Residential Lead Abatement
Chapter IV

Chapter Four
State Organization, Resources, and Programs

The Department of Public Health has primary responsibility for lead prevention activities and oversight of enforcement actions conducted by local health department and code enforcement agencies.  The Department of Economic and Community Development, the lead agency for housing programs, offers consumer loan/grant programs that private property owners may use to abate lead hazards.  This chapter describes the role of these agencies in administering Connecticut's lead prevention and abatement laws.

Department of Public Health

The Department of Public Health is the lead agency for the state’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (CLPPP).  The organizational structure for the program is depicted in Figure IV-1.  As the figure shows, no single division is responsible for all lead prevention activities.  Rather, various aspects of the program are split among the department’s three bureaus.  As shown in the figure, the department performs five major activities:

·       education and outreach;
            ·       testing of blood lead levels and analysis of paint and dust samples through the state laboratory to determine if lead is present;
            ·       surveillance of the target population through the Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational Health Division (EEOH);
            ·       oversight of the local health department’s enforcement of the lead laws and regulations by the Lead Environmental Management Unit; and
            ·       licensing and certification of all lead contractors, and personnel. 

In addition, Figure IV-1 shows the relationship between DPH and the DECD in overseeing the administration of state and federal funds used to assist property owners in abating lead hazards from their properties.  The Department of Economic and Community Development has primary responsibility for this program and those activities are discussed later in this chapter.  Selected activities of DPH are described in more detail below.

Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational Health Division. This division, organized into three program units, is located under the Bureau of Community Health.  Two of the units, the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program and the Occupational Health and Special Projects (OHSP) are responsible for lead prevention activities.  The Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program:

·       maintains lead databases and reports quarterly to the CDC ;
·       conducts surveillance for childhood lead exposure;
·       performs primary (community outreach and education activities and professional education for providers) and secondary (oversight of screening, case management, and follow-up) prevention activities; and
·       oversees:
               - selected epidemiological investigations by local health departments;
               - treatment by regional lead treatment centers of lead-poisoned children in selected cases – those with blood lead levels greater than 35 mcg/dL; and
               - contracts with eight local health departments to operate lead programs and the state’s two Regional Lead Treatment Centers. 

In addition, the department’s Occupational Health and Special Projects Unit conducts surveillance for occupational diseases and adult lead-poisoning; and coordinates with DECD for the HUD lead abatement project.

Lead Environmental Management Unit.  The Lead Environmental Management Unit (LEMU), located in the Division of Environmental Health, Bureau of Regulatory Services, has primary responsibility for overseeing lead inspections carried out by local health departments.  The unit also is responsible for:

·       analysis of quarterly lead reports submitted by LHDs required by statute;
·       investigation of complaints involving lead-related issues and activities, including those that involve licensed lead contractors and certified lead abatement personnel and consultants;
·       review and authorization of lead encapsulation products for use and overseeing their use;
·       conducting audits of the larger local health departments;
·       maintaining seven X-ray fluorescence analyzers, which are available to trained local health department staff for testing paint for lead content;
·       developing department responses to federal lead related rule proposals; and
·       managing the grant from EPA’s Office of Pollution, Prevention, and Toxics, which provides for a licensing and certification program for lead consultants, contractors, and workers. 

Resources.  The childhood lead program receives several federal grants to use for a variety of purposes.  Figure IV-2 shows the funding source, appropriated amounts, and distribution of funds for 1998. Altogether, the lead poisoning prevention program received $1.1 million in federal funds, with an

 
additional $6 million in HUD funds.  Federal funds are used to pay DPH staff salaries, provide grants to local health departments to operate lead programs, and to operate a licensing and certification program for lead abatement contractors, consultants, and workers.  State funds accounted for $876,558 and were used to support the two regional lead treatment centers, DPH staff salaries, and some local programs.

Activities of the Department of Public Health.  Selected highlights of EEOH and LEMU activities are provided below.  It is important to note, however, a major activity of EEOH is collecting and analyzing screening data, which was already described in Chapter One. 

Education.  Education and outreach are major activities of the state’s lead program and may be conducted directly by DPH or through local health districts.  Responsibilities for education and outreach are shared between EEOH’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program and LEMU.  Generally, outreach and education are targeted to four groups with LEMU responsible for providing information about interim controls and proper abatement methods, and the CLPPP responsible for screening and medical management information.  The four groups include:

·       families receiving outreach and education about lead hazards, interim controls, and the importance of screening high-risk children;
·       health professionals receiving guidelines on screening, case management and treatment, and education on lead hazards;
·       local health departments receiving a package of prepared responses from the Childhood Lead Program, which may be used to inform property owners of their responsibilities, and educational material to give to parents when a child is identified with a BLL equal to or greater than 10 mcg/dL; and
·       home remodelers, the focus of recent DPH educational efforts through a lead awareness campaign at local hardware and paint stores. 

