A qualitative evaluation of 40 voluntary, smoke-free, multiunit, housing policy campaigns in California

Satterlund, Travis D.; Treiber, Jeanette; Kipke, Robin; Cassady, Diana L

doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050923

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, unlike in the Portland case which used landlords' competiveness to their advantage, California campaigns examined in this study found that drawing upon the collegial relationship among apartment managers, while simultaneously espousing the economic benefits of a smoke-free policy, was the most effective way to make the case for smoke-free housing. For instance, a fellow MUH owner's or manager's experience and assurance that the policy move was advantageous (particularly from an economic standpoint) was more convincing than any fact sheet or appeals from a health department or community organization (Satterlund et al, 2013). These helpful owners or managers were thus viewed as "champions" by local projects in that these individuals had strong influence and legitimacy among the community of colleagues, and were therefore integral to successful policy adoption (Satterlund et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…For instance, a fellow MUH owner's or manager's experience and assurance that the policy move was advantageous (particularly from an economic standpoint) was more convincing than any fact sheet or appeals from a health department or community organization (Satterlund et al, 2013). These helpful owners or managers were thus viewed as "champions" by local projects in that these individuals had strong influence and legitimacy among the community of colleagues, and were therefore integral to successful policy adoption (Satterlund et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…learning the local [MUH] context; 2. finding and utilizing a champion; 3. partnering with like-minded organizations; 4. building relationships with stakeholders; 5. collecting and using local data; and 6. making a compelling case to decisionmakers (Satterlund et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, even when owners and managers appropriately understood the law as it related to smoke-free policy, many of them tended to be fearful of being perceived as curtailing individuals' civil liberties. Such an argument strand-related to smokers' perceived "rights"-was similarly found when communities attempted to adopt smoke-free policy in recreational spaces (Satterlund, Cassady, Treiber, & Lemp, 2011a), as well as when California bar owners were fighting the indoor smokefree laws in as they pertained to bars and taverns (Satterlund, Treiber, Kipke, & Cassady, 2013). In this vein, others had strong feelings that any MUH policy would be "another example of the government intruding on people's private lives," as one manager said.…”

Section: The Legality Of Muh Smoke-free Law and Smokers' Rightsmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Navigating Local Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Policy Adoption

Satterlund¹,

Treiber

Cassady

2013

J Drug Educ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

California state-funded local tobacco control projects have instituted smoke-free multi-unit housing (MUH) policy adoption campaigns in order to secure voluntary policy throughout the state. While landlords can legally prohibit smoking at MUH complexes in California, they often oppose such measures. The objective of this study was to analyze voluntary smoke-free policy campaigns of state-funded local projects by focusing on the challenges they faced. Specifically, we examined 40 local campaigns in California led by county health departments and community based organizations, focusing on the barriers the local projects often had to overcome to enact policy. Our results identify arguments and issues typically raised by MUH property landlords, including the notion of tenant smoker and privacy rights, potential negative effects of smoke-free policy, and issues concerning the enforcement of policy. Moreover, relationships between local project personnel and MUH management often soured, which sometimes derailed smoke-free policy campaigns altogether. Our findings provide agencies with insights from the MUH property landlord perspective that will serve to inform future campaign strategy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Legality Of Muh Smoke-free Law and Smokers' Rightsmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Navigating Local Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Policy Adoption

Satterlund¹,

Treiber

Cassady

2013

J Drug Educ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Before the rule, HUD had strongly encouraged PHAs to establish smoke-free policies, and 678 had done so, generally in the Northeast, West, and Northwest (3). Many toolkits and support materials were developed to assist in the process, and state health departments have actively supported PHAs in developing smoke-free policies and provided cessation assistance to residents (21,22). Although retrospective in design, this process evaluation documents the policy-making process among the early adopters of smoke-free policies in North Carolina and Georgia.…”

Section: Intervention Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing Smoke-Free Policies in Public Housing: Perspectives From Early Adopters in 2 Southern States

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose and ObjectivesIn 2016, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a new rule requiring smoke-free policies in conventional public housing by July 2018 (HUD, 2016). This process evaluation describes the policy development experiences of conventional and nonconventional public housing authorities (PHAs) in North Carolina and Georgia that had established smoke-free policies before the HUD rule.Intervention ApproachHUD began to issue guidance that encouraged smoke-free policies in public housing in 2009, and most early adopters were outside of the Southeast. Documenting the process early adopters in the Southeast used to develop their policies provides useful lessons for conventional PHAs and those with properties not covered by the rule.Evaluation MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with PHA representatives from 23 PHAs with some level of smoking restriction, along with residents from 14 of these PHAs, from January to August 2016.ResultsOrganizational leaders and board members were usually the primary players in making the decision to adopt a policy, with approval processes consistent with any type of policy adoption. Common reasons for establishing the policy included costs of turning a unit; health of children, nonsmokers, and staff; HUD guidance; and concerns or experience with fire caused by cigarettes. Levels of restriction were influenced by layout of the property, perceptions of compliance and enforcement challenges, concerns about smokers congregating, resident mobility, weather concerns, consistency with HUD guidance, and availability of funds for designated smoking areas. Resident input was obtained through general meetings, resident advisory boards or councils, surveys, and formal comment periods.Implications for Public HealthUnderstanding the process of policy development and adoption enables public health practitioners to be more effective partners in advising on the flexible components of the HUD smoke-free rule and accelerating the adoption of comprehensive policies within nonconventional PHAs.

show abstract

Smoke-free multiunit housing: a review of the scientific literature

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Multiunit housing (MUH) residents are susceptible to secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure, which can transfer between living units. This review summarises existing scientific literature relevant to smoke-free MUH, discusses knowledge gaps and provides recommendations for future research to inform public health action. Data sources We conducted a systematic search of peer-reviewed articles using three databases: EBSCOhost CINAHL, PubMed and Web of Science. Study selection Article titles, abstracts and text were reviewed to ascertain three inclusion criteria: (1) English language; (2) conducted in the USA; (3) reported on baseline data, development, implementation or evaluation of smoke-free MUH. Data extraction We used a multistep process to identify eligible articles: (1) two reviewers separately evaluated article titles; (2) two reviewers separately evaluated abstracts and (3) one reviewer read each article and determined inclusion eligibility. Data synthesis We identified and included 35 articles published during 2001–2014, grouped based on broad themes: MUH resident (n=16); MUH operator (n=6); environmental monitoring and biomarkers (n=9); economic (n=2); legal (n=3); and implementation process and policy impact (n=8). Studies with multiple themes were included in all relevant groups. Conclusions Existing literature has focused on self-reported, cross-sectional studies of MUH residents and operators; some studies of environmental markers, biomarkers and economic indicators have also been conducted. Future research on smoke-free MUH policy compliance and enforcement, and on the impact of these policies on smoking behaviours and health outcomes, could further inform public health planning, policy and practice. Despite these gaps, the current literature provides sufficient evidence for action to eliminate SHS exposure in MUH.

show abstract

A qualitative evaluation of 40 voluntary, smoke-free, multiunit, housing policy campaigns in California

Cited by 8 publications

References 18 publications

Navigating Local Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Policy Adoption

Navigating Local Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Policy Adoption

Developing Smoke-Free Policies in Public Housing: Perspectives From Early Adopters in 2 Southern States

Smoke-free multiunit housing: a review of the scientific literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About