Bill Overview
Title: Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires owners of certain federally assisted housing constructed prior to 1978 to screen for and remove lead-based paint hazards in housing where families with a child under the age of six are living. Specifically, an owner of such housing must, with some exceptions, conduct an initial risk assessment that consists of not just a visual inspection for lead-based paint hazards in housing where such a family will reside. If the assessment identifies any lead-based paint hazards, the owner must address the hazards within 30 days of the assessment and notify all residents in the affected housing. If the owner fails to address the hazards within 30 days, the family in the affected dwelling unit may relocate on an emergency basis without (1) being placed on any waiting list, (2) paying any penalty, or (3) experiencing any lapse in assistance. Further, the Department of Housing and Urban Development must establish a demonstration program to pay for the costs to address lead-based paint hazards in dwellings that receive certain federal rental assistance and in which the tenant is a family with a child under the age of six.
Sponsors: Rep. McEachin, A. Donald [D-VA-4]
Target Audience
Population: Children under the age of six living in federally assisted housing built before 1978 worldwide
Estimated Size: 200000
- The bill targets federally assisted housing constructed prior to 1978, which have potential lead-based paint hazards.
- The primary focus is on families with children under the age of six living in such housing.
- Children under six are vulnerable to lead poisoning, which can cause developmental issues and other health problems.
- Federally assisted housing includes Section 8 housing, public housing, and other similar programs that support low-income families.
- According to the CDC, lead exposure is a significant risk for young children, making this population particularly vulnerable.
Reasoning
- The population targeted by the Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2022 consists primarily of low-income families with children under six residing in older federally assisted housing.
- The policy aims to mitigate the risks associated with lead poisoning, which can severely impact children's development, therefore targeting a high-impact yet narrow band of the population.
- With an estimated 200,000 housing units affected, careful budgeting is necessary to maximize effect without exceeding $350 million in the first year and $2.43 billion over 10 years.
- Simulation includes a mix of direct beneficiaries, indirect beneficiaries (like older children and adults), and unaffected community members to reflect the breadth of societal impact.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Worker (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved. It's always stressed me out to think about what might be lurking in these walls.
- Finally, someone is doing something. This could really improve my kids' health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Maintenance Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a good move, but I'm anxious about the process.
- Hopefully, this means safer homes for everyone involved.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Waitress (Miami, FL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a relief, especially for someone like me who's always worried about potential health risks.
- Hopefully, it gets implemented without lots of problems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a positive step, but it doesn't affect me directly.
- I hope it sets a precedent for safety in all older housing, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Nurse (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad there are measures being taken to ensure the safety of our children.
- Lead exposure is scary, especially considering my child's age.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Student (Houston, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it’s a good initiative, makes me feel better about starting a family in the future.
- Awareness and safety measures are critical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Teacher (Buffalo, NY)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any move towards safer housing is beneficial.
- I hope this policy raises broader awareness on housing safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Social Worker (Dallas, TX)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a much-needed intervention for the community I serve.
- It could make a huge difference in family health and wellbeing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Barista (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is sound, but its direct effect on me is limited until we have kids.
- I’m glad hazardous housing is being addressed though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Public Health Researcher (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns well with public health initiatives.
- Seeing this implemented gives hope for a lead-free generation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $450000000)
Year 2: $320000000 (Low: $270000000, High: $430000000)
Year 3: $290000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $400000000)
Year 5: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $370000000)
Year 10: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $300000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $100000000)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the implementation will heavily rely on the compliance and monitoring mechanisms established by HUD.
- Potential legal challenges or pushback from property owners due to cost implications could arise.
- Coordination with local health departments will be crucial to ensure comprehensive child protection.