The CLPPP recently issued a Comprehensive Guide on Prevention and Treatment, in written format.  The guide contains a wealth of information on screening, medical management of children with elevated BLLs, responsibilities of local health departments, and advice for parents on how to reduce the risk of lead exposure in their environment.  Distribution of the guide is targeted to a wide audience including health professionals, social workers, and local health departments and code enforcement officials.

Oversight of environmental investigations and enforcement.  The lead prevention program maintains two methods for tracking childhood lead poisoning cases.  First, the Surveillance Unit of the program maintains the Lead Surveillance System, which contains information from screening reports from clinical laboratories and medical care providers.  The Lead Management Unit receives and compiles the statutorily required quarterly lead reports from local health departments and districts.  These reports track lead inspection and abatement activities within each local health department or district.  LEMU updates its records as each quarterly report is received and compiles them into an annual summary.  Currently the two tracking databases are separate, and a third database for CDC required reporting is also maintained.

There are 108 health districts in Connecticut.  Although statutorily required to submit quarterly reports, only 327 of the 432 required number were received by LEMU from health departments/districts in FY 98.  Table IV-1 compares the reporting distribution for FY 97 and FY 98, and as the results show, while compliance is basically good, some districts’ reporting are spotty. 

In FY 98, 15 local health departments (14 percent) did not submit any quarterly report, while 93 submitted at least one during the year.  In addition, 68 of the 108 LHDs indicated they had received no clinical reports of any children with an elevated blood level equal to or exceeding 20mg/dL during that quarter.  Of those 68 LHDs, 46 reported for all four quarters.

            The program review committee found the database responsible for tracking local inspection and abatement activities contained several limitations.  First, the data are self-reported by health departments/districts and are not audited by LEMU.  Therefore, it is unknown if towns that did not report for all four quarters did not have any lead inspections, or they just went unreported.  Second, discrepancies existed in the database between the number of inspections that identified lead hazards and the number of properties requiring abatement.  Third, screening data maintained by EEOH could not be matched with LEMU inspection and order data, since individual names and addresses are not reported to LEMU.  Finally, since health departments or districts report on inspection and abatement activities in the aggregate, it is impossible to know the length of time it takes for an inspection to be conducted and if lead is found, for abatement to be completed.  Therefore, an inspection or abatement outstanding in one quarter may continue to be outstanding without DPH being aware of it.  The database, however, does provide a broad overview of lead activity and identifies towns that perform a large number of inspections and issue most abatement orders.

Figure IV-3 shows the number of lead inspections completed and outstanding as reported by the 95 local health departments and districts for FY 98 by quarter.  An outstanding lead inspection is one where the residence has a child with a blood lead level equal to or greater than 20 mcg/dL, but the lead inspection of the dwelling has not yet been completed.  There were a total of 903 inspections completed in FY 98.  The greatest number (379) were completed in the first quarter of FY 98.  The number of inspections decreased significantly to 192 in the second quarter and then stabilized at that level in subsequent quarters, with 161 inspections in the third quarter and 171 in the last.  One possible reason for the high number of inspections in the first quarter of FY 98 (7/1/98 – 9/30/98) is because more children are identified with elevated blood lead levels in the summer because of increased access to exterior porches (a common source of chipping lead paint) and lead dust created from opening and closing windows.

Figure IV-3 also shows the number of inspections that remain outstanding is fairly constant from quarter to quarter.  There were 302 inspections outstanding in the first quarter of FY 98 and 306 in the last quarter.

            LEMU also gathers aggregate information on the number of abatements outstanding and completed for each quarter (shown in Figure IV-4).  During FY 98, a total of 275 abatements were completed, only about 23 percent of the approximately 1,200 abatements orders outstanding throughout the year. The number outstanding increased 8 percent from the first quarter (1,183) to the last (1,272). 

Greatest activity.  Six of the states largest local health departments (Bridgeport, Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, Norwalk, and Waterbury) supplied complete information reports for all quarters of FY 98.  Report highlights included:

·       the six LHDs completed 829 inspections and reported 919 new dwelling units requiring inspection

·       336 of the inspected dwelling units (41 percent) contained lead hazards;

·       493 of the inspected dwelling units (60 percent) identified no lead hazards; and

·       228 abatements (83 percent) were reported complete, out of a total of 275 completed statewide. 

