Meaningful stakeholder input in design and oversight

Posted on by Earthjustice

 

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 challenging a proactive rental inspection program;
  • Adopting a program that is unfunded;
  • Adopting a program that the implementing agency does not implement or enforce;
  • Harming tenants by driving up rental housing costs or displacing them during lead remediation when they have nowhere to go

 Primary prevention programs such as a Proactive Rental Inspection Program can impact many stakeholders, including landlords, tenants, homeowners, families, medical professionals, inspection professionals, and city or county agency staff.  Additionally, many others in the community have important resources or viewpoints that should be considered when developing lead poisoning prevention policy. These include but are not limited to, nonprofits that provide services to the targeted community, parents of lead-poisoned children, faith leaders, local philanthropy organizations, community banks, environmental or public health organizations, medical professionals, local school districts, organizations providing early intervention, and home renovation contractors.

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: