Insert:    
Visibility:     Module:   

Blog Posts

How the President’s Budget Impacts Healthy Housing

The National Center for Healthy Housing is saddened to see the priorities being presented by the president’s FY19 Federal Budget Request. We know that Congress can do better.

We believe most Americans care about health and that our budget should reflect that, but some of the core federal agency programs that work to keep us all healthier will be underfunded or canceled under the president’s latest proposal. Below are just the programs that NCHH tracks and reports on to advocates and policy makers regularly; many more are also on the chopping block in the president’s budget.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

  • Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes: The president’s budget is $145 million; our request is $230 million. The $145 million is the same as the 2017 request and lower than the Senate’s FY18 number of $160 million. As our understanding of the impact of exposure and the cost-effectiveness of investing in eliminating lead hazards grows, certainly the funding that works to thwart lead exposure and hazards should be keeping pace.
    • Within this program, the president’s budget removes $5 million from the healthy homes account—from $30 million to $25 million—and redistributes those funds to the lead account. 
  • CDBG, HOME, and LIHEAP: The president’s budget zeroes out these programs, which provide vital services to low-income and underserved populations across the country. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program alone feeds into myriad programs across the states that effect the health and well-being of Americans of all ages.
Learn more about HUD’s valuable programs and services with NCHH’s new Healthy Homes Agency Fact Sheet

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

  • Eliminates Indoor Air and Radon Programs. We request level funding for these programs. 
    • Indoor Air: Radon, previously funded at $2.91 million.
    • Reduce Risk from Indoor Air, previously funded at $13.733 million.
  • Eliminates Lead and Radon Categorical Grants. We request level funding for these programs. 
    • Radon Categorical Grant: previously funded at $8.051 million.
    • Lead Categorical Grant: previously funded at $14.049 million. 
  • Eliminates the Lead Risk Reduction Program, which was previously funded at $13.275 million; we request level funding for this program
    • Lead paint certifications will continue, through the Chemical Risk Review and Reduction Program, but this program is also getting a minor cut. 
    • The budget states that “Other forms of lead exposure are addressed through other targeted programs, such as the State Revolving Funds, to replace lead pipes.” 1 
  • Decreases the Children and Other Sensitive Populations program, under Information Exchange/Outreach, from $6.548 million to $2.081 million. We request level funding for this program.

Learn more about EPA’s valuable programs and services with NCHH’s new Healthy Homes Agency Fact Sheet.
 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – Environmental Health 

Learn more about CDC’s valuable programs and services with NCHH’s new Healthy Homes Agency Fact Sheet. NCHH has also created a fact sheet for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is CDC’s parent agency.

Other Impacted Line Items

A Note on the Impact of the President’s Budget on State Funding

A note about how these changes would directly impact state budgets: NCHH tracks 11 grant/funding programs on our state healthy housing fact sheets. Between the eliminations and cuts at HHS, CDC, HUD, EPA, and DOE, this budget cuts or eliminates at least seven of them (eight if you count the expiring CDC lead money as a cut). 

The president and his administration have identified their priorities in this new budget. We'll do all we can to convince Congress of the necessity and cost-effective return on investment of these reduced or eliminated programs and implore Congress to restore programs to present funding levels or increase funding, as well as continue to work to educate the administration about what these programs do to have impact on the long-term health of the entire country. If you'd like to join us in that effort, please join our distribution list

1 One wonders how eliminating this program and the state grants supports Administrator Pruitt’s statement to other federal agencies that “All areas of lead exposure – from lead pipes to contaminated soil – need to be pursued and addressed in a comprehensive and consistent approach” (from the invitation to the principal’s meeting).



Citations:

CDC FY19 Budget Documents 
EPA FY19 Budget Documents 
All of our FY18 request numbers and justifications live here



Darcy Scott,
NCHH Senior Policy Adviser, has been engaged in federal advocacy efforts for over 15 years. She has worked with a number of large-scale organizations, such as the ACLU and Susan G. Komen for the Cure, to influence legislators through public engagement. Ms. Scott ran the government affairs department at M+R Strategic Services, leveraging the power of organizations and coalitions to influence the legislative process, and her consulting clients include Habitat for Humanity International and United Way Worldwide. Ms. Scott holds an undergraduate degree from Southern Methodist University and a graduate degree from Northwestern University. 

