Comparative analysis of policy responses to residential methamphetamine contamination by two public housing authorities in the United States and New Zealand

Abstract

This research aims to compare the policy response to residential methamphetamine contamination by public housing authorities in the United States and New Zealand. We utilize a comparative case study approach to analyze the process of policy development, implementation, and outcomes by the Salish and Kootenai Housing Authority (SKHA, US) and Housing New Zealand (HNZ now Kāinga Ora, NZ). Both housing authorities initially developed their policies based on a ‘zero tolerance’ precautionary principle to protect their tenants’ health and discourage drug related activities. This approach caused unintended consequences for housing agencies and tenants, including significant financial expenditure on methamphetamine testing and remediation, a decline in housing portfolios due to contamination, and termination of tenancies, with imposition of financial penalties, contributing to homelessness. Liability for contamination was determined either by baseline testing (SKHA) or the Tenancy Tribunal (HNZ). In both cases, a review of policies prompted a shift to a harm reduction approach focused on compensating and supporting tenants, avoiding evictions. The initial zero tolerance approach caused considerable harms to vulnerable tenants that likely outweighed the health risks from methamphetamine exposure. This research underlines the importance of developing appropriate policies that balance health risks with possible social impacts of the policy response.

Keywords:

• Methamphetamine contamination policies
• comparison of public health policies
• drug policy
• precautionary approach
• zero tolerance approach
• harm reduction
• international comparison
• evidence base
• public health

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the experts from the different organizations and agencies who provided advice and information regarding the policy process surrounding methamphetamine contamination in the United States – particularly Big Water Consulting – and New Zealand.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflict of interest.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.