Rental Housing Assistance: HUD Should Strengthen Physical Inspection of Properties and Oversight of Lead Paint Hazards

As of the end of 2018, roughly 4.4 million low-income households were served by HUD's three largest rental assistance programs. HUD has responsibilities for ensuring that housing units provided under these programs are decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair, as well as for identifying and addressing lead paint hazards in these units.

GAO issued reports in March 2019 ( GAO-19-254 ) on HUD's physical inspections of HUD-assisted properties and in June 2018 on lead paint hazards in the public housing and voucher programs ( GAO-18-394 ). This statement is based on these two reports and discusses prior GAO findings on (1) REAC inspections and inspector oversight and (2) lead paint hazards. For the March 2019 report, GAO reviewed HUD documents and data related to REAC's physical inspection process. For the June 2018 report, GAO reviewed HUD documents and information related to its compliance efforts, performance measures, and reporting.

In March 2019, GAO made 14 recommendations to HUD to improve the physical inspections process and oversight of inspectors. In June 2018, GAO made six recommendations to HUD to improve compliance monitoring processes, inspection standards, and performance assessment and reporting on lead reduction efforts in federally assisted properties. HUD generally agreed with these recommendations. As of November 2019, HUD officials had identified planned steps to implement most of these recommendations but had not fully addressed them.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) plays an important role in providing decent and safe housing for households receiving federal rental assistance. However, HUD needs to improve its physical inspection program and its efforts to identify and address lead paint hazards in federally assisted housing. To that end, GAO made 20 recommendations on these issues in its March 2019 and June 2018 reports.

Physical inspections of properties. HUD's Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) is responsible for conducting physical inspections of HUD-assisted properties. Despite longstanding processes to inspect properties and take action against owners who do not address physical deficiencies, HUD continues to find some properties in poor physical condition and with life-threatening health and safety issues. In a March 2019 report, GAO identified a number of areas in which HUD needed to improve its physical inspection process and oversight of inspectors, which could help ensure the health and safety of those who live in HUD-assisted properties. For example, REAC had not conducted a comprehensive review of its inspection process since 2001, although new risks to the process have emerged since then. A comprehensive review could help REAC identify risks and ensure it meets the goal of producing reliable inspections.

In addition, REAC uses contractors to inspect properties; these contract inspectors are trained and overseen by HUD staff known as quality assurance inspectors. However, GAO found REAC lacked formal mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of its training program for contractor inspectors and for HUD employees responsible for monitoring and overseeing contract inspectors. And, unlike professional inspection organizations, REAC does not have continuing education requirements. Formal mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of its training program and requirements for continuing education could help REAC ensure its program supports development needs of inspectors and that inspectors are current on any changes in policy or industry standards.

Lead paint hazards. GAO also identified a number of areas in which HUD could improve its efforts to identify and address lead paint hazards to protect children from lifelong health problems. Lead paint hazards (such as dust containing lead and chips from deteriorated lead-based paint) are the most common source of lead exposure for U.S. children. In a June 2018 report, GAO identified shortcomings in HUD's compliance monitoring and enforcement, inspection standards, and performance assessment and reporting for lead-reduction efforts. For example, HUD's monitoring efforts relied in part on public housing agencies to self-certify compliance with lead paint regulations. Additionally, the lead inspection standard for the voucher program is less strict than that for the public housing program. As a result, children living in voucher units may receive less protection from lead paint hazards than children living in public housing. Furthermore, GAO found that HUD did not track the number of lead-safe housing units in the voucher or public housing programs. Therefore, HUD may not be fully aware of the extent to which children have been living in unsafe units.

I am pleased to submit this statement on the Department of Housing and  Urban Development’s (HUD) efforts to ensure that households receiving  federal rental assistance live in decent and safe housing. As of the end of  2018, HUD provided assistance to roughly 4.4 million low-income  households through its three largest rental assistance programs: the  Housing Choice Voucher (2.2 million), public housing (1 million), and  project-based rental assistance (1.2 million) programs. The Secretary of  Housing and Urban Development has stated that the department has no  higher calling than to make certain that taxpayer-supported housing is  healthy for vulnerable families to live in. To ensure decent and safe  housing, HUD performs regular physical inspections and enforces lead  paint regulations for HUD-assisted housing. In recent reports, we have  found weaknesses in HUD’s execution of its responsibilities in both of  these areas.

