.

The two key regulations that HUD has issued under Title X are the Lead  Disclosure Rule and the Lead Safe Housing Rule:

Lead Disclosure Rule. In 1996, HUD and EPA jointly issued the  Lead Disclosure Rule. The rule applies to most housing built before  1978 and requires sellers and lessors to disclose any known  information, available records, and reports on the presence of lead  paint and lead paint hazards and provide an EPA-approved  information pamphlet prior to sale or lease.

Lead Safe Housing Rule. In 1999, HUD first issued the Lead Safe  Housing Rule, which applies only to housing receiving federal  assistance or federally-owned housing being sold. The rule  established procedures for evaluating whether a lead paint hazard  exists, controlling or eliminating the hazard, and notifying occupants of  any lead paint hazards identified and related remediation efforts. The  rule established an “elevated blood lead level” as a threshold that  requires landlords and PHAs to take certain actions if a child’s blood  test shows lead levels meeting or exceeding this threshold. In 2017,  HUD amended the rule to align its definition of an “elevated blood lead  level” with CDC’s blood lead reference value. This change lowered  the threshold that generally required landlords and PHAs to act from  20 micrograms to 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood.  According to the rule, when a child under age 6 living in HUD-assisted  housing has an elevated blood lead level, the housing provider must  take several steps. These generally include testing the home and  other potential sources of the child’s lead exposure within 15 days,  ensuring that identified lead paint hazards are addressed within 30  days of receiving a report detailing the results of that testing, and  reporting the case to HUD.

HUD Offices Involved in Lead Efforts and HUD’s Rental Assistance Programs

Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes (Lead Office).  HUD’s Lead Office is primarily responsible for administering HUD’s two  lead hazard control grant programs, providing guidance on HUD’s lead  paint regulations, and tracking HUD’s efforts to make housing lead-safe.  The Lead Office collaborates with HUD program offices on its oversight  and enforcement of lead paint regulations. For instance, the Lead Office  issues guidance, responds to questions about requirements of lead paint  regulations, and provides training and technical assistance to HUD  program staff, PHA staff, and property owners. The Lead Office’s  oversight efforts also include maintaining email and telephone hotlines to  receive complaints and tips from tenants or homeowners, among others,  as they pertain to lead paint regulations. Additionally, the Lead Office, in  collaboration with EPA, contributes to the operation of the National Lead  Information Center––a resource that provides the general public and  professionals with information about lead, lead hazards, and their  prevention.

Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH). HUD’s PIH oversees and  enforces HUD’s lead paint regulations for the rental assistance  programs. As discussed earlier, this report focuses on the two largest  rental assistance programs serving the most families with children––the  Housing Choice Voucher and public housing programs.

Housing Choice Voucher program. In the voucher program, eligible  families and individuals are given vouchers as rental assistance to  use in the private housing market. Generally, eligible families with  vouchers live in the housing of their choice in the private market. The  voucher generally pays the difference between the family’s  contribution toward rent and the actual rent for the unit. Vouchers  are portable; once a family receives one, it can take the voucher and  move to other areas where the voucher program is administered. In  2017, there were roughly 2.5 million vouchers available.

Public housing program. Public housing is reduced-rent  developments owned and operated by the local PHA and subsidized  by the federal government. PHAs receive several streams of funding  from HUD to help make up the difference between what tenants pay  in rent and what it costs to maintain public housing. For example,  PHAs receive operating and capital funds through a formula allocation  process. PHAs use operating funds to pay for management,  administration, and day-to-day costs of running a housing  development. Capital funds are used for modernization needs, such  as replacing roofs or remediating lead paint hazards. According to  HUD rules, generally families that are income-eligible to live in public  housing pay 30 percent of their adjusted income toward rent. In 2017,  there were roughly 1 million public housing units available.

For both of these rental assistance programs, the Office of Field  Operations (OFO) within PIH oversees PHAs’ compliance with lead paint  regulations, in conjunction with HUD field office staff. The office has a  risk-based approach to overseeing PHAs and performs quarterly risk  assessments. Also within PIH, staff from the Real Estate Assessment  Center are responsible for inspecting the physical condition of public  housing properties.

Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). HUD’s PD&R is  the primary office responsible for data analysis, research, and program  evaluations to inform the development and implementation of programs  and policies across HUD offices.

HUD’s Lead Hazard Control Grant Programs

of the total grant amount, while the Lead Hazard Reduction  Demonstration grant program has required at least a 25 percent match.

For fiscal years 2013–2017, HUD awarded $527 million for its lead  hazard control grants, which included 186 grants to state and local  jurisdictions (see fig. 1). In these 5 years, about 40 percent of grants  awarded went to jurisdictions in the Northeast and 31 percent to  jurisdictions in the Midwest––regions of the country known to have a high  prevalence of lead paint hazards.

Additionally, in these 5 years, 90 percent of grant awards went to  grantees at the local jurisdiction level (cities, counties, and the District of  Columbia). The other 10 percent of grant awards went to state  governments. During this time period, HUD awarded the most grants to  jurisdictions in Ohio (17 grants), Massachusetts and New York (15 grants  each), and Connecticut (14 grants).

HUD Has Incorporated Relevant Requirements for Awarding Recent Lead Grants, but Could Better Document and Evaluate Grant Processes

Lead Grant Programs Have Incorporated Statutory Requirements for Eligibility and Selection

HUD’s Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant and the Lead Hazard  Reduction Demonstration grant programs have incorporated Title X  statutory requirements through recent annual funding notices and their  grant processes. Title X contains applicant eligibility requirements and  selection criteria HUD should use to award lead grants.

To be eligible to receive a grant, applicants need to be a state or local jurisdiction,  contribute matching funds to supplement the grant award, have an approved comprehensive affordable housing strategy, and have a certified lead abatement program (if the applicant is a state  government).

HUD has incorporated these eligibility requirements in its grant programs’  2017 funding notices, which require applicants to demonstrate that they  meet these requirements when they apply for a lead grant. According to  the 2017 funding notices, applicants must detail the sources and amounts  of their matching contributions in their applications. Similarly, applicants  must submit a form certifying that the proposed grant activities are  consistent with their local affordable housing strategy. HUD’s 2017  funding notices state that if applicants did not meet these eligibility  requirements, HUD would not consider their applications.

Additionally, Title X requires HUD to award lead grants according to the  following applicant selection criteria:  the extent to which an applicant’s proposed activities will reduce the  risk of lead poisoning for children under the age of 6;  the degree of severity and extent of lead paint hazards in the  applicant’s jurisdiction;  the applicant’s ability to supplement the grant award with state, local,  or private funds;  the applicant’s ability to carry out the proposed grant activities; and other factors determined by the HUD Secretary to ensure that the  grants are used effectively.

In its 2017 funding notices, HUD incorporated the Title X applicant  selection criteria through five scoring factors that it used to assess lead  grant applications. HUD allocated a certain number of points to each  scoring factor. Applicants are required to develop their grant proposals in  response to the scoring factors. When reviewing applications, HUD staff  evaluated an applicant’s response to the factors and assigned points for  each factor. See table 1 for a description of the 2017 lead grant programs’  scoring factors and points.

