Lead poisoning prevention programs can affect many stakeholders, either by putting burdens on them or providing benefits to them or in changing how or what they do in their jobs. Developing and implementing local lead poisoning prevention policy without meaningful stakeholder input can lead to unintended consequences, including:
- Landlords suing to challenge a proactive rental inspection program (as we saw in Toledo);
- Adopting a program that is underfunded (like many lead reduction efforts in Michigan);
- Adopting a program that the implementing agency does not implement or enforce (see challenges to enforcement in Detroit);
- Harming tenants by driving up rental housing costs or displacing them during lead remediation when they have nowhere to go (read more about challenges in Dallas).
What’s the solution?
Many communities have found success by convening a lead-focused coalition or other type of group that comes together for the purpose of developing policy proposals for consideration by local legislators. These groups have compiled policy recommendations and hosted community summits to drive policy change.
Examples include:
- Coalition to Prevent Lead Poisoning (Rochester), hosted Community Lead Summit in 2004
- Lead Safe Cleveland: Cleveland Lead Safe Summit; ; Lead Safe Cleveland’s Policy Recommendations
- Philadelphia Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Advisory Group; Final Report and Recommendations
- Buffalo & Erie County Lead Safe Task Force; Renewing Our Pledge: A Path to Ending Lead Poisoning of Buffalo’s Most Vulnerable Citizens