HUD’s Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) is responsible for  conducting physical inspections of multifamily and public housing  properties. However, despite longstanding processes to inspect  properties and take action against owners who do not address physical  deficiencies, HUD continues to find some properties that are in poor  physical condition and with life-threatening health and safety issues.  Members of Congress, the HUD Inspector General, and media reports  have raised concerns about properties that may receive inspection scores  that are not a true representation of their physical condition. For example,  in 2015, Eureka Gardens, a multifamily housing complex in Jacksonville,  Florida, received a passing score on its REAC inspection but was later  found to have physical deficiencies consistent with a much lower score.

In addition, concerns have been raised by members of Congress and the  HUD Inspector General that HUD-assisted properties may not comply  with lead paint regulations. Although lead-based paint was banned for  residential use in 1978, hazards still exist in millions of homes. Lead paint  hazards (such as dust containing lead and chips from deteriorated lead- based paint) are the most common source of lead exposure for U.S.  children. Lead exposure can cause serious, irreversible cognitive damage  that can impair a child for life. Young children are at greater risk of being  exposed to lead because they often crawl on the floor, have frequent  hand-to-mouth activity, and may ingest nonfood items.

Questions exist about HUD’s ability to identify and address lead paint  hazards. False certifications by some public housing authorities (PHA)  that their properties comply with HUD’s lead paint regulations continue to  be a problem. For example, a New York City Department of Investigation  report found that the New York City Housing Authority failed to conduct  required lead inspections, knowingly filed false certifications of  compliance with HUD, and failed to put adequate systems in place to  confirm the accuracy of lead certifications before they were made. After  a federal investigation, in January 2019 New York City and the New York  City Housing Authority settled with HUD, agreeing to increased oversight  and funding to remediate the issues.

This statement is based primarily on two previously issued GAO reports:  a March 2019 report on HUD’s inspection standards and a June 2018  report on lead paint hazards in HUD-assisted housing. Specifically, this  statement discusses HUD’s efforts related to its (1) physical inspection  process and oversight of inspectors and (2) processes for monitoring and  enforcing compliance with lead paint regulations in its rental assistance  programs and measuring and reporting on its lead efforts. Our March  2019 report made 14 recommendations to HUD to improve the  inspections program. Our June 2018 report made six recommendations to  HUD to strengthen its efforts to monitor compliance with lead paint  regulations and report on lead-safe housing units within the voucher and  public housing programs.

For our March 2019 report, we reviewed HUD documents and data  related to REAC’s physical inspection process, use of contract and quality  assurance inspectors, and enforcement processes and interviewed HUD  officials. For our June 2018 report, we reviewed HUD documents and  information related to its compliance efforts, performance measures, and  reporting and interviewed HUD officials. More details on our  methodologies can be found in the two reports on which this statement is  based. For this statement, we updated the status of recommendations  from those reports, as of November 2019, by interviewing HUD officials  and reviewing documents HUD provided about its efforts to implement  these recommendations.

We conducted the work on which this statement is based in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards  require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate  evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on  our audit objectives.

Multiple Aspects of the REAC Inspection Program Have Weaknesses

Our March 2019 report identified a number of areas in which HUD needs  to improve its physical inspection process and its oversight of inspectors,  which could help better ensure the health and safety of households that  live in HUD-assisted properties. These areas include conducting a  comprehensive review of the inspection process; incorporating sampling  error as part of determining inspection frequency and enforcement  actions; tracking whether inspections are conducted by their expected  date; enhancing the process and practices related to selecting, training,  and evaluating inspectors; and ensuring that new quality control policies  and procedures are implemented.