As shown in table 1, HUD awarded the most points (46 out of 100) to the  “soundness of approach” scoring factor, according to HUD’s 2017 funding  notices. Through this factor, HUD incorporated Title X selection criteria on  an applicant’s ability to carry out the proposed grant activities and  supplement a grant award with state, local, or private funds. For example,  HUD’s 2017 funding notices required applicants to describe their detailed  plans to implement grant activities, including how the applicants will  establish partnerships to make housing lead-safe. Specifically, HUD  began awarding 2 of the 100 points to applicants who demonstrated  partnerships with local public health agencies to identify families with  children for enrollment in the lead grant programs. Additionally, HUD  asked applicants to identify partners that can help provide assistance to  complete the lead hazard control work for high-cost housing units.  Furthermore, HUD required applicants to identify any nonfederal funding,  including funding from the applicants’ partners. Appendix I includes  examples of state, local, and nongovernmental funds that selected  grantees planned to use to supplement their lead grants.

HUD Has Taken Actions Consistent with OMB Requirements but Has Not Fully Documented or Evaluated Its Lead Grant Programs’ Processes

In its lead grant programs, HUD has taken actions that were consistent  with OMB’s requirements for competitively awarded grants. OMB  generally requires federal agencies to: (1) establish a merit-review  process for competitive grants that includes the criteria and process to  evaluate applications; and (2) develop a framework to assess the risks  posed by applicants for competitive grants, among other things.  Through a merit-review process, an agency establishes and applies  criteria to evaluate the merit of competitive grant applications. Such a  process helps to ensure that the agency reviews grant applications in a  fair, competitive, and transparent manner. Consistent with the OMB  requirement to establish a merit review process, HUD has issued annual  funding notices that communicate clear and explicit evaluative criteria. In  addition, HUD has established processes for reviewing and scoring grant  applications using these evaluative criteria, and selects grant recipients  based on the review scores (see fig. 2). For example, applicants that  score at or above 75 points are qualified to receive awards from HUD.  Also, HUD awards funds beginning with the highest scoring applicant and  proceeds by awarding funds to applicants in a descending order until  funds are exhausted. Furthermore, consistent with the OMB requirement  to develop a framework to assess applicant risks, HUD has developed a  framework to assess the risk posed by lead grant applicants by, among  other things, deeming ineligible those applicants with past performance  deficiencies or those that do not have a financial management system  that meets federal standards.

However, HUD has not fully documented or evaluated its lead grant  processes in reviewing and scoring the grants and making award  decisions:  Documenting grant processes and award decisions. While HUD has  established processes for its lead grant programs, it lacks documentation,  including detailed guidance to help ensure that staff carry out processes  consistently and appropriately. Federal internal control standards state  that agency management should develop and maintain documentation of  its internal control system. Such documentation assists agency  management by establishing and communicating the processes to staff.  Additionally, documentation of processes can provide a means to retain  organizational knowledge and communicate that knowledge as needed to  external parties.

The Lead Office’s Application Review Guide describes its grant  application review and award processes at a high level but does not  provide detailed guidance for staff as to how tasks should be performed.  For example, the Guide notes that reviewers score eligible applications  according to factors contained in the funding notices but does not  describe how the reviewers should allocate points to the subfactors that  make up each factor. Lead Office staff told us that creating detailed  scoring guidance would be challenging because applicants’ proposed  grant activities differ widely, and they said that scoring grant applications  is a subjective process. While scoring grant applications may involve  subjective judgments, improved documentation of grant review and  scoring processes, including additional direction to staff, can help staff  apply their professional judgment more consistently in evaluating  applications. By better documenting processes, HUD can better ensure  that staff evaluate applications consistently.

Additionally, HUD has not fully documented its rationale for deciding  which applicants receive lead grant awards and for deciding the dollar  amounts of grant awards to successful applicants. In prior work  examining federal grant programs, one recommended practice we  identified is that agencies should document the rationale for award  decisions, including the reasons individual applicants were selected or not  and how award funding amounts were determined. While HUD’s internal  memorandums listed the applicants selected and the award amounts,  these memorandums did not document the rationale for these decisions  or provide information sufficient to help applicants understand award  outcomes. Lead Office staff told us that most grantees have received  the amount of funding they requested in their applications, which was  generally based on HUD’s maximum grant award amount. Lead Office  staff said they could use their professional judgment to adjust award  amounts to extend funding to more applicants when applicants received  similar scores.

However, the Lead Office’s documentation we reviewed did not explain  this type of decision making. For example, in 2017, when two applicants  received identical scores on their applications, HUD awarded each  applicant 50 percent of the remaining available funds rather than  awarding either applicant the amount they requested. Representatives of  one of the two grantees told us they did not know why the Lead Office  had not provided them the full amount they had requested. Lead Office  staff told us that, to date, HUD has not considered alternative ways to  award grant funding amounts. By fully documenting grant award  processes, including the rationale for award decisions and amounts, HUD  could provide greater transparency to grant applicants about its grant  award decisions.

Evaluating processes. HUD lacks a formal process for reviewing and  updating its lead grant funding notices, including the factors and point  allocations used to score applications. Federal internal control standards  state that agencies should implement control activities through policies  and that periodic review of policies and procedures can provide  assurance of their effectiveness in achieving the agency’s objectives.  Lead Office staff told us that previous changes to the factors and point  allocation used to score applicants have been made based on informal  discussions among staff. However, the Lead Office does not have a  formal process to review and evaluate the relevance and appropriateness  of the factors or points used to score applicants. Lead Office staff told us  that they have never analyzed the scores applicants received for the  factors to identify areas where applicants may be performing well or  poorly or to help inform decisions about whether changes may be needed  to the factors or points.

Additionally, HUD has not changed the threshold criteria used to make  award decisions since the threshold was established in 2003. As  previously shown in figure 2, applicants who received at least 75 points  (out of 100) have been qualified to receive a grant award. However, HUD  grant documentation, including the funding notices and the Application  Review Guide, does not explain the significance of this 75-point  threshold. Lead Office staff stated that this threshold was first established  in 2003 by HUD based on OMB guidance. A formal review of this 75-point  threshold can help HUD determine whether it remains appropriate for  achieving the grant programs’ objectives. Furthermore, by periodically  evaluating processes for reviewing and scoring grant applications, HUD  can better determine whether these processes continue to help ensure  that lead grants reach areas of the country at greater risk for lead paint  hazards.

HUD Has Begun to Develop Analyses to Help More Fully Identify Areas at Risk for Lead Paint Hazards but Has Not Set Time Frames for Using Local-Level Data

HUD has begun to develop analyses and tools to inform its efforts to  target outreach and ensure that grant awards go to areas of the country  that are at risk for lead paint hazards. However, HUD has not developed  time frames for incorporating the results of the analyses into its lead grant  programs’ processes. HUD has required jurisdictions applying for lead  grants to include data on the need or extent of the problem in their  jurisdiction (i.e., scoring factor 2). Additionally, Lead Office staff told us  that HUD uses information from the American Healthy Homes Survey to  obtain information on lead paint hazards across the country. However,  the staff explained that the survey was designed to provide meaningful  results at the regional level and did not include enough homes in its  sample to provide information about housing conditions, such as lead  paint hazards, at the state or local level. Because HUD awards lead  grants to state and local jurisdictions, it cannot effectively use the survey  results to help the agency make award decisions or inform decisions  about areas for potential outreach.

In early 2017, the Lead Office began working with PD&R to develop a  model to identify local jurisdictions (at the census-tract level) that may be  at heightened risk for lead paint hazards. Lead Office staff said that they  hope to use results of this model to develop geographic tools to help  target HUD funding to areas of the country at risk for lead paint hazards  but not currently receiving a HUD lead grant. Lead Office staff said that  they could reach out to these at-risk areas, help them build the capacity  needed to administer a grant, and encourage them to apply. For example,  HUD has identified that Mississippi and two major metropolitan areas in  Florida (Miami and Tampa) had not applied for a lead grant. HUD has  conducted outreach to these areas to encourage them to apply for a lead  grant. In 2016, the City of Jackson, Mississippi, applied for and received a  lead grant.

