Search

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) undertook an evaluation of its Lead Hazard Control Grant Program between 1994 and 1999. The Evaluation is the largest study ever done on the effectiveness of lead hazard controls implemented in residential dwellings. The Evaluation had several major objectives: determining the effectiveness of various lead hazard controls in reducing residential dust lead levels and children's blood lead levels, establishing the costs of doing lead hazard control work and factors that influence those costs, determining the rate of clearance testing failures and their causes, and identifying possible negative effects of lead hazard control work on children's blood lead levels. This paper reports the overall research design and data collection methods of the Evaluation. The large number of dwelling units enrolled in the Evaluation was possible only by the innovative partnership among HUD, the Evaluators, and the grantees. HUD and the Evaluators relied on the grantees for essentially all of the data collection. The 14 participating HUD Lead Hazard Control Grantees were responsible for implementing the lead hazard control programs in their communities and collecting the study data. This paper describes the methods for recruiting and enrolling dwellings and families, collecting environmental and housing data, interviewing participating families, and collecting data on lead hazard control work performed and its costs. The paper also describes the basic quality control and quality assurance procedures used. The principal outcome measures were lead in dust collected using wipes from floors, window sills, and window troughs and lead in blood collected from children who were 6 years old or younger at enrollment. Data collection was conducted before intervention, immediately postintervention, and 6 and 12 months postintervention. For a subset of dwellings undergoing an extended follow-up data were also collected at 24 and 36 months postintervention. This paper provides the context for subsequent reports that will describe such findings as the influence of lead hazard control work on serial dust lead levels, the influence of lead hazard control work on serial blood lead levels in children, the nature and costs of the lead hazard control work done at the dwellings, and the experience of the grantees in meeting clearance testing requirements.

At the conclusion of most lead hazard control interventions in federally assisted housing built before 1978, a certified clearance examiner must verify that the lead hazard control work was completed as specified and that the area is safe for residents, a process referred to as clearance. This study explores the experience of 14 grantees participating in the Evaluation of the HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program in passing clearance. The study also considers how preintervention lead levels (interior dust and paint), building condition/characteristics, and the scope of work influenced initial clearance dust lead loadings and clearance rates. At the initial clearance inspection, 80% of the 2682 dwellings achieved grantee-specific clearance standards on windowsills, window troughs (500 microg/ft2 and 800 microg/ft2, respectively), and floors (80, 100, or 200 microg/ft2 depending on state/local regulations at the dates of clearance in the mid-1990s), with individual grantee success rates ranging from 63 to 100%. Dwellings that failed initial clearance required an average of 1.13 retests to clear. The high level of success at clearance demonstrates that following methods for work site containment, lead hazard control, and cleaning similar to those recommended in the HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint in Housing is effective. The most common lead hazard control intervention was window abatement accompanied by the repair or abatement of all other deteriorated lead-based paint (56% of dwellings). An additional 5% of dwellings were fully abated, 29% had lower intensity interventions. Interventions including window replacement are recommended to reduce dust lead loading on windowsills and troughs at clearance, but lower level interventions such as full paint stabilization are just as good at reducing floor dust lead loadings. Whatever lead hazard control activities are selected, the condition of the surfaces of interest should be in good condition at clearance.

Data from an evaluation of the HUD Lead Hazard Control Grant Program were used to evaluate the prevalence and location of teeth marks on painted surfaces in residential housing. The results of these analyses will be useful in the development of more effective pediatric lead poisoning prevention programs. These programs have historically placed considerable emphasis on surfaces accessible to children for mouthing activities. This study analyzes the largest set of data ever assembled on the prevalence of teeth marks in housing. Data from 308,851 observations in 3,454 housing units were analyzed to determine the prevalence of teeth mark observations per surface, dwelling unit, and building component, and by housing age, inspector, and grantee. An average of 4.0 teeth marks per 10,000 surfaces with paint-lead greater than or equal to 1.0 mg/cm2 were observed. For surfaces with less than 1.0 mg/cm2 lead the rate was 1.5 teeth marks/10,000 surfaces. The number of teeth marks per 10,000 surfaces increased with age of housing for surfaces with 1.0 mg/cm2 or higher lead but not for surfaces with less than 1.0 mg/cm2 lead. Teeth mark observation rates were 36 times higher for windowsills than for other components and ranged up to 11 per 10,000 surfaces and 9 dwellings per 100 dwelling units for 2 grantees with the highest rates. Blood lead levels in children exhibiting moderate to high mouthing behavior were higher than in children without such behavior, especially in housing where teeth marks were observed. Special priority should be given to windowsills when making decisions on lead hazard control for "accessible," "chewable," or "mouthable" surfaces.