Comprehensive Review of REAC Inspection Process

We found that REAC had not conducted a comprehensive review of its  inspection process since 2001, although new risks to its process have  emerged since then. For example, REAC staff have raised concerns that  some property owners have taken advantage of the scoring system and  others have misrepresented the conditions of their properties.  Specifically, because more points are deducted for deficiencies on the  property site than for deficiencies in a dwelling unit, some property  owners prioritize site repairs over unit repairs. Additionally, some property  owners attempt to cover up, rather than address, deficiencies—such as  by using mulch on a building exterior to hide erosion. REAC staff also  have raised concerns about property owners employing current or former  REAC contract inspectors to help prepare for an inspection, sometimes  by guiding owners to repair just enough to pass inspection rather than  comprehensively addressing deficiencies. REAC also continues to find  that some contract inspectors conduct inspections that do not meet  REAC’s quality standards.

Furthermore, REAC fundamentally changed the entities that conduct  inspections. In 1998, REAC employed a few large inspection companies  to conduct the inspections. However, in 2005, REAC introduced the  reverse auction program and opened up the inspection process to a  larger number of small businesses, which resulted in a change in the  composition of inspectors. We found that without a comprehensive  review, REAC cannot determine if it has been meeting the goal of  producing inspections that are reliable, replicable, and reasonable.

We recommended that REAC conduct a comprehensive review of the  physical inspection process, and HUD agreed with this recommendation.

In November 2019, HUD officials told us that they recently completed a  comprehensive review of the physical inspection process. In supporting  documentation, HUD stated that the current model was insufficient for  evaluating HUD-assisted housing when compared to modern  expectations of housing quality, and that there is now a need to focus  more on health and safety of residents and less on asset preservation  and condition and appearance items. We have been assessing HUD’s  recent review to determine whether it is has fully addressed our  recommendation.

We also found that REAC may not be identifying all properties in need of  more frequent inspections or enforcement actions because it does not  consider sampling errors of the inspection scores. For large properties,  REAC inspects a statistical sample of the property’s units and buildings  rather than all of them. The results for the sample are then used to  estimate a score that represents the condition of the entire property. HUD  takes enforcement action for multifamily properties with a score below 60.  However, sampling introduces a degree of uncertainty, called sampling  error, which statisticians commonly express as a range associated with  numerical results. For example, for a property that scored 62 on its  physical inspection, due to sampling error, the range associated with this  score could be between 56 on the lower bound and 68 on the upper  bound. REAC would consider this a passing score that requires an annual  inspection and no enforcement action, although the lower bound fell  below 60.

REAC previously calculated sampling errors but ceased doing so in 2013,  according to REAC officials, in part because of a lack of resources and  also because they believed there was no need to calculate them. Based  on our analysis of REAC inspection data, HUD could have taken  enforcement actions against more properties if REAC had taken sampling  errors in inspection scores into account. For example, from fiscal years  2002 through 2013, about 4.3 percent of inspections of multifamily and  public housing properties had an inspection score of 60 or slightly above  60 but had a lower bound score under 60. Without considering sampling  errors when determining whether enforcement action is needed, REAC  will not identify some properties that may require more frequent  inspections or enforcement actions.

We recommended in our March 2019 report that REAC resume  calculating the sampling error associated with the physical inspection  score for each property, identify what changes may be needed for HUD to  use sampling error results, and consider those results when determining  whether more frequent inspections or enforcement actions would be  needed. HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation.  However, since our report was issued, HUD said that by September 30,  2020, REAC planned to include the standard error calculations in the next  version of its scoring software for physical inspections. REAC officials  also stated that a task team concluded that the use of sampling error  likely would have no impact on any individual enforcement action.  However, REAC’s statement appears to contradict its own policies  because inspection scores alone are used to determine whether some  properties are referred for potential enforcement actions. We will continue  to monitor REAC’s actions regarding this recommendation, including how  it uses sampling error results to make decisions about properties.

