LSP Executive Report 2025

The Lead Scorecard Executive Report May 2024 An executive summary of the national review of state programs concerning lead prevention in the United States.

Professor Waterhouse & Howard University School of Law’s Environmental Research and Advocacy Clinic Fellows

Table of Contents 1. Introduction • Overview of the Lead Scorecard Project • Importance of Lead Prevention 2. Project Purpose and Objectives • Goals and Aims of the Review 3. Dangers of Lead Poisoning • Health Implications for Children and Adults 4. Policy Evaluation Framework • Criteria for Assessing State Policies 5. Major Findings and Discoveries • Policy • Medical Provider Reporting • Prevention • Testing • State-Provided Services • Transparency • Funding 6. Solutions and Recommendations • Strategies for Enhancing State Policies • Examples of Successful Programs 7. Conclusion • Summary of Findings • Call to Action for Policy Improvement 8. Additional Resources • Recommended Websites and Further Reading 9. Find Out More About Lead • Key Websites and State Resources

Introduction The Lead Scorecard Project, spearheaded by Professor Carlton Waterhouse, was developed to provide a comprehensive and accessible overview of state-level policies on lead prevention. This project, executed with the dedicated involvement of Howard University School of Law's Research and Advocacy Clinic Fellows, aims to assess and enhance these policies, especially highlighting the states' efforts and their effectiveness in safeguarding against lead poisoning. The project's primary goal is to equip American citizens, particularly those most vulnerable to lead exposure, with detailed information about the protective measures their state has in place and how these measures score in a nationwide comparison.

This executive report serves as a valuable resource for a diverse audience, including public officials, students, ordinary citizens, and corporate entities, offering them insights into the effectiveness of current lead prevention policies. As laws and regulations may change, and given that the contributors to this report are students in the field of law, we recommend that all users verify the information presented herein through independent sources to ensure accuracy and up-to-date relevance.

Purpose and Objectives The primary objective of the Lead Scorecard Project is to critically assess and suggest improvements to state policies aimed at reducing lead exposure, particularly in environments frequented by children. This initiative seeks to: 1. Evaluate the Current State Policies: Through a detailed review and scoring system, we identify the strengths and weaknesses of each state's approach to lead prevention.

2. Enhance Public Awareness: By disseminating our findings in an accessible format, we aim to increase public knowledge and engagement regarding the dangers of lead poisoning and the importance of robust prevention policies.

3. Encourage Policy Enhancement: By highlighting best practices and areas for improvement, we advocate for legislative and regulatory changes that will strengthen lead prevention measures across the nation.

4. Protect Vulnerable Populations: With a focus on children and at-risk communities, the project underscores the need for targeted policies that minimize lead exposure and prevent its harmful effects.

By achieving these objectives, the Lead Scorecard Project endeavors to contribute significantly to the safeguarding of public health, particularly the health of children, from the dangers of lead poisoning.

Dangers of Lead Poisoning Lead poisoning remains a significant public health concern, with its effects being particularly detrimental to children.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there is no safe level of lead exposure as it can severely affect mental and physical development.

The specific impacts on children include: • • • • • •

Behavior and Learning Problems: Lead exposure can lead to difficulties in learning, attention deficits, and behavioral issues.

Lower IQ: Even low levels of lead can decrease IQ scores, affecting academic and future career success.

Hyperactivity: Children exposed to lead are more likely to show increased signs of hyperactivity and impulsive behavior.

Slowed Growth: Physical development can be stunted, with lead interfering with normal growth rates.

Hearing Problems: Lead exposure can affect hearing, leading to difficulties in both hearing and speech.

Anemia: Lead interferes with the body's ability to produce hemoglobin, which is crucial for transporting oxygen in the blood.

For adults, lead poisoning can damage the brain and nervous system, lead to high blood pressure and hypertension, and cause reproductive problems. Pregnant women are particularly at risk, as lead exposure can lead to miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth, and developmental issues in newborns.

The most common sources of lead exposure include deteriorating lead-based paint, contaminated air, water, and soil, and industrial processes. Despite efforts to reduce lead exposure from these sources, ongoing risks highlight the critical need for comprehensive policies and preventive measures, especially in environments where children live, play, and learn.