Licensing and certification of lead personnel.  Through March 31, 1999, the department had issued 272 licenses to lead abatement and consultant contractors and 1,620 certificates to personnel in the five lead abatement and consulting disciplines.  Additionally, 373 license renewals and 1,291 certificate renewals had been issued as of that date.

Summary.  The Department of Public Health conducts a variety of activities in order to implement Connecticut’s lead law.  Two of the department’s major responsibilities are split between different bureaus – one responsible for lead prevention activities; the other for regulatory oversight of inspections and abatements carried out by local health departments.  As a result of the organizational structure, the program review committee found separate databases are maintained by the two bureaus – one to track lead screening in children; the other to track lead inspections and compliance with abatement orders.

Better information is needed by LEMU to oversee the regulatory requirements of the state’s lead law.  Self-reported data submitted from municipalities on lead inspections and abatements are provided in the aggregate, and therefore, individual properties cannot be tracked by LEMU to determine their inspection and abatement status.  As a result, department staff was unable to resolve discrepancies identified by the program review committee in FY 98 data between the number of units inspected identified with lead hazards and the number of abatement orders issued.

Department of Economic and Community Development

The Department of Economic and Community Development is the state’s lead agency for housing related matters.  The department administers state housing programs for citizens with low and moderate incomes, coordinates federal housing and community development programs, and develops and implements state housing policy.  Although DECD offers several broad programs for substantial rehabilitation of housing which may include lead abatement, this study focused on programs specifically available to individual property owners (non-developer) for lead abatement.  The administration and funding of past, current, and future programs for lead abatement are discussed below.

Hazardous Materials Program.  In 1987, the Connecticut General Assembly created the Hazardous Materials Program (C.G.S. §8-219(e)) funded with state bond money.  Under this program, DECD is authorized to make loans, deferred loans, and grants to eligible developers, community housing development corporations, or any other person approved by the commissioner for lead abatement or asbestos removal.  In actuality, the program has been operated as a consumer-oriented loan/grant program for property owners who have been issued orders by local health departments to abate lead or remove asbestos from residential dwelling units.

Program criteria.  Under the program regulations, the amount of state financial assistance cannot exceed 100 percent of the total cost of the abatement or technical assistance.   DECD may provide loans to any owner of housing where a lead-based paint hazard exists, regardless of the income of the owner or the tenant.  Upon application, a property owner must show that a lead-based paint hazard is present in the unit and evidence of an approved abatement plan by the director of the local health department.  The regulations require priority be given to:

·       families with children having an elevated blood lead level; and

·       owners of units containing lead-based paint hazards that are occupied by low- and moderate-income families (incomes at or below 100 percent of state or area median). 

The program’s priorities are addressed in two ways: through the allocation of available funds and through the terms of the loan.  Grant and loan terms established under the program are shown in Table IV-2.

Eligible borrowers qualify for financial assistance on a unit-by-unit basis, based on the category of the resident family’s income as a percentage of Area Median Income (as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development).  For median incomes exceeding 200 percent, property owners must show proof they sought a loan from a lending institution, but were rejected.

All loans to owners of rental property occupied by low- and moderate-income families carry a restriction prohibiting an increase in rental charges to cover loan payments. All loans are subject to immediate repayment, if the property is sold prior to the end of the loan term.   If a grant is given, the grant amount is subject to a lien, which is decreased by 10 percent each year, until the 10^th  year when the lien is released.  Finally, owners participating in the program must agree to continue to rent abated units to low- and moderate-income tenants for at least five years.

Funding.   The state’s Hazardous Materials Program is funded through the sale of bonds, supplemented by a variety of federal funding sources.  Since the program’s inception, the bond commission has allocated about $9.6 million, although not all of that amount has yet been expended.  Total state Hazardous Materials and federal expenditures as of June 30, 1999 for lead abatement have been slightly more than  $6.2 million and $5.3 million respectively.  The Housing and Community Development program has provided an additional $1.1 million in funding.  The program has resulted in lead being abated in 722 dwelling units.

