The Maine State Housing Authority has improved its system for inspecting housing units, but much work remains.

The quasi-state agency can do more to educate landlords about housing deficiencies, create incentives for landlords to maintain their units, provide landlords access to low-interest loans if they can’t afford to make needed repairs, place a greater emphasis on prevention of decrepit housing, continually evaluate the inspections process and create community partnerships between tenants and community organizations.

An Office of Inspector General audit report released this week showed what MaineHousing has known: that the government was subsidizing some tenants to live in shocking conditions. The audit found that, of 61 units inspected, 53, or 87 percent, did not meet U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development quality standards.

The controversy began in October 2011 when the Norway Advertiser Democrat published a story showing many examples of people, whose rent was subsidized through the federal Section 8 program, living in deplorable conditions. Tenants had holes in their ceilings, mold, no electric power, no front door and waste bubbling up in the bathroom sinks

MaineHousing completed its own audit of Oxford County units and found that a majority of them did not meet standards. U.S. Sen. Susan Collins asked HUD to review MaineHousing’s management of the program, and, in the meantime, MaineHousing began making changes. It must continue to expand its improvement efforts under new agency Director John Gallagher.

Between January and the end of September, MaineHousing phased out the four third-party organizations that administered 2,329 of the 3,199 Section 8 housing units in the state. Those organizations were Avesta Housing Corp., Aroostook County Action Program, Penquis and Washington-Hancock Community Agency. MaineHousing now will administer Section 8 housing directly.

By bringing the program in-house, MaineHousing can better set consistent practices, train its own inspectors and have them meet regularly to share their work. Instead of contracting with four agencies that had a total of seven inspectors, MaineHousing now has direct control of nine inspectors. It will have to determine whether nine is enough.

MaineHousing also made the Section 8 program its own department — the Housing Choice Voucher Department — and hired a director, Denise Lord. Of the 34 employees in the department, only 11 of them worked for the program before the Advertiser Democrat article.

In addition to getting rid of its contractors and many employees, MaineHousing changed part of its inspections process and now performs checks before a tenant is approved for a unit. If the unit starts off in the best possible condition, it’s more likely to remain that way, Lord said.

MaineHousing is improving its communication with landlords, sending them information regularly to let them know the most common deficiencies, so they can correct them before an inspection. Instead of simply having an inspector come in to a unit to assign it a pass or fail grade, more can be done to focus on education and preparation.

Some improvements are simple. If a tenant has removed a light bulb from a socket or a battery from a smoke detector, the rental unit fails its inspection. Of course some units fail because of significant problems — such as sewage in the basement or no heat — but no landlord or tenant should let a unit fail when there’s an easy fix.

When it comes to more extensive problems, it’s important for landlords to be able to make the necessary repairs. (If violations are not fixed, HUD can suspend the landlord’s rental subsidy payment). One way for MaineHousing to provide assistance is to set up a low-interest loan program for eligible landlords. It can also provide more incentives for those who care for well-maintained units.

The situation may improve, too, if MaineHousing betters its relationship with landlords and tenants. In addition to focusing on education, prevention, assistance and incentives, improving relationships will involve connecting tenants to resources in their community and motivating them to achieve economic independence.

The Family Self-Sufficiency program, for example, allows tenants to put some of their rent subsidy toward their education or a downpayment on a house. MaineHousing can do more to market the program and target likely candidates for it.

MaineHousing must create more partnerships with community service employees and agencies — such as General Assistance administrators, code enforcement officers, homeless shelters, area agencies on aging, domestic violence shelters and others — to cross-train related workers and improve its referral process. Improving its attachments in each community will help it build credibility.

Some Mainers’ Section 8 living conditions were horrid. There’s no excuse for landlords who let their tenants live in unsafe, disgusting conditions, inspectors who looked the other way or a MaineHousing structure that didn’t provide enough oversight. Ensuring that people live in clean, safe housing will require many changes and regular, independent supervision. Earning back the public’s trust will require MaineHousing to show continuous, long-term improvement.