Policy Evaluation Framework The Lead Scorecard Project utilizes a detailed scoring system to evaluate the effectiveness of state policies on lead prevention. This framework encompasses seven overarching categories, each corresponding to a specific tab in our evaluation spreadsheet: 1. Policy: Evaluates the comprehensiveness and enforceability of state legislation related to lead prevention.

2. Medical Provider Reporting: Assesses how effectively states require and facilitate medical providers to report cases of lead exposure.

3. Prevention: Reviews the preventive measures implemented at the state level to reduce lead exposure risks.

4. Testing: Examines the protocols for lead testing in children, homes, and other potentially affected environments.

5. State-Provided Services: Analyzes the availability and effectiveness of stateprovided services for lead poisoning prevention and treatment.

6. Transparency: Measures the quality and accessibility of information provided to the public about lead risks and preventive practices.

7. Funding: Evaluates the allocation and adequacy of funds dedicated to lead prevention and remediation programs.

Each state is scored on these criteria with up to 16 points available in total, enabling a clear, comparative analysis of how well states are performing in each area. This methodical approach ensures that our evaluation highlights both the strengths and areas needing improvement in state-level lead prevention efforts.

Major Findings and Discoveries: Policy The evaluation of state policies on lead prevention revealed a diverse range of approaches, reflecting varying levels of engagement and resource allocation across the states. While many states have established Childhood Lead Prevention Programs, Arkansas, North Dakota, and Wyoming currently do not have such programs in place. These programs are crucial for comprehensive lead risk management and their absence suggests areas for potential development and focus.

Regarding proactive measures, approximately 17 states, including Hawaii, primarily have policies that address lead exposure after it is detected rather than preventing it beforehand. While these measures are crucial, the emphasis on post-exposure management may leave gaps in preemptive protections, which are essential for reducing the incidence of lead poisoning in the first place.

Additionally, 15 states indicated they do not systematically identify high-risk areas for lead exposure, which could enhance targeted prevention strategies. This indicates a potential area for policy enhancement to better protect vulnerable populations.

A significant finding concerns tenant protections during lead abatement: more than 35 states, representing over 70% of the survey, do not require landlords to cover relocation expenses for tenants who are pregnant or have young children. This policy gap highlights a critical area where states could improve support for those most vulnerable to lead exposure.

As policies continuously evolve, it is crucial for stakeholders to verify the current status of these regulations. We encourage readers to consult the most recent data and local regulations to accurately understand the current landscape of lead prevention efforts in their respective areas. This approach ensures that the evaluation reflects both the challenges and the progress being made in lead poisoning prevention across the United States.

Major Findings and Discoveries: Medical Provider Reporting Medical Provider Reporting practices across the states show a complex landscape of compliance and gaps in best practices for monitoring and managing lead exposure.

While the majority of states have established robust reporting systems, some deficiencies remain that could affect the overall effectiveness of lead prevention efforts.

A fundamental aspect of effective lead management is the universal reporting of lead screening results. However, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, and Kentucky do not require healthcare providers to report all lead screening results, thus missing out on comprehensive data that could significantly inform public health responses.

Most states enforce reporting when elevated blood lead levels (EBLL) reach 3.5 mg/dL, which facilitates early intervention. Nonetheless, 6 states only mandate reporting at higher thresholds, typically 5 mg/dL, which may delay necessary interventions.

The disparities in lead exposure among different demographics are well-documented, underscoring the necessity for healthcare providers to collect racial and socioeconomic data. This is crucial for deploying targeted public health measures effectively. Only 9 states failed to mandate the collection of racial data from medical providers, however there were also only 9 states that required the collection of socioeconomic data. This lack of comprehensive data collection hampers efforts to address the needs of communities most vulnerable to lead poisoning.

Additionally, as it relates to reporting, this research found that only ten states require the reporting of whether a child lives in a home built before 1978, a critical factor given the higher risks associated with older housing. This information is essential for directing resources and preventive efforts towards high-risk areas effectively.

On a more positive note, most states have codified their reporting requirements, which helps in standardizing practices across jurisdictions and enhancing compliance.

Additionally, 17 states secured a bonus point for having penalties for healthcare providers who fail to report lead screenings, an incentive that likely improves compliance and reporting rates.