            Until 1995, DECD directly administered the Hazardous Materials program.  According to the department, under its administration, 340 units were abated and total expenditures were $2,428,755, for an average lead abatement cost of $7,143 per unit.  DECD discontinued direct administration of the program when the department received a $6 million grant from HUD to abate lead and contracted with five high-risk municipalities to administer lead programs in their towns.  In addition, the department entered into a $2.7 million contract in 1995 with the Connecticut Association for Community Action (CAFCA) to administer a lead abatement/rehabilitation program using some of the state Hazardous Materials Program funding and HOME funding.  HOME is a federal housing program that provides funding to states to develop and support affordable housing.  Both programs are described below.

Connecticut Association for Community Action Program. In 1995, the Connecticut Association for Community Action received $1,424,489 in federal HOME funds and $745,000 in state Hazardous Material funds for lead abatement in conjunction with the rehabilitation of rental units for low- and moderate-income households.  Although the money was committed in 1995, actual abatement projects did not begin until 1996.  The program was short-lived; the last project began on May 13, 1998, and no more applications are being accepted.  Table IV-3 shows the CAFCA program funding allocated by expenditure category.

Although CAFCA did not track dollars spent on rehabilitation versus lead abatement, there was a per-unit cap of $4,000 for all rehabilitation.  Hypothetically, since rehabilitation was also a program goal, if each unit received the maximum dollar amount allowed for rehabilitation, the average lead abatement cost per unit would have been $15,230. To date, project expenditures are $1,561,567; however, some projects still have expenditures outstanding.

The program completed abatement on 98 units throughout the state.  Almost all property owners received grants to abate lead with only two owners receiving a combined grant and partial loan.  Table IV-4 shows the location of the properties and the number of units abated by municipality.  The city of Hartford had the most units abated under the program, followed by the city of Waterbury.

HUD Lead-Based Paint Abatement Grant Program.  The second program that combines state Hazardous Materials money with federal funds became available in 1996.  Under Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is authorized to provide grants to states and municipalities to operate lead abatement programs for private property owners.  The state of Connecticut, through a joint effort by the then Department of Housing and the Department of Public Health and Addiction Services (DPHAS), received a $6 million grant award in 1995 under HUD’s Lead-Based Paint Abatement Grant Program.  The state augmented the HUD grant with a $6 million contribution from the Hazardous Materials Program and $2.4 million from the Housing and Community Development program.  As part of the grant requirement, the five participating municipalities budgeted an additional $1,866,102 of cash and in-kind services.

As a result of the HUD grant, major changes in the state’s administration of the Hazardous Materials Program occurred.  Using a risk index developed by DPHAS, based on: age of housing stock; number of children below age five; and the percentage of those children below the poverty level, the state identified the towns at highest risk for childhood lead poisoning.  Federal HUD and state Hazardous Materials funds were made available only to the five municipalities with the highest-risk and interested in participating in the program:  Hartford, New Britain, Norwich, Waterbury, and Windham.

Program goals.  In its 1994 grant application to HUD, the Department of Housing projected abatement and relocation costs of $13,100 per unit thereby estimating 700 units (140 per municipality) could be abated under the grant/low interest loan finance program.  In addition, the grant was to fund abatement activities to:

·       establish 24 lead-safe houses;

·       provide screening and case management for lead-poisoned children;

·       conduct community education;

·       develop and maintain a registry of “lead-safe” and “lead-free properties”; and

·       monitor the health status of abatement and inspection personnel. 

Under the HUD grant, data collection, inspections, abatement, education, outreach and administration could be funded.  However, funds allocated to the state’s Hazardous Materials Program could only be used for lead abatement.

Responsibility for grant administration was divided between the then DECD and DPHAS. Through a Memorandum of Agreement, the Department of Economic and Community Development assumed responsibility for all fiscal administration and issues that generally fall within the expertise and jurisdiction of DECD.  The Department of Public Health’s responsibilities include oversight and coordination of all public health aspects of program implementation -- screening and case management, risk reduction education, environmental follow-up and abatement guidance, as well as data management and analysis.

Program design.  Each municipality selected to participate in the grant program was given broad latitude to design its own lead program including resource coordination, policies on temporary relocation, recruitment of property owners, educational campaigns, medical and social service referral systems, and selection of abatement contractors.  Also, each municipality determined how to provide case management and environmental professional services (i.e., hire new staff, subcontract, or use existing staff).

Although the state received the grant in March 1995, contracts with the towns were not signed until January 1, 1996, because regulations requiring lead abatement consultants and workers be licensed or certified were not in place until November 1995.  This, along with the decentralized program design and voluminous federal reporting requirements, resulted in a noticeable lack of progress.  By June 27, 1997, only 13 units had been cleared (i.e., abatement had been completed, reinspected, and no lead hazards found).