Though the Lead Office has collaborated with PD&R on the model, HUD  has not developed specific time frames to operationalize the model and  incorporate the results of the model for using local-level data to help  better identify areas at risk for lead paint hazards. Federal internal control  standards require agencies to define objectives clearly to enable the  identification of risks. This includes clearly defining time frames for  achieving the objectives. Setting specific time frames could help to ensure  that HUD operationalizes this model in a timely manner. By  operationalizing a model that incorporates local data on lead paint hazard  risk, HUD can better target its limited grant resources towards areas of  the country with significant potential for lead hazard control needs.

We performed a county-level analysis using HUD and Census Bureau  data and found that most lead grants from 2013 through 2017 have gone  to counties with at least one indicator of lead paint hazard risk.  Information we reviewed, such as relevant literature, suggests that the  two common indicators of lead paint hazard risk are the prevalence of  housing built before the 1978 lead paint ban and the prevalence of  individuals living below the poverty line. We defined areas with lead  paint hazard risk as counties that had percentages higher than the  corresponding national percentages for both of these indicators. The  estimated average percentage nationwide of total U.S. housing stock  constructed before 1980 was 56.9 percent and the estimated average  percentage nationwide of individuals living below the poverty line was  17.5 percent. As shown in figure 3, our analysis estimated that 18  percent of lead grants from 2013 through 2017 have gone to counties  with both indicators above the estimated national percentages, 59 percent  of grants have gone to counties with estimated percentages of old  housing above the estimated national percentage, and 7 percent of grants  have gone to counties that had estimated poverty rates above the  estimated national percentage. (For an interactive version of this map,  click here.) When HUD finalizes its model and incorporates information  into its lead grant processes, HUD will be able to better target its grant  resources to areas that may be at heightened risk for lead paint hazards.

HUD Could Take Additional Steps to Monitor Compliance with Lead Paint Regulations

HUD Has Taken Steps to Strengthen Compliance Monitoring for Lead Paint Regulations

In 2016, HUD began to incorporate new steps to monitor PHAs’  compliance with lead paint regulations for nearly 4,000 PHAs.  Previously, according to PIH staff, HUD required only that PHAs annually  self-certify their compliance with lead paint laws and regulations, and  HUD’s Real Estate Assessment Center inspectors check for lead paint  inspection reports and disclosure forms at public housing properties  during physical inspections. Starting in June 2016, PIH began using  new tools for HUD field staff to track PHAs’ compliance with lead paint  requirements in the voucher and public housing programs.

As shown in figure 4, PIH’s compliance oversight processes for the  voucher and public housing programs include various monitoring tools for  overseeing PHAs. Key components of PIH’s lead paint oversight  processes include the following:

Tools for tracking lead hazards and cases of elevated blood  levels in children. HUD uses two databases to monitor PHAs’  compliance with lead paint regulations: (1) the Lead-Based Paint  Response Tracker, which PIH uses to collect and monitor information  on the status of lead paint-related documents, including lead  inspection reports and disclosure forms, in public housing properties  but not in units with voucher assisted households; and (2) the  Elevated Blood Lead Level Tracker, which PIH uses to collect and  monitor information reported by PHAs on cases of elevated blood  levels in children living in voucher and public housing units. In June  2016, OFO began using the Lead-Based Paint Response Tracker  database to store information on public housing units and to help HUD  field office staff to follow up with PHAs that have properties missing  required lead documentation. In July 2017, OFO began using  information recorded in the Elevated Blood Lead Level Tracker to  track whether PHAs started lead remediation activities in HUD- assisted housing within the time frames required by the Lead Safe  Housing Rule.

Lead paint hazards included in PHAs’ risk assessment scores.

OFO assigns scores to PHAs based on their relative risk in four  categories: physical condition, financial condition, management  capacity, and governance. OFO uses these scores to identify high-  and very high-risk PHAs that will receive on-site full compliance  reviews. In July 2017, OFO incorporated data from the Real Estate  Assessment Center into the physical condition category of its Risk  Assessment Protocol to help account for potential lead paint hazards  at public housing properties.

Questions about lead paint included as part of on-site full  compliance reviews. In fiscal year 2016, HUD field offices began  conducting on-site full compliance reviews at high- and very high-risk  PHAs as part of HUD’s compliance monitoring program to enhance  oversight and accountability of PHAs. In fiscal year 2017, as part of  the reviews, HUD field office staff started using a compliance  monitoring checklist to determine if PHAs comply with major HUD  rules and to gather additional information on the PHAs. This checklist  included lead-related questions that PIH field office staff use to  determine whether PHAs meet the requirements in lead paint  regulations for both the voucher and public housing programs.

In 2016, OFO and HUD field offices began using information from the  new monitoring efforts to identify potential noncompliance by PHAs with  lead paint regulations and help the PHAs resolve the identified issues.  According to HUD data, as of November 2017, the Lead-Based Paint  Response Tracker indicated that 9 percent (357) of PHAs were missing  both lead inspection reports and lead disclosure forms for one or more  properties. There were 973 PHAs missing one of the two required  documents. OFO staff told us that they prioritized following up with PHAs  that were missing both documents. According to OFO staff, PHAs can  resolve potential noncompliance by submitting adequate lead  documentation to HUD. OFO staff told us the agency considers missing  lead documentation as “potential” noncompliance because PHAs may  provide the required documentation or they may be exempt from certain  requirements (e.g., HUD-designated elderly housing).

HUD Does Not Have a Plan to Mitigate Risks Associated with Its Compliance Monitoring Approach

While HUD has taken steps to strengthen compliance monitoring  processes, it does not have a plan to identify and address the risks of  noncompliance by PHAs with lead paint regulations. Federal internal  control standards state that agencies should identify, analyze, and  respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives.  Furthermore, when an agency has made significant changes to its  processes—as HUD has done with its compliance monitoring  processes—management review of changes to these processes can help  the agency determine that its control activities are designed appropriately.

Our review found that HUD does not have a plan to help mitigate and  address risks related to noncompliance with lead paint regulations by  PHAs (i.e., ensuring lead safety in assisted housing). Additionally, our  review found several limitations with HUD’s new compliance monitoring  approach, which include the following:

Reliance on PHA self-certifications. HUD’s compliance monitoring  processes rely in part on PHAs self-certifying that they are in  compliance with lead paint regulations, but recent investigations have  found that some PHAs may have falsely certified that they were in  compliance. In November 2017, HUD filed a fraud complaint against  two former officials of the Alexander County (Illinois) Housing  Authority, alleging that the former official, among other things, falsely  certified to HUD that the Housing Authority was in compliance with  lead paint regulations. Further, PIH staff told us there are ongoing  investigations related to potential noncompliance with lead paint  regulations and false certifications at two other housing authorities.

Lack of comprehensive data for the public housing program.

OFO started to collect data for the public housing program in the  Lead-Based Paint Response Tracker in June 2016 and the inventory  of all public housing properties includes units inspected since 2012. In  addition, HUD primarily relies on the presence of lead inspection  reports but does not record in the database when inspections and  remediation activities occurred and does not determine whether they  are still effective. Because of this, the information contained in the  lead inspection reports may no longer be up-to-date. For example, a  lead inspection report from the 1990s may provide evidence that  abatement work was conducted at that time, but according to PIH  staff, the housing may no longer be lead-safe.

