By Mark English
One of the most famous illustrations of the Dunning–Kruger effect dates back to 1995 in Pittsburgh where two men robbed a bank in broad daylight without wearing masks, sunglasses, fake mustaches or any form of disguise. Unsurprisingly, they were quickly identified on closed-circuit television and arrested.
What stunned law enforcement — and later the academic community — was the explanation the suspects offered. They genuinely believed that by rubbing lemon juice on their faces, they would be invisible to security cameras. Their reasoning was that lemon juice is used as invisible ink, so logically, it should also render their faces invisible.
This incident became a case study for Professor David Dunning of Cornell University. His research concluded that people who lack competence in a subject are often unable to accurately assess their own abilities. Simply put, they do not know enough to realize how much they do not know.
While the story is humorous in hindsight, its underlying lesson is anything but funny, especially when applied to fields where mistakes carry legal, financial and human consequences.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a well-documented cognitive bias in which individuals with limited knowledge or competence in a given area tend to overestimate their expertise, while those with genuine expertise often underestimate their own competence. The phenomenon stems from a lack of self-awareness: When someone does not know enough about a subject, they often lack the very insight needed to recognize what they do not know.
Named after psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the concept helps explain a puzzling reality many of us encounter regularly. Beginners frequently approach complex subjects with confidence bordering on certainty, while true experts — aware of nuance, exceptions and consequences — tend to proceed more cautiously. In short, ignorance often breeds confidence, while knowledge breeds humility.
The Dunning–Kruger Effect in Affordable Housing
Before you dismiss this as academic curiosity or a story about foolish criminals, ask yourself a more uncomfortable question:
Do you know someone who believes they are far more knowledgeable about a subject than they actually are?
In my world — affordable multifamily housing accessibility — I encounter this phenomenon far more often than I would like to admit. Over the course of more than 30 years, I have had conversations with individuals across all 50 states and U.S. territories who work for:
- Federal agencies
- State agencies and housing finance agencies (HFAs)
- Compliance and inspection departments
- Architectural firms
- Construction companies and subcontractors
- Developers and property owners
Despite their differing roles, many share one common trait: they are absolutely certain they “know accessibility.”
Unfortunately, that confidence is often misplaced.
The “ADA Mentality” Problem
Why does this happen so frequently in affordable multifamily housing? The answer is surprisingly simple.
Most professionals have some exposure to accessibility, and that exposure is almost always centered on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As a result, many operate with what I call an “ADA mentality.” They assume that if they understand ADA requirements, they understand accessibility as a whole.
That assumption is where the trouble begins.
The most common intersection of the ADA related to multifamily housing is Title 3 regarding places of public accommodation thar are spaces open to the general public like restaurants or places of business. Courts have consistently held that residents and their guests in multifamily housing are not considered “the public.” As a result, large portions (usually less than 1 percent) of affordable multifamily housing properties fall outside ADA’s primary scope, which leaves the remaining 99 percent to be impacted by: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, The Fair Housing Act Accessibility Guidelines (FHAAG), and the locally adopted building code for new construction.
Each regulation has its own triggers, scopes, technical standards and enforcement mechanisms. Confusing one for another is not a minor technical error, it is a foundational mistake.
After teaching more than 650 accessibility training sessions nationwide over three decades, I can say with confidence that this misunderstanding is widespread. Many well-meaning professionals truly believe they are compliant, while unknowingly applying the wrong regulation and the wrong standard.
That is the Dunning–Kruger effect at work.
Confidence Without Competence Is Risky
In affordable housing, misplaced confidence does not simply result in embarrassment; it leads to:
- Costly retrofits
- Construction delays
- Failed inspections
- Litigation and settlements
- Damage to professional reputations
Most importantly, inaccessible housing for residents who depend on it
Accessibility is not intuitive. It is technical, regulatory and highly fact specific. Knowing just enough to feel confident — but not enough to be correct — is the most dangerous position of all.
So, what Is the solution?
Once we acknowledge the problem, the path forward becomes much clearer.
First, stop assuming that your architect or contractor automatically understands which accessibility regulations and standards apply to your property. Many do not — and unless they have received specialized, recognized training, there is no reason to assume otherwise.
Second, stop hiring professionals who cannot demonstrate that they have attended recognized accessibility training, been trained by qualified, experienced instructors or retained and applied what they were taught. Good intentions do not equal compliance.
Bring an Accessibility Consultant in Early
Most HFAs and government funding agencies allow the use of project funds to hire an independent accessibility consultant early in the process. When used properly, this is one of the most cost-effective decisions a development team can make.
A competent accessibility consultant’s scope should include, at a minimum:
- Comprehensive plan and specification review: A full review of architectural plans and specifications before construction begins, identifying issues while they are still inexpensive to correct.
- Targeted construction training: A minimum of three hours of training, delivered either online or in person, for the general contractor, the job superintendent and a representative from every trade who will work on site (with limited exceptions such as roofers and painters). This training ensures everyone understands not just what is required, but why it matters.
- Multiple Accessibility Construction Inspections. At least three on-site inspections should be performed that are timed to catch issues when they are easiest to fix. These include open-wall inspection to verify proper blocking, door clearances, outlet locations and rough-in dimensions. A post-drywall/cabinetry inspection can confirm reach ranges, turning spaces, environmental controls and clear floor spaces. Final site and flatwork inspections are able to confirm accessible parking, access aisles, routes, ramps, slopes and cross-slopes.
Documentation Matters
When issues are identified, a competent consultant does not rely on opinions or estimates. They document conditions using calibrated slope meters, tape measures and date-stamped photographs.
Once corrections are made, follow-up photos are taken — again with calibrated tools and date stamps — to confirm compliance, especially once the walls go up and things are covered up. This documentation protects owners, developers and funding agencies alike.
Simple, Logical — and Still Rare
None of this is complicated. It is logical, methodical and proven. Yet it remains astonishing how many development teams move forward without a qualified accessibility consultant.
Why? In many cases, misplaced confidence. The belief that “we’ve done this before” or “we’ve never had a problem” is the lemon juice of our industry.
Accessibility is not a box to check, it’s a standard to build by. It is not something to guess at. And it is certainly not an area where confidence should replace competence.
In affordable multifamily housing, the cost of getting it wrong is simply too high.
So, let’s circle back to where our discussion started regarding: lemon juice, bank robbers, and a cautionary tale.
Lemon juice is a surprisingly versatile ingredient — it can soothe a sore throat, remove stains and even support immune health when used appropriately. But misuse it, and the consequences are very real: it can erode tooth enamel, irritate skin or — speaking from personal experience — leave your hair brittle and discolored if you buy into the myth that it will magically turn it blond (senior class of 1972 beach trip, based on the premise of what happens at the beach stays at the beach).
The lesson is not that lemon juice is bad; the lesson is that partial knowledge is dangerous. When we rely on myths, assumptions, or “what we’ve always done,” we risk real damage.
The same is true in affordable multifamily housing accessibility. Knowing just enough to feel confident, but not enough to be correct, can lead to costly mistakes, failed compliance and harm to the very residents these regulations are meant to protect.
Accessibility, like lemon juice, must be used correctly, intentionally and with a full understanding of its limits. Otherwise, we are no different from the bank robbers — confident, convinced and completely visible to the consequences.
Mark English is the founder and president of E&A Team Inc., a consulting firm established in 1992 that specializes in multifamily housing accessibility compliance.