Selecting, Training, and Evaluating Inspectors

In our March 2019 report, we also found that REAC lacked formal  mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of its training program for  contractors hired to inspect properties (contract inspectors) and for HUD  employees responsible for monitoring and overseeing contract inspectors  (quality assurance inspectors). Unlike professional inspection  organizations, REAC does not have continuing education requirements.  Formal mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of its training program  could help REAC ensure that its program supports the development  needs of inspectors. Furthermore, requiring continuing education could  help REAC ensure that inspectors are current on any changes in REAC’s  policies or industry standards. We also found weaknesses in REAC’s  process for evaluating the performance of inspectors, which could hinder  its ability to ensure the quality of inspections.

We made a number of recommendations related to the selection, training,  and performance evaluation of inspectors. Specifically, we recommended  that HUD take the following actions:

Follow through on REAC’s plan to create a process to verify candidate  qualifications for contract inspectors—for example, by calling  references and requesting documentation from candidates that  supports their completion of 250 residential or commercial  inspections.

Develop a process to evaluate the effectiveness of REAC’s training  program—for example, by reviewing the results of tests or soliciting  participant feedback.

Revise training for quality assurance inspectors to better reflect their  job duties.

Develop continuing education requirements for contract and quality  assurance inspectors.

Review performance standards for quality assurance inspectors and  revise them to better reflect the skills and supporting behaviors that  quality assurance inspectors need to effectively contribute to REAC’s  mission.

HUD agreed with these recommendations, and we have been evaluating  actions it has taken in response to them since our report was issued. For  example, in November 2019, HUD officials said that they were moving  toward a model of contracting with larger firms to conduct physical  inspections of properties. In this model, HUD plans to put the first level of  responsibility on the contractor to do its own due diligence on inspector  candidates, and the contractor would be required to review 25 verifiable  prior inspections completed by each inspector candidate. A REAC official  then would be expected to select a sample of the candidate’s inspections  to review.

In response to our recommendation about revising training for quality  assurance inspectors, REAC said that it recently began requiring a  minimum of 8 hours of continuing education annually for all quality  assurance staff. As of November 2019, REAC had not yet provided us  with information about the subject matter of that training. Since our report  was issued, REAC also developed continuing education requirements for  contract and quality assurance inspectors, which it said will be required  beginning in January 2020. In addition, REAC has developed updated  performance standards for quality assurance inspectors, which REAC  officials said were under review. REAC considers the new standards to  be more aligned with the job responsibilities of quality assurance  inspectors.

We also found that REAC did not always meet its schedule for inspecting  multifamily properties or track progress toward meeting scheduling  requirements. REAC did not meet its schedule for about 20 percent of  multifamily property inspections from calendar years 2013 through 2017.  On average, REAC conducted inspections for these properties about 6  months past the targeted date. REAC staff told us that there may be  legitimate reasons for not conducting an inspection according to the  targeted date. For example, the Office of Multifamily Housing, which  oversees the performance of properties that receive project-based  assistance, can delay an inspection for reasons such as natural disasters  or major rehabilitation to the property. However, REAC maintains limited  data on the reasons why inspections have been rescheduled or  cancelled. In addition, these data are not readily available to understand  retrospectively why an inspection did not occur on schedule. REAC also  does not track its progress toward meeting its requirement for inspecting  multifamily properties within prescribed time frames.

REAC’s inability to adhere to the inspection schedule could hinder the  Office of Multifamily Housing’s ability to monitor the physical condition of  properties on a timely basis and take enforcement actions when  warranted. Furthermore, the lack of a mechanism to track REAC’s  progress toward meeting its requirement for inspecting multifamily  properties hinders its ability to determine what factors have contributed to  delays in conducting the inspections. In our March 2019 report, we  recommended that REAC track on a routine basis whether it conducts  inspections of multifamily housing properties in accordance with federal  guidelines for scheduling, as well as coordinate with the Office of  Multifamily Housing to minimize the number of properties that can cancel  or reschedule their physical inspections. HUD partially agreed with this  recommendation.