This varied landscape of reporting practices emphasizes the need for enhanced and uniform standards across all states to ensure that lead exposure risks are comprehensively managed. All are encouraged to verify the current state regulations to remain informed about the latest in lead prevention strategies.

Major Findings and Discoveries: Prevention In the area of lead exposure reduction, prevention is categorized into two essential strategies: primary and secondary prevention, as defined by this report. Primary prevention aims to remove lead hazards from environments before any child is exposed. This proactive approach is the most effective method to prevent children from experiencing the harmful long-term effects of lead poisoning. It specifically involves certified lead abatement programs designed to permanently eliminate leadbased paint hazards, distinguishing them from routine renovation or painting services.

Secondary prevention includes measures like blood-lead testing and follow-up, serving as an indispensable safety net for children who may have already been exposed to lead. This strategy is vital for managing and mitigating the impacts of lead exposure after it occurs.

Despite the critical nature of these prevention strategies, 21 states failed to implement adequate primary prevention programs or services, resulting in a loss of 3 points for each of these states in our evaluation. Notably, the states of Arkansas, Florida, Montana, Nevada, and North Dakota scored only 3 points each, indicating that they could affirmatively answer only one of the three assessed questions. Wyoming was particularly concerning, as it received 0 points, reflecting a complete absence of the evaluated prevention measures.

This section of our report, worth a total of 9 points, underscores the importance of comprehensive and effective prevention programs. The varied scores across states highlight significant disparities in commitment and resource allocation towards preventing lead exposure and safeguarding public health.

Major Findings and Discoveries: Testing The Testing category of our evaluation highlights the critical role of systematic lead screening programs in identifying and managing lead exposure in children. Among the various metrics assessed, the question regarding universal mandatory testing for a child’s first school entry holds the most weight, with a potential of 5 points. This underscores its importance in the public health strategy to combat lead poisoning.

Universal Mandatory Testing: States that provide universal mandatory testing for all children not only ensure a comprehensive approach to lead screening but also significantly enhance early intervention efforts. Of the total 5 points available for this question, 3 points were awarded if universal mandatory testing was implemented in any capacity, with an additional 2 points if it was specifically required for school entry. This tiered point allocation reflects the emphasis on not just testing but ensuring its integration into critical childhood development stages, like school entry. If a state did not meet these criteria, it could still earn 1 point by requiring lead testing for Medicaid recipients under 72 months, a provision many states utilized to gain this bonus point.

The data reveals significant disparities in state performance in this category. Arkansas, Washington, Wyoming, Montana, and Florida scored particularly low, each accumulating less than 10 points out of a possible 30, indicating major gaps in their lead screening protocols. In stark contrast, states like New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, California, Colorado, and D.C. each scored 20 points or above, demonstrating robust and comprehensive lead screening measures. Notably, Massachusetts emerged as the top performer with 24 points, highlighting its exemplary lead screening and management practices.

This evaluation illustrates the varied landscape of lead testing across the nation, with some states exemplifying best practices while others reveal significant areas for improvement. Stakeholders are encouraged to verify the current status of their state's testing policies to ensure they are working with the most up-to-date information and to advocate for enhancements where necessary to protect public health, particularly that of children.

Major Findings and Discoveries: State-Provided Services The State-Provided Services category evaluates the support systems states have established to assist families dealing with the consequences of lead exposure. With each question in this category valued at 3.5 points and a total of 28 points available, the detailed assessment highlights the importance of a responsive and effective framework to support affected families.

The category also assesses the presence of a state-run abatement program to eradicate lead hazards in homes, reflecting a state's proactive approach to eliminating lead risks at their source. Additionally, bonus points are awarded for making case management programs and educational materials accessible in multiple languages and for transparency regarding who covers the costs of these services, which enhances the accessibility and effectiveness of state-provided services.

Approximately 14% of U.S. states do not have a case management system to assist families of children with elevated blood lead levels, indicating a significant gap in support services. The states lacking such a system include Arkansas, Illinois, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Furthermore, despite a majority of states codifying and acknowledging the importance of case management, several of those states did not assign a specific case management provider. These states include Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. This lack of direct assignment may undermine the effectiveness of their case management efforts, potentially leaving affected families without the necessary guidance and support.