Join the Conversation

19 Comments

  1. What needs to be said with the bark off is that MSHA was a complete failure under McCormick.  That is because its core mission has been to help provide safe, decent housing for Mainers.  And what the report showed was that in this program, one of its flagship programs, it failed beyond words.
    I guess that’s what happens when your director, despite having a degree and tons of experience in construction, becomes more interested in doing SOCIAL engineering than in mechanical engineering (and maintenance).
    Oh, to be the Darling of the left………….great work if you can get it!

    1. All you have to know to understand how out of control government has become is that we are still paying that useless waste of oxygen AND providing her with taxpayer paid health insurance.  Disgraceful

      Government is the problem, not the solution.

    2. Gawd, you’re full of it.  “Safe, decent housing for Mainers” is only as good as those who have a stake paying for it.  Voucher programs don’t get landlords responsible renters.

  2. MSHA is a classic example of one part of government that would benefit from privatization. Any decent property management company could accomplish what MSHA does for half the money, and still show a profit. 

    1. Kind of like the slum lords in most major cities in this country. Yup, they have a sterling record.

      1.  At least as good as MSHA under that unqualified political hack McCormick. At least the slum lords provide a slum for the money spent.  McCormick and her public “servants” provided nothing in return for the money we overpaid them.  In fact McCormick’s green energy program actually used MORE energy after it was installed.  We’d have actually been better off if she’d have converted the $1,000,0000 to one dollar bills and burned it in a wood stove.  At least we’s have gotten SOME energy out of it that way.

        http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2010/12/21/news/stateinstalled-energy-systems-fail-to-pay-way/

        “In half of the households, energy use INCREASED WHILE THE PANELS WERE IN USE.”

        Man, you just can not make this stuff up.

          1. My facts are all correct.  I notice that you didn’t dispute any of them. Your entire argument consisted of the single word “crap”.

            What are we overpaying these people for if not to do their jobs.  They were too busy getting free massages and having parties to make sure that conditions were correct.  If the drones hired someone else to do a job then they have a responsibility to see that it is done properly, but they are probably no more qualified than McCormick was.

    2. Geez, it was a private management company that was in charge of inspections.  Not MSHA.  After the Norway Incident, the private firm was fired and all the inspectors were put in house.  Know your damn facts before spouting-off.

      1. I said any DECENT property management company. Maybe YOU should learn to read before you spout off.

      2. I said any DECENT property management company. Maybe YOU should learn to read before you spout off.

    3. MSHA is a ‘quasi” government entity  run like a private entity. The government report holding MSHA’s feet to the fire on the Section 8 issue is more than a day late and many dollars short; it is old news. In fact, it is somewhat akin to issuing a report today blaming the FBI etc for not connecting the dots prior to 9/11. Damage has been done. Corrections have been implemented. In fact, the corrections were implemented long before the current Director assumed office.
      Also, you forget, it was a private property management company, operating under contract to MSHA that dropped the ball. If Pratt and Whitney screws up on jet fighter engines contrary to their responsibilities under government contract, do we blame the DOD or Pratt Whitney?
      I  salute the good work MSHA is and has been doing. I take note of their quick and decisive action in dealing with this particular problem. Were they to blame? No. Did they accept responsibility for a fix? Yes. Did they implement a fix? Yes. Now let’s get on with fulfilling Maine’s housing needs and stop bellyaching.

  3. Where are the accusations against the providers of these housing services.? Why is their no light being shone of these providers whoa re willing to take rent payments and not deliver on the basics for having decent housing? Where are the fines of penalties for the owners of these facilities…. ??

    Yes, the system needs to be better monitored, but how about those receiving the payments from Sections 8 … do they not have some amount of culpability for profiting and not delivering?

    1.  Those dedicated, hard working public “servants” who were derelict in their duties are still employed.  They should be in the unemployment line before the sun come up tomorrow. They are the ones who should be ensuring that these buildings are fit. What are we overpaying these drones for?

  4. Now, do we have a control group of say the lower middle class to compare the living arrangements rather than just putting it all on section 8?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *