Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
crowded conditions, such as rural huts and
refugee camps (Newberry and Jansen, 1986;
Gbakima
et al.
, 2002). Although bed bugs
are truly egalitarian, low-income, multi-
unit housing is at the greatest risk for re-
current infestation because of shared walls,
common public spaces such as lounges, and
external dependence on the housing
authority to detect and control bed bugs
(Malekafzali, 2006). For these reasons, bed
bug infestations may be regarded as lapses
in social justice and the ethical obligation to
address bed bug infestations should be con-
sidered in tandem with the public health
and fi nancial issues (Eddy and Jones, 2011a,
b; Aultman, 2013).
The increase in bed bug infestations and
the decrease in federal funding have hurt
US government-assisted affordable housing
programmes, defi ned as subsidized housing
at 30% of a family's income. These pro-
grammes serve individuals at or below 60%
of the area median income with many
housing programmes targeting individuals
earning 30% or less. This diverse population
includes the elderly, persons with disabil-
ities, individuals who are homeless and the
working poor, defi ned as those who earn
60-80% of the median income in a district.
Recent guidance provided by the US
Department for Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (HUD) for its public housing (Notice:
PIH-2012-17) and multi-family housing
(Notice H 2012-5) has additional fi nancial
consequences to government-funded hous-
ing programmes. These notices outline how
to prevent and control bed bugs along with
the responsibilities of HUD, Public Housing
Agencies, owners of HUD-Insured and
HUD-Assisted Multifamily housing and
residents. The notices explain that the
owner must provide housing that is safe,
sanitary and in good repair. Guidance is
provided on timeframes for inspection and
recommended treatment of the unit. The
notices state that the tenant must comply
with the treatment and that the tenant
cannot be charged for any of the costs
associated with the treatment and inspection
of the unit. The notice does not address
tenants' non-compliance with prevention
and treatment responsibilities and provides
no fi nancial support for the costs associated
with inspection, prevention and treatment
in a public housing programme. Financial
support for multi-family properties is
limited to only those properties that have a
reserved fund. These funds can be accessed
to address the costs associated with inspec-
tions, preventions and treatments. The
notices emphasize the need to use trained,
in-house staff or a reputable third party to
inspect.
Government-assisted housing pro-
grammes must comply with state housing
laws and regulations concerning pest and
treatment responsibilities. These laws vary
according to each state's housing code. In
the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Virginia
Landlord Tenant Act requires housing
providers to certify that the unit is pest free
before the tenant moves in. When an
infestation is confi rmed by a certifi ed,
independent third party during the tenancy,
Virginia law allows for the tenant to be
charged for the treatment costs.
In addition, the state and federal regu-
lations have complicated the ability of
government housing providers to reduce
costs for inspection and treatment. The
federal requirement for certifi ed applicator
and/or third party inspection eliminates or
limits the ability of an agency to use in-
house staff or resources. In addition, obtain-
ing a state certifi cation requires 1 year of
supervision under a certifi ed applicator
before eligibility to take the pesticide appli-
cator examination.
A case study in Virginia
A study undertaken by the author (Wong
et
al.
, 2013) discusses how agencies in
Virginia, USA, managed their bed bug
treatment methodologies and associated
costs. Twenty-six agencies representing
16,549 housing units reported 1047
infestations in a 6-month period in 2012.
Out of these 26 agencies, nine (37.5%) had
no bed bug infestations; most of the rest
(14/17, 82%) had fewer than 5% of their
units infested but Hampton (8.2%),
Harrisonburg (15.3%) and Richmond
Search WWH ::
Custom Search