Lack of readily available data for the voucher program. The  voucher program does not have readily available data on housing  units’ physical condition and compliance with lead paint regulations  because data on the roughly 2.5 million units in the program are kept  at the PHA level. According to PIH staff, HUD plans to adopt a new  system for the voucher program that will include standardized,  electronic data for voucher units. PIH staff said the new system  (Uniform Physical Condition Standards for Vouchers Protocol) will  allow greater oversight and provide HUD the ability to conduct data  analysis for voucher units.

Challenges identifying children with elevated blood lead levels.

For several reasons, PHAs face ongoing challenges receiving  information from state and local public health departments on the  number of children identified with elevated blood lead levels. First,  children across the U.S. are not consistently screened and tested for  exposure to lead. Second, according to CDC data, many states use  a less stringent health guideline to identify children compared to the  health standard that HUD uses (i.e., CDC’s current blood lead  reference value). PIH staff told us that some public health  departments may not report children with elevated blood levels to  PHAs because they do not know that a child is living in a HUD- assisted unit and needs to be identified using the more stringent HUD  standard. Lastly, Lead Office staff told us that privacy laws in some  states may impose restrictions on public health departments’ ability to  share information with PHAs.

Limited coverage of on-site compliance reviews. While full on-site  compliance reviews can be used to determine if PHAs are in  compliance with lead paint regulations, OFO conducts a limited  number of these reviews annually. For example, in Fiscal Year 2017,  OFO conducted 72 reviews of the roughly 4,000 total PHAs. Based on  OFO information, there are 973 PHAs that are missing either lead  inspection reports or lead disclosure forms indicating some level of  potential noncompliance.

HUD’s steps since June 2016 to enhance monitoring of PHAs’  compliance with lead paint regulations have some limitations that create  risks in its new compliance monitoring approach. By developing a plan to  help mitigate and address the various limitations associated with the new  compliance monitoring approach, HUD could further strengthen its  oversight and help ensure that PHAs maintain lead-safe housing units.

HUD Lacks Detailed Procedures to Address Noncompliance and Make Enforcement Decisions

HUD does not have detailed procedures to address PHA noncompliance  with lead paint regulations or to determine when enforcement decisions  may be needed. Lead Office staff told us that their enforcement program  aims to ensure that PHAs have the information necessary to remain in  compliance with lead paint regulations. According to federal internal  control standards, agencies should implement control activities through  policies and procedures. Effective design of procedures to address  noncompliance would include documenting specific actions to be  performed by agency staff when deficiencies are identified and related  time frames for these actions.

While HUD staff stated that they address PHA noncompliance through  ongoing communication and technical assistance to PHAs, HUD has not  documented specific actions to be performed by staff when deficiencies  are identified. OFO staff told us that in general, PIH has not needed to  take many enforcement actions because field offices are able to resolve  most lead paint regulation compliance concerns with PHAs through  ongoing communication and technical assistance. For example, HUD  field offices sent letters to PHAs when Real Estate Assessment Center  inspectors could not locate required lead inspection reports and lead  disclosure forms, and requested that the PHA send the missing  documentation within 30 days. However, OFO’s fiscal years 2015–2017  internal memorandums on monitoring and oversight guidance for HUD  field offices did not contain detailed procedures, including time frames or  criteria HUD staff would use to determine when to consider whether a  more formal enforcement action might be warranted.

Additionally, Lead Office staff said if efforts to bring a PHA into  compliance are unsuccessful, the Lead Office would work in conjunction  with PIH and HUD’s Office of General Counsel’s Departmental  Enforcement Center to determine if an enforcement action is needed,  such as withholding or delaying funds from a PHA or imposing civil  money penalties on a PHA. Lead Office staff also told us that instead of  imposing a fine on a PHA, HUD would rather work with the PHA to  resolve the lead paint hazard. However, the Lead Office provided no  documentation detailing the specific steps or time frames HUD staff would  follow to determine when a noncompliance case is escalated to the Office  of General Counsel. In a March 2018 report to Congress, HUD noted that  children continued to test positive for lead in HUD-assisted housing in  2017. In the same report, HUD notes PIH and the Lead Office will  continue to work with PHAs to ensure compliance with lead paint  regulations. By adopting procedures that clearly describe when lead paint  hazard compliance efforts are no longer sufficient and enforcement  decisions are needed, HUD can better keep PHAs accountable in a  consistent and timely manner.

HUD’s Blood Lead Level Standard Aligns with CDC Guidelines and Lead Inspection Standards Are Less Stringent in the Voucher Program HUD’s Blood Lead Level Standard Aligns with the Current CDC Health Guideline

The standard HUD uses to identify children with elevated blood lead  levels and initiate lead hazard control activities in its rental assistance  aligns with the health guideline set by CDC in 2012. HUD also uses  CDC’s health guideline in its lead grant programs. In HUD’s January  2017 amendment to the Lead Safe Housing Rule, HUD made its standard  for lead in a child’s blood more stringent by lowering it from 20  micrograms to 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, matching  CDC’s health guideline (i.e., blood lead reference value). Specifically,  HUD’s stronger standard allows the agency to respond more quickly  when children under 6 years old are exposed to lead paint hazards in  voucher and public housing units. The January 2017 rule also  established more comprehensive testing for children and evaluation procedures for HUD assisted housing. According to HUD’s press release  that accompanied the rule, by aligning HUD’s standard with CDC’s  guidance, HUD can respond more quickly in cases when a child who lives  in HUD assisted housing shows early signs of lead in their blood. The  2017 rule notes HUD will revise the agency’s elevated blood lead level to  align with future changes HHS may make to its recommended  environmental intervention level.

HUD’s Lead Dust Standards Align with EPA’s for Rental Assistance Programs and Exceed Them for Lead Grant Programs

HUD’s standards for lead dust levels align with EPA standards for its  rental assistance programs and exceed EPA standards for the lead grant  programs. In 2001, EPA published a final rule on lead paint hazard  standards, including lead dust clearance standards. The rule  established standards to help property owners, contractors, and  government agencies identify lead hazards in residential paint, dust, and  soil and address these hazards in and around homes. Under these  standards, lead is considered a hazard when equal to or exceeding 40  micrograms of lead in dust per square foot sampled on floors and 250  micrograms of lead in dust per square foot sampled on interior window  sills. In 2004, HUD amended the Lead Safe Housing Rule to incorporate  the 2001 EPA lead dust standards as HUD’s standards. Since this time,  HUD has used EPA’s 2001 lead hazard standards in its rental assistance  programs.

In February 2017, HUD released policy guidance for its lead grantees  requiring them to meet new and more protective requirements for  identifying and addressing lead paint hazards in the lead grant programs  than those imposed by EPA’s 2001 standards that HUD uses in the rental  assistance programs. For example, the policy guidance requires grantees to consider lead dust a hazard on floors at 10 micrograms per  square foot sampled (down from 40) and on window sills at 100  micrograms per square foot sampled (down from 250). The policy  guidance noted that the new requirements are supported by scientific  evidence on the adverse effects of lead exposure at low blood lead levels  in children. Further, the policy guidance established a standard for porch  floors––an area that EPA has not covered––because porch floors can be  both a direct exposure source for children and a source of lead dust that  can be tracked into the home.

On December 27, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth  Circuit ordered EPA to issue a proposed rule updating its lead dust  hazard standard and the definition of lead-based paint within 90 days of  the decision becoming final and a final rule within 1 year of the proposed  rule. Because HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule generally defines lead  paint hazards and lead dust hazards to mean the levels promulgated by  EPA, if EPA changes its 2001 standards those new standards would be  used in HUD’s rental assistance programs. On March 16, 2018, EPA filed  a request to the court asking for clarification for when EPA is required to  issue the proposed rule and followed up with a motion seeking  clarification or an extension. In response to EPA’s motion, on March 26,  2018, the court issued an order clarifying time frames and ordered that  the proposed rule be issued within 90 days from March 26, 2018.

