HEALTH AND HOUSING
Collaboration at LAST:
The LEAD ABATEMENT
STRIKE
TEAM
Philadelphia Department of Public Health
Carla Campbell, MD, MS; Robert
Himmelsbach, BA; Peter Palermo, MS; and
Richard Tobin, MS, MPA
Pre-Collaboration:
Extent of the Problem
Housing in Philadelphia:
 590,071 occupied units^
 92% built pre-1978; 72% pre-1960^
 57% of pre-1978 units (310,000) occupied by
low-income residents*
 60% of pre-1960 units (250,000) occupied by
low-income residents*
^ 2000 Census
* 1990 Census
Philadelphia Children Tested with
Confirmed Blood Lead Level 10 g/dL
Year
1995
1997
1999
2001
Total Tested
30,183
33,587
31,498
46,367
Total > 10 g/dL
9,554
9,652
5,898
5,395
% > 10 g/dL
32 %
29 %
19 %
12 %
CLPPP Functions:
Pre - LAST
Medical Case Management
Inspection
Issuance of Orders to Remediate Lead
Hazards
Re-Inspection
No Further Action if Property Owner UnResponsive
Problems With Enforcement
Pre - LAST
 Court-ordered lead hazard control (LHC) to be
done by City without prioritization or resources
 No resources for BSR (basic system repair) and
resident relocation, often prerequisite to LHC
 Fear of creating more homelessness and property
abandonment
 Backlog accumulated of 1400 properties with lead
hazards
 New cases continued to add to backlog (about 768
from 4/1/2002-10/23/2003)
CLPPP Functions:
Post - LAST
Medical Case Management
Inspection
Issuance of Orders to Remediate
Lead Hazards
Re-Inspection
CLPPP Functions:
Post - LAST
Property Owner Responsive:
– Visual and DW Compliance and Clearance by
Owner or City-Directed LHC
Property Owner NOT Responsive:
– LEAD COURT PROCESS
– LHC BY OWNER OR CITY-INITIATED
– VISUAL AND DW CLEARANCE
Lead Abatement Strike Team:
Creation
Strong community advocacy for
increased enforcement and funding for
LHC
Concern about the large backlog of cases
Increased interest in problem from City
Council members and Health
Commissioner
Commitment for increased funding ($ 1.5
million) and activity around this issue
Lead Abatement Strike Team:
Organization
Partner Agencies meet Bimonthly
– Policy Meetings
Decisions made about New Policies, Programs,
and Direction of Group
– Program Operations Meetings
Review Process to Accomplish Goals, address
obstacles and GET WORK DONE
MDO Office Coordinates the
Collaboration
Lead Abatement Strike Team:
Collaboration
ALPHABET SOUP OF INVOLVED AGENCIES
 PDPH—HEALTH DEPT.
 OHCD—HOUSING & COMM. DEVELOP.
 PHDC– PHILA. HOUSING DEV. CORP.
 PHA– PHILA. HOUSING AUTHORITY
 OESS/OAS—EMERGENCY SERVICES AND
SHELTERS
 DHS—DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES
 L & I—LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS
 CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
LAST Policy Group
Why Have Collaboration ?
 Some goals can’t be accomplished without it
– EX: Basic System repair work (OHCD, PHDC)
preceding lead remediation work (PDPH)
– Resident relocation (OESS)
 Pooling of resources from different agencies
 Sharing of expertise, knowledge of staff from
different agencies
 Look at problem from different perspectives
 Landlords can’t play one agency against the other
Philadelphia Lead Court
Philadelphia Lead Court
 Created in 11/02 for code enforcement of both
backlog and new cases
 Court scheduled for three sessions a week,
typically 25 cases/session
 Deputy City Solicitor (DCS) and the CLPPP
Program Manager represent the City
 Defendant interview before start of court, we
try and set agreements of when they will get the
work done
 This special court is one of the most
efficient/effective courts in the City
Lead Risk Assessment (RA)
Always triggered by presence of a
child with an EBL
Performed by staff who are PA-Certified
Lead Risk Assessors
Full set of surface-by-surface readings
Note condition of surfaces
– Paint intact or defective?
– Surface easy-to-clean?
Violation Notices
 PDPH issues Orders to the property owner to
Remediate the lead hazards within 10 days.
 Owner required
– remediate deteriorated lead paint
– make all surfaces smooth, tight, and easy-to-clean
 Ownership determined by:
– resident interview
– electronic record search of Phila. Water Dept. and
L & I databases
RA Follow-Up
Non Compliance
Inspected 10 days after OL; if non-compliant:
 No-compliance letter, which includes
notification of additional legal action:
–
–
PDPH may remediate hazard and bill owner
Lead Court
 L & I notified of Violation – owner rental
license revoked:
–
–
Tenant can stop rent payment
Landlord cannot evict tenant
 Copy pertinent case information sent to the
Law Department
Law Complaint
Due Process
 Complaint filed with the Court Administration;
a hearing date is set
 Complaint (hand) delivered to owner
 Owner ordered to appear in court or face
significant fines
 Complaint contains copies of the CLPPP’s
original order letter, no compliance letter, and
other official letters, eliminating the “I never
got it” argument
Lead Court (old)
Defendant Interview
Lead Court
Court Order Form (McJustice) – all
usual court decisions pre-printed
Solicitor requests by number
Judge checks appropriate box, enters
next court date specified and signs order.
Clerk date stamps document, copy is
made in court and given to the defendant
with explanation
Lead Court
 Solicitor asks the court for certain set
judgments and usually 30, 45, 60 or 90 days to
complete the work.
 Provided work is continuing, each new court
appearance may generate another order to
“keep up the good work” and another 1, 2 or 3
month extension.
 Length of time given dependent on rate of
work, BLLs of and presence of children, etc.
Status of Lead Court Cases
For the period 11/5/2002 thru 11/5/2003

