Improving Kids' Environment is a partner in the Citizen's Healthy Homes Initiative with the Concerned Clergy and the Citizen's Multi-Service Center.  As a partner, IKE wrote a Needs Assessment for the Kennedy-King Park Neighborhood on Indianapolis' Near Northeast Side.  The Needs Assessment was published on August 23, 2003. Back to Main Report

Indianapolis Citizen’s Healthy Homes Initiative

Kennedy-King Park Neighborhood Needs Assessment

Methodology

View from the Street – CHHI’s Assessment for Exterior Problems

The best assessment of environmental hazards in a home requires a visit inside the home.  However, many of the root causes of those hazards can be seen from the outside – from the street.  For example, builders used lead-based paint on the outside of a home long after they stopped using it on the inside.  The durability of lead-based paint made it a great candidate to withstand the sun, wind and rain on the outside.  For that reason, windows are more likely to have lead-based paint and the amount of lead in the paint is likely to be higher than anywhere else.  While only licensed professionals using special equipment can identify lead-based paint with certainty, paint that has a characteristic “alligator” pattern is almost always lead-based paint (but paint without the pattern can still be lead-based paint.)

Similarly, moisture can cause a number of problems.  It can lead to mold.  It can cause interior paint to peel.  It can attract cockroaches and rodents.  It can encourage the growth of dust mites and other asthma triggers.  Moisture gets into the homes through a damaged roof, missing gutters, broken siding, and a poor foundation.  Holes in exterior walls allow cockroaches and rodents to enter a home.  Many of these problems can be seen from the street and all are violations of the Marion County Housing and Environmental Standards Ordinance.[1] 

This “street-side assessment” allows a more consistent assessment of all homes in a neighborhood.  While past housing code enforcement actions provide helpful information, the actions were often triggered by a neighbor’s complaint or resulted from an investigation of a lead poisoned child.  Homes that have not yet poisoned a child or that do not have a conscientious neighbor will not be evaluated. 

For the Kennedy-King Park Neighborhood, the CHHI took photos of the front of each home from the street and, where possible, the back of the home from the alley.  We identified 446 homes overall excluding three large housing complexes:  Caravel Commons; Broadway Heights; and University Heights. 

We connected these photos to an address, evaluated them for the presence of seven common problems, and gave them a rating of “very low risk,” “low risk,” “serious risk,” and “high risk.”  A very low risk rating meant that no problem could be seen on the photo.  A “high risk” rating meant the problem was severe and probably creating immediate hazards.  This approach underestimates the problem in two ways:

1.         Code violations may not have captured on a photo; and

2.         Code violations may be present inside the home but not outside. 

The seven problems are as follows:

1.      Foundation – A poor foundation may result in structural problems in the home that allow moisture and rodents get into the home.  Many of the photos did not provide a good view of the foundation.  These homes were rated “very low risk” by default.  To rate “high risk,” the damaged foundation would have already caused visible structural damage to the home. 

2.   Siding – Damaged siding is likely to let moisture into the home.  Usually vinyl siding has been installed on top of the original wood siding.  A home was rated “very low risk” if there were no visible problems with the siding in the photo.  A “low risk” rating meant that only a small part of the siding was damaged and the structural wood was not exposed.  A “serious risk” rating meant that more than 5 square feet of siding was missing and structural wood or old siding in bad condition was exposed.  A “high risk” rating meant that most of the siding on the home was in damaged and there was evidence that water was getting in the home.

3.   Roof – A damaged roof will cause extensive damage to the home – more than any other component.  A “high risk” rating meant that the roof was sagging or beams were exposed.  A “serious risk” rating meant that many shingles were missing or there were structural concerns.  A “low risk” rating meant that the roof was in good condition overall but shingles were damaged.

4.   Paint – Paint prevents the wood from rotting and allowing moisture into the home.  Given the age of most of the homes in the neighborhood, the paint was most likely lead-based paint.  A “high risk” rating meant that most of the paint on the exterior of the home was in bad condition and wood was exposed.  A “serious risk” rating meant that the paint looked like it was lead-based paint based on the cracking, and the paint was in bad condition in many places – typically more than 20 square feet of deteriorated paint was visible.  A “low risk” rating meant that the paint had problems but they were not widespread.

5.   Window – A missing or broken window was rated “high risk.”  If the window frame looked rotted or had extensive peeling paint, it was rated “moderate risk.”  If it looked like lead-based paint but was in decent condition, the window was rated “low risk.”

6.   Gutter – A gutter is essential to keep the eaves from rotting and the siding in good condition.  A “high risk” rating meant that the gutter was missing and the eaves or siding appeared to be damaged in the photo.  A “serious risk” rating meant that the gutter was missing or hanging free from the roof but the siding did not appear damaged.  A “low risk” rating meant that the gutter was in place but damaged and there was no visible damage to the siding.

7.   Trash – Trash attracts rats and mice.  A “high risk” rating meant that that the pile of trash was big and it was close to the house.  A “serious risk” rating meant that it was smaller or farther from the home.  A “low risk” rating meant that very little trash was present. 

We needed an overall assessment of the home.  For each type of problem, we assigned a score of 0 to 3 with 0 being the best.  The scores from all three were added together for a maximum score of 21.  The highest score of any home in the Kennedy-King Park Neighborhood was a 17.  Homes with an overall score of 0 were in excellent condition and rated “very low risk.”  Homes with a score of 1 to 5 were rated “low risk.” These homes were good condition with either one serious problem or several minor problems.  Homes with a score of 6 to 10 were rated “moderate risk.”  These homes had several serious problems and were likely to have serious environmental hazards to residents.  Many of these homes were likely to be abandoned if not quickly fixed.  Homes with a score of 11 or more were in very bad condition.  Most of these homes were already abandoned and boarded up.  Some were undergoing renovation. 

As we researched the homes, we learned that many homes had been demolished in the neighborhood during the past 20 years.  There were no homes on several blocks.  These homes were demolished because one or more of the problems identified had gotten so bad that the structure could not be saved.  Therefore, we also counted the vacant lots in the neighborhood where it appeared that a home had once stood in order to provide context.  

Counting a missing house is a challenge.  By comparing a map of buildings from the Metropolitan Board of Realtors (generously provided by C.P. Morgan) and the current plat maps, we identified those parcels that had a distinct street address assigned to them.  We did not count a parcel if it had any type of building on it or it did not have an address number assigned to it.  This information was tracked by street with all parcels on numbered streets (16^th, 17^th, 18^th, 19^th, 20^th, 21^st, and 22^nd) combined. 

Rating Apartment Buildings:  Apartment buildings were difficult to evaluate from the street.  Many of them were made of brick with a flat roof that could not be seen from the street.  Therefore, CHHI gave apartment buildings a higher overall rating when the building had many units or where the problems indicated that they might be more serious.  This higher rating was tracked separated from the overall rating described above and only affected these buildings.