HUD Uses a Less Stringent Lead Inspection Standard for the Voucher Program

HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule requires a stricter lead inspection  standard for public housing than for voucher units. According to HUD  staff, HUD does not have the authority to require the more stringent  inspection in the voucher program. While HUD has acknowledged that  moving to a stricter inspection standard for voucher units would provide  greater assurance that these units are lead-safe and expressed its plan to  support legislative change to authorize it to impose a more stringent  inspection standard, HUD has not requested authority from Congress to  amend its inspection standard for the voucher program.

For voucher units, HUD requires PHAs to ensure that trained inspectors  conduct visual assessments to identify deteriorated paint for housing units  inhabited by a child under 6 years old. In a visual assessment, an  inspector looks for deteriorated paint and visible surface dust but does not  conduct any testing of paint chips or dust samples from surfaces to  determine the presence of lead in the home’s paint. By contrast, for  public housing units, HUD requires a stronger inspection process. Lead- based paint inspections are required for pre-1978 public housing units. If that  inspection identifies lead-based paint, PHAs must then perform a risk  assessment. In a risk assessment, in addition to conducting a visual  inspection, an inspector tests for the presence of lead paint by collecting  and testing samples of paint chips and surface dust, and typically using a  specialized device (an X-ray fluorescence analyzer) to measure the  amount of lead in the paint on a surface, such as a wall, door, or window  sill.

Staff from HUD’s Lead Office and the Office of General Counsel told us  that Title X did not include specific risk assessment requirements for  voucher units, and HUD does not believe, therefore, that it has the  statutory authority to require an assessment more thorough than a visual  assessment of voucher units. As of May 2018, HUD had not requested  statutory authority to change the visual assessment standard used in the  voucher program. However, HUD previously acknowledged the limitation  of the weaker inspection standard in a June 2016 publication titled Lead- Safe Homes, Lead-Free Kids Toolkit. In this publication, HUD noted its  plans to support legislative change to strengthen lead safety in voucher  units by eliminating reliance on visual-only inspections. Staff from HUD’s  Lead Office and Office of General Counsel told us the agency recognizes  that risk assessments are more comprehensive than visual assessments.  The staff noted that, by definition, a risk assessment is a stronger  inspection standard than a visual-only assessment because it includes  additional identification and testing.

In responding to a draft of this report, HUD cited the need to conduct and  evaluate the results of a statistically rigorous study on the impacts of  requiring a lead risk assessment versus a visual assessment, such as the  impact on leasing times and the availability of housing for low-income  families. HUD further noted that such a study could explore whether  alternative options to the full risk assessment standard (such as targeted  dust sampling) could achieve similar levels of protection for children in the  voucher program. Requesting and obtaining authority to amend the  standard for the voucher program would not preclude HUD from doing  such a study. Such analysis might support a range of options based on  consideration of health effects for children, housing availability, and other  relevant factors.

Because HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule contains a weaker lead  inspection standard for the voucher program children living in voucher  units may be less protected from lead paint hazards than children living in  public housing. By requesting and obtaining statutory authority to amend  the voucher program inspection standard, HUD would be positioned to  take steps to ensure that children in the voucher program are provided  better protection as indicated by analysis of the benefits and costs from  amending the standard.

HUD Could Better Measure and Report on Performance of Lead Efforts

HUD has taken limited steps to measure, evaluate, and report on the  performance of its programmatic efforts to ensure that housing is lead- safe. First, HUD has tracked one performance measure for its lead grant  programs but lacks comprehensive performance goals and measures.  Second, while HUD has evaluated the effectiveness of its Lead-Based  Paint Hazard Control grant program, it has not formalized plans and does  not have a time frame for evaluating its lead paint regulations. Third, HUD  has not issued an annual report on the results of its lead efforts since  1997.

A key aspect to promoting improved federal management and greater  efficiency and effectiveness is that agencies set goals and report on  performance. We have previously reported that a program performance  assessment contains three key elements––program goals, performance  measures, and program evaluations (see fig. 5). In our prior work, we  have noted that both the executive branch and congressional committees  need evaluative information to help them make decisions about the  programs they oversee––information that tells them whether, and why, a  program is working well or not.

Program goals and performance measures. HUD has tracked one  performance measure for making private housing units lead-safe as part  of its lead grant programs but lacks goals and performance measures that  more fully cover the range of its lead efforts. In addition to our prior work  on program goals and performance measures, federal internal control  standards state that management should define objectives clearly and  that defining objectives in measurable terms allows agency management  to assess performance toward achieving objectives. According to Lead  Office staff, HUD provides information on its goals and performance  measures related to its lead efforts in the agency’s annual performance  reports. For example, the fiscal year 2016 report contains information  about the number of private housing units made lead-safe as part of  HUD’s lead grant programs but does not include any performance  measures on HUD’s lead efforts for the voucher and public housing  programs. Lead Office staff told us HUD does not have systems to  count the number of housing units made lead-safe in these two housing  programs. The staff said the Lead Office and PIH recently began  discussing whether data from an existing HUD database could be used to  count units made lead-safe within these programs. However, they could  not provide additional details on the status of all these efforts. Without  comprehensive goals and performance measures, HUD does not know  the results it is achieving with all its lead paint hazard reduction efforts.  Moreover, HUD may be missing opportunities to use performance  information to improve the results of its lead efforts.

Program evaluations. HUD has evaluated the effectiveness of its Lead- Based Paint Hazard Control grant program but has not taken similar  steps to evaluate the Lead Safe Housing Rule or Lead Disclosure Rule.  As previously stated, our prior work on program performance assessment  has noted the importance of program evaluations to know how well a  program is working relative to its objectives. Additionally, Title X required  HUD to conduct research to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of  interim lead hazard control and abatement strategies. For its Lead-Based  Paint Hazard Control Grant program, HUD has contracted with outside  experts to conduct evaluations. For example, the National Center for  Healthy Housing and the University of Cincinnati’s Department of  Environmental Health evaluated whether the lead hazard control methods  used by grantees continued to be effective 1, 3, 6, and 12 years later.

The evaluations concluded that the lead hazard control activities used by  grantees substantially reduced lead dust levels and the original evaluation  and those completed 1 and 3 years later were also associated with  substantial declines in the blood lead levels of children living in the  housing remediated using lead grant program funds.

HUD has general plans to conduct evaluations of the Lead Safe Housing  Rule and the Lead Disclosure Rule, but Lead Office and PD&R staff said  they did not know when or if the studies will begin. In a 2016 publication,  HUD noted its plans to evaluate the Lead Safe Housing Rule  requirements and noted that such an evaluation would contribute toward  policy recommendations and program improvements. Additionally, in its  2017 Research Roadmap, PD&R outlined HUD’s plans for two studies to  evaluate the effectiveness of requirements within the Lead Safe Housing  and Lead Disclosure Rules. However, PD&R and Lead Office staff were  not able to provide a time frame for when the studies would begin. PD&R  staff told us that the plans noted within the Research Roadmap were  HUD’s first step in research planning and prioritization but that  appropriations for research have been prescriptive in recent years (i.e.,  tied to specific research topics) and fell short of the agency’s research  needs. By studying the effectiveness of requirements included within the  Lead Safe Housing and Lead Disclosure Rules, including the cost- effectiveness of the various lead hazard control methods, HUD could  have more complete information to assess how effectively it uses federal  dollars to make housing units lead-safe.

