Every year, consumers in the United States purchase over 650 million gallons of architectural paint (i.e., paint used in the interior and exterior of structures), more than 65 million of which go unused. Although paint is highly reusable, and recyclable, much of the country’s leftover paint is dried and sent to landfills. Leftover paint is also one of the largest components of household hazardous wastes collection programs and is a financial burden for overextended municipal budgets. To address the challenges of wasted resources and high municipal costs, paint manufacturers, federal, state, and local government officials, recyclers and nonprofit organizations signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2007 supporting the establishment of an industry‐funded paint stewardship program. Two years later, Oregon passed the nation’s first paint stewardship law, requiring architectural paint manufacturers to establish a system and cover the costs for collecting and managing post‐consumer leftover paint. Between 2009 and 2015, eight states and the District of Columbia passed similar paint stewardship legislation. In response, paint manufacturers established the PaintCare organization, an industry‐run nonprofit, to implement the required paint stewardship programs. Paint stewardship legislation can affect all stakeholders involved in creating, selling, using, and managing paint, including manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and waste managers. However, its impacts may be most notable among household hazardous waste (HHW) programs. Paint stewardship legislation is designed to shift the management burden and costs away from local government programs. At the same time, increased consumer education around paint recycling, resulting from paint stewardship programs, may drive additional participants to HHW programs. Until 2014, there was no national data on how paint stewardship legislation was affecting HHW programs, including cost savings and changes to participation. At the request of PaintCare, the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) evaluated the effects of the PaintCare program on HHW programs in five states that implemented paint stewardship prior to September 2014: California, Connecticut, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont. This report summarizes PSI’s findings from this cross‐state evaluation. Based on PSI’s evaluation, key findings include the following:  Most HHW programs save money through the PaintCare program.  HHW programs that save money through PaintCare most frequently use cost savings to reduce their overall budget or to offset costs of managing other waste products.  HHW programs are more likely to experience an increase or no change in program participation than a decrease.  HHW programs are more likely to experience an increase in paint volume received than a decrease  HHW programs are most likely to experience no change in non‐paint HHW volume.  Increased collection of non‐paint HHW by some programs is the most likely cause of higher costs to HHW programs.  Even when HHW programs collect more paint and non‐paint products or have greater participation, they are more likely to experience overall cost savings than increased costs.  Most HHW programs are satisfied with the PaintCare program. Based upon these and other findings, we recommend: Plan for an increase in both paint and non‐paint HHW under the PaintCare program: HHW programs should be prepared for an increase in the amount of both paint and non‐paint HHW collected following implementation of paint stewardship legislation. This may include developing a budget that accounts for a decrease in paint management costs as well as an increase in management costs for non‐paint HHW and overhead costs for higher participation.  Identify opportunities to simplify and streamline the contracting process: Mechanisms to simplify the contracting process (such as universal clauses to be applied to all programs and early communication to review contracting options) may reduce costs for some programs.  Evaluate potential drivers of increased PaintCare program participation. Forty‐five percent of respondents indicated that participation in their HHW program increased through the PaintCare program. To evaluate the reasons for changes in program participation, further study could compare outreach efforts and structural changes (e.g., expanding collection hours) of HHW programs that did and did not experience an increase in participation.  Determine effects on HHW programs as the PaintCare program matures. Paint stewardship is still in an early stage in the United States; at the time of this survey the oldest program had only operated for four years, and most were less than one year into implementation. While this study provided insight into the effects on HHW programs shortly after implementation, it is still unknown how the PaintCare program will affect HHW programs once the program is more established. A repetition of this study after one to three years will provide greater insight into important effects of PaintCare on HHW programs as the program gains experience and becomes established in a state.