Since our report was issued, REAC officials told us that REAC developed  an electronic spreadsheet to better track information about its inspections,  and they expect information technology enhancements that would  automate the tracking of information about these inspections to be  deployed by September 1, 2020. HUD’s Office of Multifamily Housing also  issued a memorandum in March 2019 that provides guidance on when a  field office may approve an owner’s request to delay an inspection. We  will continue to monitor HUD’s actions related to this recommendation.

Implementing New Quality Control Policies and Procedures

In our March 2019 report, we found that REAC had yet to implement  policies and procedures for its Quality Control group, which was formed in  2017. REAC created the Quality Control group to standardize quality  assurance inspector reviews by conducting more frequent oversight and  looking for trends across all quality assurance inspectors, according to a  Quality Control official. In November 2018, Quality Control developed a  mission statement that says that the primary goal of the group is to  improve the consistency of inspections. Also in November 2018, Quality  Control developed procedures for reviewing quality assurance inspectors,  which include processes for conducting field reviews of completed  inspections, criteria for acceptable inspections, and processes for  providing feedback. An official from the group told us both its mission and  procedures have not been implemented, in part because Quality Control  staff repeatedly have been occupied with other special projects. Without  finalizing and implementing its policies and procedures for reviewing  quality assurance inspectors, Quality Control may not be able to provide  consistent reviews of quality assurance inspectors, which could affect the  quality of inspections and the feedback and coaching that quality  assurance inspectors provide to contract inspectors.

We recommended that REAC ensure that Quality Control’s policies and  procedures for overseeing quality assurance inspectors are implemented,  and HUD agreed with this recommendation. Since our report was issued,  REAC has begun to implement this recommendation by clarifying in  writing the roles, responsibilities, and objectives of the Quality Control  group, including how the group plans to support changes in REAC’s  inspection program. In determining the status of our recommendation, we  will look for evidence that the group has been consistently implementing  its policies and procedures.

Other Recommendations and Actions HUD Has Taken

In addition, our March 2019 report made several other recommendations  regarding the physical inspection process and oversight of inspectors.  These recommendations addressed documenting the sampling methodology for the inspection process, designing and implementing an evaluation plan for assessing the  effectiveness of REAC’s pilot program for staffing inspections in hard- to-staff geographic areas,  implementing internal HUD recommendations,  implementing a plan for meeting management targets for reviews by  quality assurance inspectors, and  reporting to Congress on why the agency has not complied with a  Consolidated Appropriations Act requirement.

HUD generally agreed with these recommendations. While HUD has  taken some steps, it had not fully addressed them as of November 2019.  We have been assessing the actions HUD has taken and will continue to  monitor HUD’s progress toward implementing these recommendations.

HUD has been undertaking significant changes to the REAC physical  inspection program. In a Federal Register notice published on August 21,  2019, HUD said it was soliciting comments on a proposed voluntary  demonstration of a new physical inspection process, called the “National  Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate.” According to HUD  officials, the new inspection model is intended to address issues of  inspections not always identifying health and safety conditions and  properties with poor unit conditions passing inspections, among other  things. HUD officials have said that a transition to the new model may  take 2 years or more. HUD also has been taking steps to replace its  reverse auction program with a program in which large contractors will be  responsible for conducting physical inspections. We will continue to  monitor HUD’s actions regarding the recommendations, as well as HUD’s  activities more broadly related to implementing a new inspection model.  Full implementation of the recommendations, even as the inspection  program undergoes changes, can help REAC to ensure that properties  are decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair.

HUD Needs to Better Monitor Compliance with Lead Paint Regulations and Measure and Report on Performance of Lead Efforts Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement

Our June 2018 report identified a number of areas in which HUD needs to  improve its efforts to identify and address lead paint hazards and protect  children in low-income housing from lifelong health problems. Among  other issues, we identified shortcomings in compliance monitoring and  enforcement, inspection standards, and performance assessment and  reporting.