1,821 Cases logged by Law Dept. to be processed for court filing.

1,460 Cases filed with the court (includes cases heard & re-listed)

1,406 Cases scheduled for hearings

1,274 Cases heard in court (includes cases heard & re-listed)

752 cases ended through court action


489 have been brought into compliance

93 have been found vacant and referred to Licenses and Inspections

165 have been given to the Health Department for LHC

5 ended for other reasons
Therefore 522 cases are still in the legal process (“returning for
status”)
Continuing Evaluation of Lead
Court Dust/Blood Results
 Ongoing analyses of BLL and dust lead levels post LHC
 Properties repaired by the Health Department experienced
30% fewer failures in post-repair lead dust loading tests
than properties repaired by their owners.
 Among failed areas, the mean dust sample test results in
owner-repaired homes exceed the EPA standard by
significantly more than in city-repaired homes.
 Preliminary BLL analyses show that in children aged 2536 months living in properties that have come into
compliance through Lead Court, post-hazard-control blood
lead levels decrease less in residents of owner-repaired
properties than in residents of CLPPP-repaired properties.
LAST Initiative
Lead Hazard Control
LHC Barriers (Pre-LAST)

$$$
 BSR
 Relocation
 Certified Lead Abatement Contractors
 Protocols and Infrastructure
 Dangerous Properties
LAST LHC Infrastructure
$ 1.5 million for LHC
– Six PA-certified lead abatement contractors
under contract with CLPPP for LHC
– Two CLPPP LHC crews
– BSR through PHA & PHDC
Relocation (by OESS) – 11 “Safe” houses
L & I Inspection of Dangerous Properties
Clients
 Court-ordered (166 since 11/02)
 Pre-Court
 Owner-occupied CLPPP EBL
cases at time of non-compliance
re-inspection (300 / year)
 Grant Applicants (100+)
Protocol – Contractor
PA-Certified
Have multiple PA-certified crews
Agreed to a set price list
Have adequate insurance
Paid after CLPPP RA OK and Dust Wipe
Test
Not paid for additional cleaning if dust
wipes fail clearance
Protocol – Work Evaluation
 Property evaluated by CLPPP:
– Surfaces / areas / fixtures measured
– Treatment determined for each surface / area /
fixture
 Written Work Specification Report:
– List of specific treatment for each surface / area / fixture
– Cost for each treatment
 Basic System Repairs completed prior to work
 Relocation Coordinator notified if relocation
needed
 Case assigned to next available Contractor, or
CLPPP Crew
Lead Hazard Control Work
Typical work:
– Surface Paint Stabilization
– Replace Windows and Doors
– Luan / vinyl tile floors
Complete in 2 weeks
Must pass Dust Clearance (by CLPPP)
Typical costs for LHC: $ 6,000 - $ 16,000
LAST Accomplishments
 2001 – 159 Properties received LHC work
– 131 by Owner
– 28 by City crew
----------------- (LAST Initiative started 4/1/2002) -----------------
 2002 – 332 Properties received LHC work
– 232 by Owner
– 38 by City crews
– 62 by CLPPP Contractor
 2003 – 510 Properties received LHC work
– 395 by Owner
– 19 by City crews
– 96 by CLPPP Contractor
 Total LAST Tally : 819 properties serving 1118 children
in 18 month period (340% increase)
Why Did This Collaboration
Work ?
 Strong support from Mayor and Health
Commissioner
 Managing Director’s Office mandate
 Different agencies within city government
urged to use 3 Cs:
– Communication
– Collaboration
– Cooperation
 Staff Dedication
Benefits of LAST Process
Much improved enforcement
Dramatic increase in properties receiving
lead hazard control
For every City dollar spent $2.50 worth
of LHC achieved by private home owners
Infrastructure ready for Successful
Grant Applications and Primary
Prevention
For More Information:
Philadelphia Department of Public Health
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
2100 W. Girard Avenue
PNH - Bldg #3
Philadelphia, PA 19130-1400
Phone: 215-685-2788 Fax: 215-685-2978
Carla.Campbell @ Phila.gov
Robert.Himmelsbach @ Phila.gov
Peter.Palermo @ Phila.gov