In contrast, the provision of educational materials to families, such as pamphlets, coloring books, and cleaning instructions, is a service that almost all states have successfully implemented. This widespread distribution indicates a strong commitment to educating families about lead safety and preventive measures, which is essential for mitigating the impact of lead exposure in children.

This evaluation underscores the varied landscape in how states support families dealing with lead exposure, with some states demonstrating best practices in comprehensive services and accessibility, while others show significant areas for improvement.

Stakeholders are encouraged to advocate for more robust and inclusive approaches to ensure that every family has the necessary support and resources to effectively manage lead exposure risks.

Major Findings and Discoveries: Transparency Transparency in lead prevention programs is crucial for building public trust and ensuring community awareness. This category, valued at 34 points, evaluates the effectiveness of state communications through health department publications. Each main question is crucial, worth 8.5 points, emphasizing the need for up-to-date and specifically targeted information for high-risk groups.

Unfortunately, 14 states do not regularly update materials on their websites regarding their lead prevention program data, potentially limiting public access to crucial health updates. In terms of diversity in data reporting, only Maryland, Nevada, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, California, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts successfully target and report racial demographic data. However, the effort to report socioeconomic status data is notably weak across the board, with many states also failing to adequately target and report on geographic hotspots, such as locations of pre-1978 housing—critical for identifying areas at higher risk of lead exposure.

Publishing in multiple languages is an essential aspect of accessibility, yet only 14 states received the bonus point for offering their publications in more than one language. This highlights the importance of inclusive documentation to maximize the reach and effectiveness of public health initiatives.

Performance varies significantly across states, with Arkansas, Montana, South Carolina, and Wyoming scoring the lowest in this category, each earning zero points.

This indicates significant gaps in transparency and public communication. New Mexico and Oklahoma managed only one point. Conversely, Massachusetts leads with a perfect score of 34 points, showcasing comprehensive transparency in its lead prevention efforts. Other high performers include Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and North Carolina, each scoring over 30 points, reflecting their strong commitment to maintaining transparent and informative lead prevention programs.

This evaluation reveals a varied landscape where some states excel in keeping their communities informed about lead prevention efforts, while others show substantial areas for improvement, underlining the urgent need for enhanced transparency and communication strategies across all states.

Major Findings and Discoveries: Funding Funding is crucial for the effectiveness and sustainability of lead prevention programs.

This category, worth a total of 8 points, evaluates the financial backing that states secure for their lead testing and programming efforts. Remarkably, all states receive federal funding from agencies such as the EPA or CDC, which plays a vital role in supporting comprehensive lead prevention efforts across the country.

Despite this universal receipt of federal funding, significant disparities exist in how states further support these initiatives through their own budgets. States that do not allocate a specific percentage of their annual budget to lead-related initiatives include: Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, Kentucky, Alabama, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Nebraska, and North Carolina. The lack of dedicated state funding in these areas may impact the breadth and depth of lead prevention and treatment programs available to their residents.

A bonus point is awarded to states that facilitate access to additional support by referring individuals to organizations that assist with funding related to testing and lead poisoning. This extra step can be crucial for families needing assistance to manage or mitigate lead exposure risks effectively.

In this section, the highest scoring states, each receiving a total of 9 points, demonstrate an exemplary commitment to funding lead prevention. These states include: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oregon, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maryland. Their robust funding strategies ensure that their lead prevention programs are not only wellsupported by federal funds but also significantly bolstered by dedicated state budget allocations, setting a strong example for comprehensive public health funding.

Solutions and Recommendations The findings of our report highlight the effectiveness of state policies in addressing lead prevention, with Massachusetts, California, and Maine standing out as the top performers overall. Inspired by their success, we present targeted recommendations to help other states enhance their lead prevention policies: 1. Enhance State Funding and Budget Allocation: States like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania show the importance of dedicating a portion of state budgets to lead prevention. We recommend that all states allocate specific budgetary funds for lead testing and abatement programs to ensure these initiatives are sustainable and effective.