Reporting. HUD has not reported on its lead efforts as required since  1997. Title X includes annual and biennial reporting requirements for  HUD. Staff from HUD’s Lead Office and General Counsel told us that in  1998 the agency agreed with the congressional committees of jurisdiction  that HUD could satisfy this reporting requirement by including the  required information in its annual performance reports. Lead Office staff  told us HUD’s recent annual performance reports do not contain specific  information required by law and that HUD has not issued other publicly  available reports that contain the Title X reporting requirements. Title X  requires HUD to annually provide Congress information on its progress in  implementing the lead grant programs; a summary of studies looking at  the incidence of lead poisoning in children living in HUD-assisted housing;  the results of any required lead technical studies; and estimates of federal  funds spent on lead hazard evaluation and reduction in HUD-assisted  housing. As previously stated, the annual performance reports have  provided information on the number of housing units made lead-safe  through the agency’s lead grant programs, but not through the voucher or  public housing programs. In March 2018, Lead Office staff told us HUD  plans to submit separate reports on the agency’s lead effort, covering the  Title X reporting requirements, starting in fiscal year 2019. By HUD  complying with Title X statutory reporting requirements, Congress and the  public will be in a position to better know the progress HUD is making  toward ensuring that housing is lead-safe.

Lead exposure can cause serious, irreversible cognitive damage that can  impair a child for life. Through its lead grant programs and oversight of  lead paint regulations, HUD is helping to address lead paint hazards in  housing. However, our review identified specific areas where HUD could  improve the effectiveness of its efforts to identify and address lead paint  hazards and protect children in low-income housing from lifelong health  problems:

Documenting and evaluating grant processes. HUD could improve  documentation for its lead grant programs’ processes by providing  more specific direction to staff and documenting grant award  rationale. In doing so, HUD could better ensure that grant program  staff score grant applications consistently and appropriately and  provide greater transparency about its award decisions. Additionally,  periodically evaluating its grant processes and procedures could help  HUD better ensure that its lead grants reach areas most at risk for  lead paint hazards.

Identifying areas at risk for lead hazards. By developing specific  time frames to finalize and incorporate the results of its model to more  fully identify areas at risk for lead paint hazards, HUD can better  identify and conduct outreach to at-risk localities that its lead grant  programs have not yet reached.

Overseeing compliance with lead paint regulations. False self- certifications of compliance by some PHAs and other limitations in  HUD’s compliance monitoring approach make it essential for HUD to  develop a plan to mitigate and address limitations, as well as establish  procedures to determine when enforcement decisions are needed.  These actions could further strengthen HUD’s oversight and keep  PHAs accountable for ensuring that housing units are lead-safe.

Amending inspection standard in the voucher program. Children  living in voucher units may receive less protection from lead paint  hazards than children living in public housing units because HUD  applies different lead inspection standards to the two programs. HUD  could ensure that children in the voucher program are provided better  protection from lead by requesting and obtaining statutory authority to  amend the voucher program inspection standard as indicated by  analysis of the benefits and costs of amending the standard.

Assessing and reporting on performance. Fully incorporating key  elements of performance assessment—by developing comprehensive  goals, improving performance measures, and adhering to reporting  requirements—could better enable HUD to assess its own progress  and target its resources toward lead efforts that maximize impact.  Additionally, HUD may be missing opportunities to inform the  Congress and the public about how HUD’s lead efforts have helped  reduce lead poisoning in children.

We are making the following nine recommendations to HUD:

The Director of HUD’s Lead Office should ensure that the office more  fully documents its processes for scoring and awarding lead grants  and its rationale for award decisions. (Recommendation 1)

The Director of HUD’s Lead Office should ensure that the office  periodically evaluates its processes for scoring and awarding lead  grants. (Recommendation 2)

The Director of HUD’s Lead Office, in collaboration with PD&R, should  set time frames for incorporating relevant data on lead paint hazard  risks into the lead grant programs’ processes. (Recommendation 3)

The Director of HUD’s Lead Office and the Assistant Secretary for PIH  should collaborate to establish a plan to mitigate and address risks  within HUD’s lead paint compliance monitoring processes.  (Recommendation 4)

The Director of HUD’s Lead Office and the Assistant Secretary for PIH  should collaborate to develop and document procedures to ensure  that HUD staff take consistent and timely steps to address issues of  PHA noncompliance with lead paint regulations. (Recommendation 5)

The Secretary of HUD should request authority from Congress to  amend the inspection standard to identify lead paint hazards in the  Housing Choice Voucher program as indicated by analysis of health  effects for children, the impact on landlord participation in the  program, and other relevant factors. (Recommendation 6)

The Director of the Lead Office should develop performance goals  and measures to cover the full range of HUD’s lead efforts, including  its efforts to ensure that housing units in its rental assistance  programs are lead-safe. (Recommendation 7)

The Director of the Lead Office, in conjunction with PD&R, should  finalize plans and develop a time frame for evaluating the  effectiveness of the Lead Safe Housing and Lead Disclosure Rules,  including an evaluation of the long-term cost effectiveness of the lead  remediation methods required by the Lead Safe Housing Rule.  (Recommendation 8)

The Director of the Lead Office should complete statutory reporting  requirements, including but not limited to its efforts to make housing  lead-safe through its lead grant programs and rental-assistance  programs, and make the report publicly available. (Recommendation  9)

We provided a draft of this report to HUD for review and comment. We  also provided the relevant excerpts of the draft report to CDC and EPA for  their review and technical comments. In written comments, reproduced in  appendix III, HUD disagreed with one of our recommendations and  generally agreed with the remaining eight. HUD and CDC also provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. EPA did not  have any comments on the relevant excerpts of the draft report provided  to them.

In its general comments, HUD noted that the lead grant programs and  HUD’s compliance assistance and enforcement of lead paint regulations  have contributed significantly to, among other things, the low prevalence  of lead-based paint hazards in HUD-assisted housing. Further, HUD said  the lead grant programs and compliance assistance and enforcement of  lead paint regulations have played a critical part in developing and  maintaining the national lead-based paint safety infrastructure. HUD  asked that this contextual information be included in the background of  the report. The draft report included detailed information on the purpose  and scope of HUD’s lead grant programs, two key regulations related to  lead paint hazards, and efforts to make housing lead-safe. Furthermore,  the draft report provided context on other federal agencies’ role in  establishing relevant standards and guidelines for lead paint hazards. We  made no changes in response to this comment because we did not think  it was necessary for background purposes.

HUD disagreed with the draft report’s sixth recommendation to request  authority from Congress to use the risk assessment inspection standard  to identify lead paint hazards in the Housing Choice Voucher program. As  discussed in the report, HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule requires a more  stringent lead inspection standard (risk assessments) for public housing  than for Housing Choice Voucher units, for which a weaker inspection  standard is used (visual assessments). In its written comments, HUD said  that before deciding whether to request the statutory authority to  implement risk assessments for voucher units, it would need to conduct  and evaluate the results of a statistically rigorous study on the impacts of  requiring a lead risk assessment versus a visual assessment, such as the  impact on leasing times and the availability of housing for low-income  families. HUD further noted that such a study could explore whether  alternative options to the full risk assessment standard (such as targeted  dust sampling) could achieve similar levels of protection for children in the  voucher program. We note that requesting and obtaining authority to  amend the standard for the Housing Choice Voucher program would not  preclude HUD from doing such a study. We acknowledge that the results  of such a study might support a range of options. Therefore, we revised  our recommendation to provide HUD with greater flexibility in how it might  amend the lead inspection standard for the voucher program based on  consideration of not only leasing time and availability of housing, as HUD  emphasized in its written comments, but also based on the health effects  on children. The need for HUD to review the lead inspection standard for  the voucher program is underscored by the greater number of households  with children served by the voucher program compared to public housing,  as well as recent information indicating that more children with elevated  blood lead levels are living in voucher units than in public housing.