As a result, HUD reviewed the program and streamlined reporting requirements in 1998.  In addition, HUD permitted DECD to decrease the original goal of lead hazard abatement in 700 units (140 in each municipality) to 610 units.  In addition, the grant received three extensions.  It was originally supposed to be completed by March 1998, but it is now scheduled to end in June 2000.

Costs.  Table IV-5 shows financial data maintained by DPH on 322 lead abated units under the HUD program.   Included in the table are units that have not received final clearance. Also depicted in the table is the amount of dollars spent on rehabilitation other than lead abatement.  The HUD grant program allows funds to be used for modest rehabilitation (such as patching a leaky roof), but to ensure the viability of lead hazard reduction activities, grant funds cannot be used to carry out major rehabilitation.  According to the table, 212 of the 322 units (66 percent) abated also needed some other type of rehabilitation.  This ranged from 29 percent of the units in Waterbury to 97 percent in Norwich. 

             In terms of costs, lead abatement costs ranged from $11,079 per unit in Norwich to $28,830 in Windham.  The average cost per unit among the five municipalities was $14,430.  It is unclear why Windham’s per-unit costs are more than double those of the other four municipalities.  Possible reasons suggested by the Department of Public Health were that units with more bedrooms, houses with historical significance, and single family homes all increase lead abatement costs.  In addition, more extensive rehabilitation may have been performed.

            Table IV-6 shows the total amount budgeted and expended by funding source for lead abatement (excluding administrative costs) as of March 31, 1999.  Only about 54 percent of the total amount budgeted for lead abatement has been expended.  As noted above, the grant is scheduled to end in June 2000.

Municipal HUD grants.  It is important to note, municipalities are eligible to apply directly for HUD’s Lead-Based Paint Abatement Grant program and several in Connecticut have been awarded a grant to administer their own lead abatement program.  Table IV-7 shows the grant funding rounds and the municipalities that have been awarded grants.  In the most recent funding round, three of the municipalities that participated in the state-awarded HUD program described above, submitted their own grant applications, but were not selected as grantees.
 

 Round Seven HUD funding.  The Department of Economic and Community Development, in consultation with the Department of Public Health, submitted a grant application to HUD in May 1999 for the next funding cycle (Round Seven).  The application requested $4 million to conduct lead hazard control in 342 privately owned dwelling units, and would give priority to housing units of low- and very low-income families.  In its grant application, DECD indicated it would change the program design from a municipal administered program to a single statewide program administered by the Community Renewal Team (CRT), a community action agency based in Hartford.  However, HUD announced the awards in October 1999, and DECD was not selected as a grantee.  Of the municipalities that applied for a HUD grant for this funding round (Bridgeport, East Hartford, Hartford, Manchester, New Britain, New Haven, and Norwich), only Manchester and Norwich were selected.

Community Renewal Team Program.  The Department of Economic and Community Development contracted with CRT in June 1999 to administer several rehabilitation programs through a one-stop process for housing rehabilitation activities including:

·       the Hazardous Materials Program;

·       energy conservation improvements;

·       septic tank system repair, removal, or enlargement; and

·       senior citizen housing emergency repairs and rehabilitation projects.  

Under the Hazardous Materials Program, only residential structures with six or fewer dwelling units will be eligible for lead abatement funding; commercial units are ineligible. The department intends to fund the program at $2.5 million.  In addition, total funding for lead abatement activity will be capped at $15,000 per unit.  Finally, it is DECD’s intention to encourage applicants that need to replace windows because they constitute a lead hazard to apply under the Energy Conservation Loan program.  Funding provided through this program would not count toward the $15,000 cap under the Hazardous Materials program. 

According to CRT, approximately 100 individuals are currently waiting for CRT’s program to be funded.  The vast majority of these individuals will be applicants for the Hazardous Materials Program and are in need of financing to abate lead hazards.

Summary

            Connecticut’s lead abatement program available to property owners underwent a major change in 1995 when the state received a HUD grant and targeted funding to only five municipalities.   Several problems with the program design became apparent when only 13 units had received clearance by June 1997, 18 months after the program’s start-up.  Further, even if the program meets its revised goal abating lead in 610 units, that would mean lead abatement was performed in only 152 units each year the HUD grant was operational.  Average lead abatement costs per unit are about $15,000.  Given these abatement costs and DECD’s estimates of 235,748 housing units in the state that potentially contain lead hazards, $3.5 billion would be needed to abate lead in these units.

 Return to Year 1999 Studies

Return to Table of Contents