2. Expand Education and Outreach Programs: Successful programs in states like Maryland and Oregon include comprehensive education and outreach efforts. States should develop materials in multiple languages and distribute them widely to ensure all communities are informed about lead risks and prevention strategies.

3. Improve Transparency and Reporting: As seen in Indiana and North Carolina, robust transparency and regular updates on lead prevention efforts can enhance public trust and engagement. States should regularly update their websites and publications with the latest data on lead prevention efforts and ensure these updates are accessible to a diverse audience.

4. Strengthen Regulations and Enforcement: States with stringent regulations and enforcement mechanisms, such as California and New York, show lower levels of lead exposure. Strengthening regulations around lead in residential and public buildings and ensuring strict enforcement can significantly reduce lead hazards.

5. Develop Comprehensive Case Management Systems: Following the model of Massachusetts, which scored highly in state-provided services, states should establish or enhance case management systems to support families dealing with lead exposure, ensuring these services are easily accessible and well-coordinated.

By adopting these strategies, states can not only improve their current lead prevention efforts but also significantly reduce the incidence of lead exposure among children.

Conclusion This comprehensive report, spearheaded by Professor Carlton Waterhouse and developed by the dedicated students of Howard University School of Law's Research and Advocacy Clinic Fellows, aims to evaluate and enhance state policies on lead prevention across the United States. The primary objective is to assess the effectiveness of these policies, particularly in safeguarding vulnerable populations, including minority communities who are disproportionately affected by lead exposure.

Our findings reveal significant disparities in how states implement and manage lead prevention measures. States like Massachusetts, California, and Maine have set commendable examples by developing robust frameworks that other states could look to for guidance. However, the overall landscape shows that many states need to make substantial improvements, especially in terms of engaging and protecting minority communities.

Effective lead prevention requires: •

•

•

Targeted Outreach and Education: States must prioritize the development of educational materials that are accessible in multiple languages and tailored to the needs of minority communities. Ensuring that these communities are well-informed about their local protections and the resources available is crucial for effective prevention and empowerment.

Transparency and Continuous Communication: Regular updates and transparent communication are essential to build trust and facilitate community engagement. This includes detailed reporting on the progress of lead prevention efforts and areas needing attention, especially those concerning high-risk populations.

Adaptive Policies and Sustained Commitment: As this document is intended to be developmental, it will undergo revisions and updates to reflect new insights and changes in legislation. Continuous evaluation and adaptation of policies are necessary to respond effectively to emerging challenges and to ensure that all children live in lead-safe environments.

The collaborative effort of Professor Waterhouse and the Research and Advocacy Clinic Fellows highlights the importance of academic and community engagement in addressing public health issues. By bringing to light the variations in state policies and their impacts, this report not only serves as a call to action but also as a crucial resource for communities striving to advocate for better health standards in their locales. As we move forward, it is vital that all stakeholders—ranging from local to federal levels— renew their commitment to refining and expanding lead prevention measures. This approach is essential to safeguard the health of our children and ensure that no child's potential is hindered by preventable environmental hazards.

Find Out More About Lead For readers seeking to deepen their understanding of lead poisoning and explore prevention strategies, here are several recommended websites that provide comprehensive information: 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) - Lead: This page offers extensive resources on lead poisoning, including prevention tips, data, and research. Visit the CDC Lead Page 2. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Lead: This resource provides information on lead in paint, dust, and soil, and offers guidelines on how to prevent lead poisoning. Visit the EPA Lead Information 3. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences: Explore a range of educational materials and research updates on the health impacts of lead exposure. Visit NIEHS Lead Resources Additionally, it is crucial for individuals to explore resources specific to their state to understand local lead prevention programs, regulations, and services. Most state health department websites provide sections on public health initiatives, including lead poisoning prevention. These sites often contain information about state-specific legislation, resources for lead testing and abatement, and contact information for local health services. Here are general steps to find this information: •

•

State Health Department Websites: Search for your state’s health department online to find detailed information and resources on lead poisoning prevention and control.

State Medicaid Programs: Contact your state’s Medicaid office for information on services covered, including lead testing and abatement efforts, especially for children and pregnant women.

By exploring these resources, individuals can gain a better understanding of lead risks and the measures available to prevent lead exposure, ensuring they are well-informed and equipped to advocate for safe environments.