HUD generally agreed with our remaining eight recommendations and  provided specific information about planned steps and other  considerations related to implementing them. For example, in response to  our first three recommendations on the lead grant programs, HUD  outlined specific steps it plans to take, such as updating its guidance for  scoring grant applications and reviewing its grant application scoring  methods to identify potential improvements. In response to our fourth and  fifth recommendations to the Director of HUD’s Lead Office on  compliance monitoring and enforcement of lead paint regulations, HUD  noted that PIH should be the primary office for these recommendations  with the Lead Office providing support. While these recommendations  had already recognized the need for the Lead Office to collaborate with  PIH, we reworded them to clarify that it is not necessary for the Lead  Office to have primary responsibility for their implementation.

HUD generally agreed with our seventh and eighth recommendations, but  noted some considerations for implementing them. For our seventh  recommendation about performance goals and measures, HUD noted  that it will re-examine the availability of information from the current  housing databases to determine whether data on housing unit production  can be added to the existing data collected. HUD noted if that information  is not sufficient, it would need to obtain Office of Management and Budget  approval and have sufficient funds for such an information technology  project. For our eighth recommendation about evaluating the Lead Safe  Housing and Lead Disclosure Rules, HUD noted if its own resources are  insufficient, the time frame for implementing this recommendation may  depend on the availability of funding for contracted resources. Finally, in  response to our ninth recommendation, HUD said that it will draft and  submit annual and biennial reports to the congressional authorizing and  appropriations committees and then post the reports on the Lead Office’s  public website.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban  Development, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,  and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and other interested  parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-8678 or garciadiazd@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Nonfederal Funding Sources Used by Selected Grantees of HUD Lead Hazard Control Grants

Under the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD)  Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control and the Lead Hazard Reduction  Demonstration grant programs, HUD competitively awards grants to state  and local jurisdictions, as authorized by the Residential Lead-Based Paint  Hazard Reduction Act (Title X of the Housing and Community  Development Act of 1992). Title X requires each grant recipient to make  matching contributions with state, local, and private funds (i.e.,  nonfederal) toward the total cost of activities. For the Lead-Based Paint  Hazard Control grant and the Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration  grant programs, the matching contribution has been set at no less than 10  percent and 25 percent, respectively, of the total grant amount. For  example, if the total grant amount is $3 million, then state or local  jurisdictions must provide at least $300,000 and $750,000, respectively,  for each grant program, in additional funding toward the cost of activities.  HUD requires lead grant applicants to include information on the sources  and amounts of grantees’ matching contributions as part of their grant  applications. Additionally, Title X requires HUD to award grants in part  based on an applicant’s ability to leverage state, local, and private funds  to supplement the federal grant funds.

To identify the nonfederal funding sources grantees used in the lead  hazard control grants, we selected and reviewed the lead grant  applications of 20 HUD grantees and interviewed representatives from 10 of these. We selected these grantees based on their geographic  locations; the number of HUD lead grants they had previously received;  experience with HUD’s lead hazard control grants; and whether they have  received both grants from 2013 through 2017. Grantees we selected  included entities at the state, municipality, and county levels. Information  from our grant application reviews and interviews of grantees cannot be  generalized to all HUD grantees.

Based on our review of the selected grant applications and interviews of  selected grantees, we found that grantees planned to use the following  types of nonfederal funding sources as their matching contributions to  support their lead grants activities:

State and local funds. Eighteen of the 20 grantees we selected  noted that they planned to use state or local funding sources to  supplement HUD’s grant funds. The state and local funding sources  included state or local general funds and local property taxes or fees.  For example, grantees in Connecticut, Baltimore, and Philadelphia  used state or local general funds to cover personnel and operating  costs. Additionally, grantees in Alameda County (California),  Hennepin County (Minnesota), Malden, St. Louis, and Winnebago  County (Illinois) planned to use local taxes, including property taxes or  fees, such as real estate recording and building permit fees, to cover  some costs associated with their lead hazard control grants activities.

Community Development Block Grant funds. Ten of the 20  grantees we selected indicated that they planned to use Community  Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funds to cover part of the  costs of their lead hazard control grants. CDBG program funds can  be used by states and local communities for housing; economic  development; neighborhood revitalization; and other community  development activities. For example, grantees in Baltimore and  Memphis noted in their grant applications that they planned to use the  funds to cover costs related to personnel, operations, and training.

Nongovernmental contributions or discounts. Eight of 20 grantees  we selected stated that they anticipated some forms of  nongovernmental contributions from nonprofit organizations or  discounts from contractors to supplement the lead grants. For  example, all eight grantees stated that they expected to receive  matching contributions from nonprofit organizations.

Table 2 summarizes the nonfederal funds by source that the 20 selected  grantees planned to use, based on our review of these grantees’  applications.

Furthermore, almost all of the selected grantees stated in their grant  applications or told us that they expected to receive or have received  other nonfederal funds in excess of their matching contributions. For  example, 15 grantees stated that they generally required or encouraged  property owners or landlords to contribute toward the lead hazard  remediation costs. Also, grantees in Baltimore, District of Columbia,  Lewiston, and Providence indicated that they expected to receive  monetary or in-kind donations from organizations to help carry out lead  hazard remediation, blood lead-level testing, or training. Additionally, the  grantee in Alameda County (California) told us that they have received  nonfederal funds from a litigation settlement with a private paint  manufacturer.

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines the Department of Housing and Urban  Development’s (HUD) efforts to (1) incorporate statutory requirements  and other relevant federal standards in its lead grant programs; (2)  monitor and enforce compliance with lead paint regulations for its rental  assistance programs; (3) adopt federal health guidelines and  environmental standards for lead hazards in its lead grant and rental  assistance programs; and (4) measure and report on its performance  related to making housing lead-safe.

In this report, we examine lead paint hazards in housing, and we focus on  HUD’s lead hazard control grant programs and its two largest rental  assistance programs that serve the most families with children: the  Housing Choice Voucher (voucher) and public housing programs.

To address all four objectives, we reviewed relevant laws, such as the  Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (Title X of the  Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, referred to as Title X  throughout this appendix) and relevant HUD regulations, such as the  Lead Safe Housing Rule and a January 2017 amendment to this rule. To  examine trends in funding for HUD’s lead grant programs for the past 10  years, we also reviewed HUD’s budget information for fiscal years 2008  through 2017. We interviewed HUD staff from the Office of Lead Hazard  Control and Healthy Homes (Lead Office), Office of Public and Indian  Housing (PIH), Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R), and  other relevant HUD program and field offices. Finally, we reviewed our  prior work and those of HUD’s Office of Inspector General.

To address the first objective, we reviewed HUD’s Notices of Funding  Availability (funding notices), policies, and procedures to identify HUD’s  grant award processes for the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant  and Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration grant programs. For example,  we reviewed HUD’s annual notices of funding availability from 2013  through 2017 to identify HUD’s scoring factors for evaluating grant  applications. We compared HUD’s grant award processes in 2017 with  Title X statutory requirements, the Office of Management and Budget  (OMB) requirements for awarding federal grants, and relevant federal  internal control standards. We also interviewed HUD staff about the  agency’s grant application review and award processes.