Sarah Goodwin joined NCHH as a Policy Analyst in June 2017. She previously served NCHH as a policy intern, helping to establish and run the Find It, Fix It, Fund It lead action drive and its work groups. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Interdisciplinary Studies: Communications, Legal Institutions, Economics, and Government from American University.

Introducing NCHH's Healthy Housing Fact Sheets: EPA Region 1

Think about your home community. What makes it special? What specific challenges does it face? I’m sure, if given the chance, we could all go on at length about the individuality in the places we live and work. Those of us doing policy work at national organizations spend much of our time focused on the big picture, but the healthy housing needs of each state are unique and varied. We are far more effective as an advocacy community when we remember to take advantage of the perspective and challenges each state brings.

That’s why the National Center for Healthy Housing has created 53 state healthy housing profiles – including the District of Columbia and an overview of the whole U.S. – for use by policy makers and advocates across the country. Each fact sheet offers eight statistics about the healthy housing situation in each state, covering topics including asthma prevalence and financial burden, childhood lead poisoning numbers and age of housing, radon levels, carbon monoxide fatalities, and unintentional falls among older adults. The fact sheets also tell you which of 11 programs at CDCHUD, and EPA are currently funding your state efforts. Most information was found from federal or state governments, and each fact is hyperlinked back to the source material.

EPA Region 1

Throughout 2018, we’re posting highlights of our state fact sheets by EPA region, one region per month. In January, we’re starting off with EPA Region 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

  • It’s well known among the healthy housing community that the Northeast typically has older housing stock than other parts of the country, and that is one of the first things that sticks out among these six states. Between 55% and 73% of housing in each state was built before lead paint was outlawed in 1978; 20-30% was built before 1940.
  • In 2015, the combined regional total of blood lead level tests over 5 µg/dL, the CDC action level, was 9,148. Forty percent (40%) of New Hampshire children are estimated to have had elevated blood lead levels at some point in their lives.
  • The region also shares high predicted and tested radon levels. In Connecticut, one in five homes has elevated radon; in Maine and New Hampshire, this number is nearly one in three. An estimated 628 cases of radon-related lung cancer occur in Massachusetts each year.
  • Rhode Island has the highest proportion of residents 85 and older in the U.S. at 15.8%, and nearly one in four Rhode Islanders are over 65. Risk of falling is a particular healthy housing issue for older adults. For example, hospital charges for unintentional falls among older adults totaled over $630 million in Massachusetts in 2010.
  • Another medical expense that has proved costly to the region is emergency asthma treatment. In 2014, Connecticut spent $135 million on acute care where asthma was the primary diagnosis; in 2012, Rhode Island spent $21 million on asthma hospitalizations.
  • The region also boasts some healthy housing milestones. Vermont was the first state to lower its definition of elevated blood lead levels to 5 µg/dL. This legislation was passed in 2008.
  • Maine was one of 14 states and localities that benefited from the additional funding for CDC’s Lead Poisoning Prevention program passed in December 2016.

Other NCHH Resources

NCHH’s state fact sheets will be updated annually with current information. For questions or comments, please email Laura Fudala at lfudala@nchh.org.


 


Sarah Goodwin joined NCHH as a Policy Analyst in June 2017. She previously served NCHH as a policy intern, helping to establish and run the Find It, Fix It, Fund It lead action drive and its workgroups. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Interdisciplinary Studies: Communications, Legal Institutions, Economics, and Government from American University.

Four Proposals to Make Homes Healthier through Better Model Codes: ICC Member Vote by May 26

Building a home that lasts generations, withstands the elements, is energy efficient, and keeps us safe all at a reasonable cost is a marvel in engineering, design, and management. Renovations are even more complicated as we adapt the latest designs into homes built decades ago.

With thousands of contractors working on millions of homes every year, we rely on our local building code officials to ensure the work is done properly. We may not like it when they take too long to issue a permit for our kitchen remodeling or stop work when the contractor is cutting corners, but without their oversight, most homeowners have no way of knowing whether they got what they paid for from the contractor.

Many state and local code officials rely on model codes from the International Code Council (ICC) when they issue permits. These model codes often incorporate by reference regulations by federal agencies, but only when the code officials vote to support proposals in a three-year consensus process cycle led by ICC. Contractors have to comply with both the code and the federal regulations, but code officials only consider the model code as adapted to their community.