Our June 2018 report noted that HUD began taking steps in 2016 to  monitor how PHAs comply with lead paint regulations. These steps  included tracking the status of lead inspection reports for public housing  properties and PHA-reported information about cases of children with  elevated blood lead levels living in voucher and public housing units.  However, we also identified several limitations with HUD’s monitoring  efforts. For example, HUD relies in part on PHAs self-certifying their  compliance with lead paint regulations, but investigations found that some  PHA officials may have falsely certified that they were in compliance.  Also, on-site compliance reviews performed by HUD staff can be used to  determine if PHAs are in compliance with these regulations, but HUD  performs a limited number of these reviews annually. In fiscal year 2017,  HUD conducted these reviews at less than 2 percent of the roughly 4,000  PHAs. Finally, HUD does not have data readily available on the physical  condition of the roughly 2.5 million voucher units or these units’  compliance with lead paint regulations because the individual PHAs keep  these data.

These limitations in HUD’s monitoring suggest that HUD may not be fully  aware of the extent to which children may live in unsafe units. As a result,  we recommended that HUD establish a plan to mitigate and address risks  in its lead paint compliance monitoring processes. These actions could  further strengthen HUD’s oversight and keep PHAs accountable for  ensuring that housing units are lead-safe. HUD agreed with the  recommendation. As of November 2019, HUD officials told us the agency  had taken steps to implement the recommendation, including requiring  PHAs to submit appropriate documentation regarding public housing  units’ compliance with lead paint regulations and updating an internal  checklist for on-site compliance reviews that HUD staff conduct. We will  continue to monitor HUD’s progress in response to our recommendation.

Our 2018 report also found that HUD did not have detailed procedures to  address PHA noncompliance with lead paint regulations or to determine  when enforcement decisions might be needed. HUD staff stated that they  address PHA noncompliance through ongoing communication and  technical assistance. However, HUD has not documented specific actions  staff should perform when deficiencies are identified. Furthermore, in  response to our requests for information on enforcement actions taken,  HUD was able to provide information on only one enforcement action,  which dated from 2013. As a result, we recommended that HUD develop  and document procedures to ensure staff take consistent and timely steps  to address issues of PHA noncompliance with lead paint regulations.  HUD generally agreed with the recommendation. As of November 2019,  HUD officials told us procedures were in draft form and under internal  review and were not expected to be finalized until spring 2020. HUD  officials noted that the draft procedures could help HUD staff decide when  an enforcement action might be appropriate, including determining how  long PHAs have to resolve noncompliance.

We also found that HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule requires a stricter  lead inspection standard for public housing than for voucher units. For  public housing, inspectors must conduct a risk assessment that includes  testing paint chips and dust for the presence of lead paint. For voucher  units, inspectors conduct a visual assessment that includes looking for  deteriorated paint or visible surface dust but does not include any testing  of paint chips or samples. As a result of the different inspection standards  in the two programs, children living in voucher units may receive less  protection from lead paint hazards than children living in public housing.  According to agency officials, HUD does not have the statutory authority  to require the more stringent inspection in the voucher program. In our  June 2018 report, we recommended that HUD request authority from  Congress to use the stricter lead inspection standard in the voucher  program as indicated by analysis of health effects for children, the impact  on landlord participation in the program, and other relevant factors.

In August 2018, HUD officials told us that they planned to convene a  working group to design and conduct a statistically rigorous study on the  impact of risk assessments to help decide whether to support statutory  change for greater flexibility in strengthening inspection standards for pre- 1978 units under the voucher program. Such an analysis could be useful  in evaluating the potential benefits and risks of a change in the voucher  program, and we will continue to monitor the progress made by the  working group. As of November 2019, HUD officials told us they were  working on a demonstration proposal to test an alternative inspection  standard in the voucher program. The officials noted that details of the  demonstration proposal were not currently available. Separately, we have  ongoing work reviewing possible changes in the inspection standard for  the voucher program. This work started in September 2019 and will  include an in-depth review of the impact a change in the inspection  standard may have on the cost and length of time of inspections, as well  as the impact on landlords and families participating in the voucher  program.