To determine the extent to which HUD’s grants have gone to counties in  the United States potentially at high risk for lead paint hazards, we  compared grantee locations from HUD’s lead grant data for grants  awarded from 2013 through 2017 with county-level data on two indicators  of lead paint hazard risk from the 2011–2015 American Community  Survey—a continuous survey of households conducted by the U.S.  Census Bureau. We analyzed HUD’s grant data to determine the number  and dollar amount of grants received by each grantee, and the grantees’  addresses. We then conducted a geographic analysis to determine  whether each HUD lead grant went to a county that met at least one,  both, or neither of the two commonly known indicators of lead paint  hazard risk—the age of housing and poverty level. We identified these  two indicators through a review of relevant academic literature, agency  research, and state lead modelling methodologies.

We used data from the 2011–2015 American Community Survey because  the data covered a time frame that best aligned with the 5 years of lead  grant data (2013 through 2017). Using its county-level data, we calculated  an estimated average percentage nationwide of housing units built before  1980 (56.9 percent) and an estimated average percentage nationwide of  individuals living below the poverty level (17.5 percent). We used 1980 as  a benchmark for age of housing because the American Community  Survey data for age of housing is separated by the decade of construction  and 1980 was closest in time to the 1978 federal lead paint ban. We  categorized counties based on whether their levels of pre-1980 housing  and poverty were above one, both, or neither of the respective national  average percentage for each indicator. The estimated average  nationwide and county-level percentages of the two indicators (e.g., older  housing and poverty rate) are expressed as a range of values. For the  lower and upper ends of the range, we generated a 95 percent  confidence interval that was within plus or minus 20 percentage points.

We classified a county as above the estimated average percentages  nationwide if the county’s confidence interval was higher and did not  overlap with the nationwide estimate’s confidence interval. We omitted  the data for 12 counties that we determined were unreliable for our  purposes. We analyzed data starting in 2013 because that was the first  year for which these grant data were available electronically. We also  interviewed HUD staff to understand their efforts and plans to perform  similar analyses using indicators of lead paint hazard risk. To assess the  reliability of HUD’s grant data, we reviewed documentation of HUD’s  grant database, interviewed Lead Office staff on the processes HUD used  to collect and ensure the reliability of the data, and tested the data for  missing values, outliers, and obvious errors. To assess the reliability of  the American Community Survey data, we reviewed statistical information  from the Census Bureau and other publicly available documentation on  the survey and conducted electronic testing of the data. We determined  that the HUD grant data and American Community Survey county-level  data on age of housing and poverty were sufficiently reliable for  identifying areas at risk of lead paint hazards and determining the extent  to which lead grants from 2013 through 2017 have gone to at-risk areas.

Furthermore, to obtain information about how HUD works with grantees to  achieve program objectives, we conducted in-person site visits to five  grantees located in five localities (Alameda County, California; Atlanta,  Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; District of Columbia; and San Francisco,  California); and interviewed an additional five grantees on the telephone  (Hennepin County, Minnesota; Lewiston, Maine; Malden, Massachusetts;  Providence, Rhode Island; and Winnebago County, Illinois). In addition,  we reviewed the grant applications of the 10 grantees we spoke to and an  additional 10 grantees from 10 additional jurisdictions (State of  Connecticut; Cuyahoga County, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Monroe County,  New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Memphis, Tennessee; San  Antonio, Texas; St. Louis, Missouri; Tucson, Arizona; and State of  Vermont).

We selected the 10 grantees for site visits or interviews based on the  following criteria: geographic variation, number of years the grantees had  HUD’s lead grants, and grantees that have received both types of lead  grants from 2013 through 2017. We selected the 10 additional grantees’  applications for review based on geographic diversity and to achieve a  total of two applications for each year during our 5-year time frame, with  at least one application from each of the two HUD lead grant programs.  As part of our review of selected grant applications, we identified  nonfederal funding sources used by grantees, such as local tax revenues,  contractor discounts, and property owner contributions. Information from  the selected grantees and grant applications review cannot be  generalized to those grantees we did not include in our review.  Additionally, we interviewed representatives from housing organizations  to obtain additional examples of any nonfederal funding sources, such as  state or local bond measures, or low-interest loans to homeowners.

To address the second objective, we also reviewed HUD guidance and  internal memorandums related to its efforts to monitor and enforce  compliance with lead paint regulations for public housing agencies (PHA),  the entities that manage HUD’s voucher and public housing rental  assistance programs. In addition, we reviewed HUD’s documentation of  databases it uses to monitor compliance, including the Lead-Based Paint  Response Tracker and the Elevated Blood Lead Level Tracker, and  observed HUD staff’s demonstrations of these databases. HUD staff also  provided a demonstration of the Record and Process Inspection Data  database (known as “RAPID”) used by HUD’s Real Estate Assessment  Center to collect physical inspection data for public housing units. We  obtained and reviewed information from HUD about instances of potential  noncompliance with lead paint regulations by PHAs as of November 2017  and enforcement actions HUD has taken. We compared HUD’s regulatory  compliance monitoring and enforcement approach to federal internal  control standards. We interviewed staff from HUD’s Lead Office, Office  of General Counsel, Office of Field Operations, and field staff, including  four HUD regional directors in areas of the country known to have a high  prevalence of lead paint hazards, about internal procedures for  monitoring and enforcing compliance with lead paint regulations by the  PHAs within their respective regions.

To address the third objective on HUD’s adoption of federal health  guidelines and environmental standards for lead paint hazards in its lead  grant and rental assistance programs, we reviewed relevant rules and  HUD documentation. To identify relevant federal health guidelines and  environmental standards, we reviewed guidelines and regulations from  the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and interviewed staff from each  agency. To identify state and local laws with different requirements than  these federal guidelines and standards, we obtained information from and  interviewed staff from CDC’s Public Health Law Program and the National  Conference of State Legislatures. We compared HUD’s requirements to  CDC’s health guideline known as the “blood lead reference value” and  EPA’s standards for lead-based paint hazards and lead-dust clearance  standards. Finally, we reviewed information in HUD’s 2017 funding  notices and lead grant programs’ policy guidance about requirements for  grantees as they pertain to health guidelines and environmental  standards. We also interviewed HUD staff about how HUD has used the  findings from lead technical study grants to consider changes to HUD’s  requirements and processes regarding identifying and addressing lead  paint hazards for the grant programs.

To address the fourth objective, we reviewed HUD documentation related  to performance goals and measures, program evaluations, and reporting.  For example, we reviewed HUD’s recent annual performance reports to  identify goals and performance measures related to HUD’s efforts to  make housing lead-safe. Further, we reviewed Title X to identify  requirements related to evaluating and reporting on HUD’s lead efforts.  We reviewed program evaluations and related studies completed by  outside experts for the lead grant programs and interviewed staff from  one of the organizations that conducted the evaluations. In addition, we  interviewed Lead Office and PD&R staff about the agency’s plans to  evaluate the requirements in the Lead Safe Housing Rule and reviewed  corresponding agency documentation about these plans. Additionally,  we reviewed the Lead Office’s most recent strategic plan (2009) and  annual report (1997) on the agency’s lead efforts. We compared HUD’s  use of performance goals and measures, program evaluations, and  reporting against leading practices for assessing program performance  and federal internal control standards. Finally, we interviewed staff from  HUD to understand goals and performance measures used by the agency  to assess their lead efforts.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2017 to June 2018 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, John Fisher (Assistant Director),  Beth Faraguna (Analyst in Charge), Enyinnaya David Aja, Farah  Angersola, Carol Bray, William R. Chatlos, Anna Chung, Melinda  Cordero, Elizabeth Dretsch, Christopher Lee, Marc Molino, Rebecca  Parkhurst, Tovah Rom, Tyler Spunaugle, and Sonya Vartivarian made  key contributions to this report.