![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/5801951.jpg.jpg\")
Strickland said she intends to learn more \u201cfrom our private [housing] providers about…the barriers to making good on this,\u201d as well as explore \u201caccountability and enforcement\u201d tools to ensure compliance from both the privatized housing companies and the Army.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIf we don\u2019t address these quality of life issues, it\u2019s going to have an impact on recruiting down the road,\u201d Strickland warned. \u201cYes, this is about health, and safety, and well-being and the quality of housing, but it\u2019s also a much bigger issue as well.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Army spouse Breanna Barnhart, one of the non-profit Safe Military Housing Initiative\u2019s leaders, told Army Times that her advocacy work has helped her family \u201cprogressively come to terms\u201d with the lead poisoning her daughter experienced while living on-base at JBLM.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Barnhart argued that recent military housing reforms, including a much-ballyhooed resident bill of rights, haven\u2019t addressed what she believes to be the underlying problem \u2014 military officials are hesitant to aggressively punish<\/a> non-performing privatized housing partners because of the structure of the joint public-private ventures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Approximately 99% of the military\u2019s domestic on-base family housing is administered by private companies with military assistance through public-private ventures that sought to revitalize crumbling neighborhoods in the mid-1990s. These projects are run by 14 companies that have consolidated ownership of military housing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ahearn, the Army spokesperson, said that 30% of the contractors\u2019 quarterly compensation is \u201cincentivized and…tied to conducting quality control and passing quality assurance inspections.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhat, if anything, is going to be done about the fact that there isn\u2019t follow through for these accountability measures?\u201d Barnhart said. \u201cThere aren\u2019t [proper] home inspections happening. The mission starts at home. If our soldiers are worried about their families, their head isn\u2019t on the mission.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the audit, Army Installation Management Command \u201cestablished this housing oversight program,\u201d but it failed to monitor \u201cwhether installations were following it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The program was established in the wake of a wave of media reports<\/a> and congressional oversight actions<\/a> in the late 2010s that revealed, among other things, that the military was largely unaware of whether its older on-base homes posed risks to the troops and families who occupied them. The Army tested most of its privatized homes for lead-based paint, the audit confirmed, but that\u2019s only half the battle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Once a home was confirmed or presumed to have lead-based paint, the new protocol directed Army housing office officials to routinely inspect all painted surfaces in the home for peeling and cracking paint. After a family moves out and before a new family moves in, the housing company does an initial inspection, which the Army follows with a quality assurance inspection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Under the new program, homes with damaged paint cannot receive new tenants until the problem is assessed and addressed, if necessary. In response to questions for this story, the Army said that approximately 95% of homes pass both inspections, but it\u2019s not clear whether that number included homes that the auditors said had improperly documented inspections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lead-based <\/b>paint is most dangerous to children, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention<\/a>. When lead paint deteriorates, it crumbles into paint chips and dust that children can ingest by putting their mouths on surfaces like window sills or doorframes \u2014 or even by simply breathing. Children exposed to lead often suffer<\/a> brain and nervous system damage, leading to developmental delays, lower intelligence or even permanent disability if severe enough or untreated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Inadequate and incomplete training contributed to Army housing office inspectors\u2019 collective failure to complete more than three-quarters of the required visual quality assurance assessments, auditors said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the audited installations, nine out of 24 Army housing office inspectors failed to complete lead-based paint visual inspection training required by Installation Management Command headquarters, the report said. <\/b>Local housing officials also told auditors that \u201cthe training received wasn\u2019t very helpful,\u201d so they didn\u2019t understand how to properly complete and document the visual inspections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Housing offices at two of the three installations \u2014 Fort Cavazos and JBLM \u2014 \u201cdidn\u2019t fully understand\u201d their quality assurance duty, according to the report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At Fort Cavazos, this meant a home with chipped lead paint in the bathroom was \u201capproved for occupancy\u201d instead of receiving remediation. Its housing office completed only three of 58 required lead paint visual assessments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meanwhile, auditors reported that JBLM \u201conly started completing these assessments in May 2022 \u2014 right after we started the audit.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet even when the Army properly completed visual assessments of lead-based paint, the next step prescribed in Army policy \u2014 a lead-based paint risk assessment \u2014 did not occur for a single home in the study. The assessments aim to guide interim repair and permanent remediation efforts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Army housing offices don\u2019t staff the certified lead hazard inspectors required to conduct such assessments, and privatized housing corporations balked at the requirement due to the cost and availability of trained inspectors. Such an assessment usually costs between $2,000 and $3,000, according to the report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Liberty Military Housing, which administers more than 5,000 homes at JBLM, told auditors that the lead paint risk assessment requirement was not listed in any of the documents governing their partnership with the Army. Nor was it formally requested via other means, they said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Auditors highlighted this as a critical point of failure \u2014 the Army\u2019s internal program guidance \u201cmakes the privatized partner \u2026 responsible for LBP risk assessments. However, the program isn\u2019t automatically applicable to a privatized housing partner unless the relevant legal agreements between the Army and the partner incorporate this guidance.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reached by Army Times, Liberty\u2019s senior vice president of construction and environmental services, Kevin Clarke said in an emailed statement that the audit was \u201cnot an assessment of Liberty nor the quality of housing that we offer to military families.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clarke said that the Army\u2019s inspection guidance, which she claimed \u201cthe Army plans to withdraw,\u201d was not communicated to the company before the audit began. He also argued that the company\u2019s existing lead and asbestos mitigation policies, which include its own inspection regimes and training for maintenance employees, prove that it is \u201cvigilant about ensuring that our homes are safe for military families.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Army\u2019s internal guidance goes beyond EPA standards and would cause a major disruption in our ability to house military families. One major barrier is the limited number of consultants who have the certifications needed to conduct lead assessments,\u201d Clarke said. \u201cThe limited consultants would lead to even greater wait times for military families in an already highly impacted area for housing shortages and waitlist times.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Auditors also highlighted the poor documentation of asbestos surveys, which tell maintenance officials and tenants which portions of the home pose health hazards if disturbed. One in five pre-1978 homes at JBLM lacked asbestos surveys, according to the report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clarke warned that making privatized housing partners provide the lead paint assessments could take money away from other priorities. The company recently announced $120 million in renovations<\/a> to its East Coast communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe additional funding required to implement a policy such as this would take funding from essential renovations and improvement projects in the communities,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Strickland, the Washington congresswoman, said she believes solving the problem needs to be a collaborative venture, likely handled under the auspices of Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI would look at this as an opportunity to bring all the partners together \u2014 and not [for] finger pointing \u2014 and just saying, \u2018What in this ecosystem is not working to make sure that we are addressing the lead paint?\u2019\u201d she said. \u201c\u2018What are the barriers to doing this? How do we address the barriers, and how do we make sure that we have housing that is safe and habitable, in addition to addressing our housing supply?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The congresswoman acknowledged potential funding constraints, but insisted that lawmakers and other stakeholders must find a path forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe know that we have resource constraints,\u201d Strickland said. \u201cLet\u2019s not make excuses for what we\u2019re not doing. Let\u2019s talk about the plan moving forward to actually do something and address some of the structural problems.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\nUntrained inspectors, inadequate oversight<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/5801953.jpg.jpg\")
But who will foot the bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/5937507.jpg.jpg\")
Solving the problem<\/h2>\n\n\n\n