Our June 2018 report also identified weaknesses in HUD’s performance  assessment of and reporting on its lead-safety efforts. We found that  HUD had taken limited steps to measure, evaluate, and report on the  performance of its programmatic efforts to ensure that housing is lead- safe. First, HUD lacked comprehensive goals and performance measures  for its lead-reduction efforts. We found that HUD did not track the number  of housing units in the voucher or public housing programs that were  lead-safe. At the time of our report, HUD officials told us that the agency  did not have systems to count the number of housing units made lead- safe in these two programs. HUD had begun discussing whether existing  databases could be used to count lead-safe housing units but did not  provided us with details at that time. Second, HUD had not formalized  plans and did not have a time frame for evaluating the effectiveness of its  lead paint regulations. Third, it had not complied with annual statutory  reporting requirements and last reported on its lead efforts in 1997. We  noted that by improving its measurement of whether its housing is lead- safe and evaluating and reporting on its efforts, HUD will be better  positioned to inform Congress and the public about its progress toward  ensuring that housing is lead-safe for residents.

As a result of these findings, we recommended that HUD develop  performance goals and measures, including a measure to track its efforts  to ensure that housing units in its rental assistance programs were lead- safe. Additionally, we recommended that HUD finalize plans for  evaluating the effectiveness of its lead paint regulations. Finally, we  recommended that HUD complete statutory reporting requirements and  make the reports publicly available. HUD generally agreed with these  recommendations.

In August 2018, HUD told us that it would use existing data systems to  begin to establish a baseline for reporting lead-safe housing units in its  rental assistance programs. As of November 2019, HUD officials told us  they still were exploring whether current data systems could be used to  count the number of lead-safe housing units in HUD’s rental assistance  programs. According to HUD officials, for public housing, HUD has made  progress in counting housing units that have been made lead-safe using  funds from the Lead-Based Paint Capital Fund Program. However,  officials told us data will not be available until spring 2020. To evaluate  the effectiveness of lead paint regulations, in November 2019 HUD  officials told us they planned to use data from the forthcoming update to  the American Healthy Homes Survey to better estimate the prevalence of  lead paint hazards in federally assisted housing. However, officials told us  the findings from the updated survey likely would not be available until  summer 2020. With respect to complying with statutory reporting  requirements, in November 2019, HUD officials told us they planned to  issue a report to Congress on the agency’s lead efforts in early 2020. We  will continue to monitor HUD’s efforts to implement these  recommendations.

In summary, it is essential to strengthen HUD’s oversight and keep PHAs  accountable for ensuring that housing units are lead-safe because  children continue to test positive for lead while living in HUD-assisted  housing. As of November 2019, HUD officials told us they continue to  learn of confirmed cases of children testing positive for lead while living in  HUD-assisted housing because PHAs are required to record the cases in  a HUD database. We maintain that improvements to the areas noted in  this statement today will help HUD better protect children from lifelong  health problems.

Chairman Clay, Ranking Member Stivers, and Members of the  Subcommittee, this concludes my statement for the record.

If you or your staff have any questions about this statement, please  contact Daniel Garcia-Diaz, Director, Financial Markets and Community  Investment, at (202) 512-8678 or garciadiazd@gao.gov. Contact points  for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be  found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key  contributions to this statement are Beth Faraguna and Andy Pauline  (Assistant Directors), Cory Marzullo (Analyst in Charge), Rachel Batkins,  Carl Barden, Charlene Calhoon, Rudy Chatlos, Jeff Harner, Jill Lacey,  Lisa Moore, Marc Molino, José Peña, Rhonda Rose, Jessica Sandler,  Jennifer Schwartz, Tyler Spunaugle, and Nina Thomas-Diggs.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

By the end of 2018, over 4 million low-income households were being served by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s three largest rental assistance programs. HUD must ensure that housing units provided under these programs are safe and sanitary.

However, in this statement for the congressional record we reported that HUD needs to improve its efforts to address lead paint hazards in these housing units as well as its process for inspecting properties to identify physical problems.

We also discussed 6 recommendations from a report on lead paint in HUD-assisted housing and 14 recommendations from a report on HUD’s inspection process.