In April, in the first step of the most recent ICC consensus process, committees considered and did not approve four proposals that will make our homes healthier and safer. All ICC members now have until May 26 to vote for healthier homes. Then the proposals will be open for public comments and potential revisions before a final vote by the voting government official members of ICC in October. The following are the proposals and their ICC-assigned official number.


A. ADM78-16: Ensuring that only EPA- or state-certified contractors disturb lead-based paint [pdf of proposal]

To obtain a permit to renovate housing and child care centers, contractors must submit extensive documentation so the code official can verify the work will comply with the code and be conducted properly. NCHH and others proposed requiring that those documents include the EPA- or state-issued lead-safe renovation firm certificate when disturbing paint in multifamily housing and childcare facilities built before 1978.

Since 2010, contractors have been required to be certified in order to conduct this work in order to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) Rule. There are minor exemptions for zero-bedroom apartments, housing only for the elderly, or when very small amounts of paint are being disturbed. Contractors become "lead-safe certified" when they promise to follow the rule, use trained people to supervise the work, and pay a fee.

NCHH and others crafted the proposal to protect children from dangerous but invisible lead-contaminated dust too easily left behind when contractors don’t use lead-safe work practices. These work practices were designed to prevent generating dust, enable easier cleanup in case dust is made, and check the work to ensure it was done properly. The National Association of Remodeling Industries (NARI) supported the proposal because it levels the playing field so that uncertified contractors do not undercut those who are certified and committed to following the rules.

EPA representatives testified at the hearing and strongly supported the proposal. They cited successes in similar approaches in the state of Minnesota and in the cities of Milwaukee, WI; Rochester, NY; and Oakland, CA. When the Minnesota legislature mandated the requirement, EPA saw a 40% increase in certifications for renovators – a sign of success. They made clear that the code official would only have to ensure the contractor has a valid certificate, not verify that the work was done properly – that's EPA’s job.

This proposal only affects multifamily housing and child-occupied facilities. A matching proposal for single-family homes and for townhouses is not up for a vote in May but will be in October.


B. RB361-16: Ensuring that homeowners choosing radon-resistant features in new home construction get a system that functions properly [pdf of proposal]

When a homeowner wants a home built to prevent radon from coming into the home from the ground, they demand “radon-resistant new construction.” It costs about $1,200 and helps to protect residents from the second leading cause of lung cancer. But it only works if it is installed properly.

The American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists (AARST) proposed a change to the International Residential Code (IRC) to provide that a code official has a basis to inspect the work to ensure the system functions as designed.


C. RB152-16: Allowing below-grade foam insulation to be free of brominated flame retardants
[pdf of proposal]

The current IRC requires that foam insulation contain flame retardants even if the foam is sandwiched between the concrete foundation and the ground outside. The chemicals serve no purpose in this situation. Providing architects, builders, and homeowners with the option for foam insulation free from flame retardants is important given the serious health questions that have been raised about some of these chemicals, especially brominated flame retardants.

A coalition led by the Green Science Policy Institute proposed giving architects, builders, and homeowners the ability to choose flame-retardant-free foam insulation for below-grade uses. Mandating the use of chemicals that serve no purpose and may create a health risk is contrary to the ICC’s purpose of protection health, safety, and general welfare.


D. PM7-16: Requiring carbon monoxide alarms in all homes with combustion sources or an attached garage [pdf of proposal]

The International Fire Code (IFC) and the IRC require a carbon monoxide (CO) alarm in all homes with combustion sources, such as a fireplace or gas-fired appliance, or with an attached garage. These alarms protect residents from brain damage or death when combusting appliances fail or when air from a garage with an idling car is pulled into the home. More than 300 people die each year from CO poisoning.

As of 2011, 49 million homes – 46% of owner-occupied and 33% of renters – had CO alarms. NCHH proposed adding the CO alarm requirement to the International Property Maintenance Code to better ensure the likelihood of a home receiving one since the homes the code inspector visits are the ones most neglected and most likely to have a malfunctioning gas-fired appliance.

The objective of the model codes is to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Each of these proposals are narrowly crafted to accomplish that objective with minimal burden on the code official, the contractor, and the owner. Each deserves approval by the ICC and provides a common approach for states and local jurisdictions to consider when they adapt the model code to the needs of their community.

Disqus Comments

Archive

Archive by Years
Tags
Categories