Eat, Breathe & Dine Smoke Free! Ohio’s Smoke Free Restaurant Campaign 1998 to 2001 Tracy Clopton,...
102
Eat, Breathe & Dine Smoke Free! Ohio’s Smoke Free Restaurant Campaign 1998 to 2001 Tracy Clopton, M. S. W. Ohio Department of Health Tobacco Risk Reduction Program
-
Upload
maud-glenn -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Eat, Breathe & Dine Smoke Free! Ohio’s Smoke Free Restaurant Campaign 1998 to 2001 Tracy Clopton,...
Eat, Breathe & Dine Smoke Free! Ohio’s Smoke Free
Restaurant Campaign1998 to 2001
Tracy Clopton, M. S. W.Ohio Department of Health
Tobacco Risk Reduction Program
Special Thanks to the Ohio Department of Health and Tobacco Free Ohio Staff Who Contributed
to This Project • Thallia Blight, TFO Project Assistant, media
kit development.
• Theresa Campbell B.S., data entry.
• Ellen Capwell, Ph.D. Professor, technical assistance.
• Wen Fang Chan, M. S., Epidemiologist, data analysis.
• Eric Green, M. A., Social Marketing Consultant, media development.
• Winnie Miller, data entry.
• Patrick Harsch, Ph.D. Tobacco Program Consultant, graphics and charts.
Learning Objectives
• Define Diffusion of Innovations Theory.• Describe how theory components were
incorporated into the statewide campaign.• Identify outcomes and lessons learned
from multi-component assessment.• How can others apply this statewide model
to assist local communities, with little experience, to promote a public health issue.
1986 Surgeon General ReportHealth Consequences of Involuntary Smoking
• Involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy nonsmokers.
• The children of parents who smoke… have increased frequency of respiratory infections, increased respiratory symptoms…
• Simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce but does not eliminate exposure…to environmental tobacco smoke.
Secondhand Smoke Causes…
• Heart Disease• Low Birth Weight• Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)• Asthma• Bronchitis• Pneumonia• Nasal Sinus Cancer
Source: Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Health, Monograph 10, National Institutes of Health-NCI
0.9
64.9
28.9
0 20 40 60 80
Not Allowed
Some Areas
All Areas
Where Adults Will Tolerate Smoking in Indoor Work Areas: Ohio, 1998
Percent
2.5
67.4
30.1
0 20 40 60 80
Not Allowed
Some Areas
All Areas
Where Adults Will Tolerate Smoking in Indoor Work Areas: Ohio, 2000
Percent
4.2
67.6
26.3
0 20 40 60 80
Not Allowed
Some Areas
All Areas
Where Adults Will Tolerate Smoking in Indoor Work Areas: Ohio, 2004
Percent10 30 50 70
Source: Ohio Adult Tobacco Survey, 2004
Where Adults Will Tolerate Smoking in Restaurants: Ohio, 1998
2.3
45.5 46.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
All Areas Some Areas Not Allowed
Perc
en
t
45.5 46.6
Where Adults Will Tolerate Smoking in Restaurants: Ohio, 2000
3.5
48.4 48.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
All Areas Some Areas Not Allowed
Perc
en
t
Where Adults Will Tolerate Smoking in Restaurants: Ohio, 2004
2.2
43.0
54.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
All Areas Some Areas Not Allowed
Perc
en
t
Source: Ohio Adult Tobacco Survey, 2004
55
Where Adults Will Tolerate Smoking in Indoor Work Areas by Smoking Status: Ohio, 1999
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Current Smokers
Perc
en
t
FormerSmokers
NeverSmoked
AllPersons
Some Areas
Not Allowed at All
54.6
43.2
33.7
65.4
25.4
74.5
63.8
35.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Current Smokers
Perc
en
t
FormerSmokers
NeverSmoked
AllPersons
57.7
42.3
31.8
68.2
19.7
80.3
69.3
30.7
Adults Tolerating Smoking in Some Indoor Areas by Smoking Status: Ohio, 2004
Where Adults Will Tolerate Smoking in Restaurants by Smoking Status: Ohio, 1999
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Current Smokers
Perc
en
t
FormerSmokers
NeverSmoked
AllPersons
Some Areas
Not Allowed at All77.8
15.0
50.347.3
38.6
61.1
45.152.1
Adults Tolerating Smoking in Some Areas of Restaurants by Smoking Status: Ohio, 2004
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Current Smokers
Perc
en
t
FormerSmokers
NeverSmoked
AllPersons
78.9
42.347.6
68.2
30.7
80.3
45
“No Smoking” Section ?
Theoretical Model
Diffusion Innovations Theory:
1. How the development of new ideas, products, and social practices can improve health promotion interventions and strategies within society.
2. Program developers pay attention to social norms, member networks and social structures, in addition to the new intervention.
Two Applicable Concepts of Diffusion Innovations Theory
• Relative Advantage
• Seen as a better idea or unique.
• Statewide restaurant campaign new to Ohio.
• Observability
• Can produce tangible results.
• Written feedback from restaurant patrons and managers.
Campaign Purpose
• Encourage restaurants to permanently convert to smoke free.
• Local community education & assessment.
• Promote local coalition development.
• Participants use experience to address greater challenges within tobacco prevention.
Participant Recruitment Efforts
• Invitational letters to local health departments & tobacco coalitions seven months prior to the campaign date.
• Support materials free of charge.• “Ready To Use” Media Kit.• Participating restaurants recruited by health
depts. and tobacco coalitions in various ways.• Patron Card data provided to restaurant
managers.• Certificate of Appreciation and free advertisement
of their restaurant business.
Support Materials(with restaurant campaign logo)
• Buttons • Ink Pens• Testimonial Brochure• Manager Brochure• Tray-Liner/Placemat• Certificate of
Appreciation• Poster Notices• Patron Cards for
opinions.
• Media Tool Kit (Press Release, Letter to Editor, etc.)
• 3 Types of Stickers for Restaurant Bills
• CDC’s Guide: “Making
Your Workplace Smoke Free” (no program logo)
MEDIA Campaign“Eat, Breathe & Dine Smoke
Free!”
Getting The Message Out1. Local News Papers: Participants made connections and used
the TFO Media Tool Kit.
2. Created two complementary radio spots: Borrowed California Dept. of Health’s TV Spot “Waitress”
3. Tagged the spots with 800# for advocacy packet: 300+ calls for 30+ days in 2000 and 2001.
4. Contracted with the Ohio Association of Broadcasters for $50,000: 3 free for 1 buy, or approximately $150,000 worth of air time for 31+ days.
5. CDC’s Media Campaign Resource Center’s movie slides, transit, & billboards funded by TFO: Supportive secondhand smoke spot “Secondhand Sound”
“Eat, Breathe & Dine Smoke Free!” Restaurant Campaign Data Summary
1998-2001
• Local Participant Information
• Patron Responses
• Managers’ Evaluations
• Local Participants’ Evaluations
12
2118
24
0
5
10
15
20
25
1998 1999 2000 2001
Number of Participating Agencies* By Year in Ohio
*Most were city/county health departments followed by voluntary non-profits or coalitions.
HENRY
PUTNAM
LAWRENCE
PIKE
ADAMS
ATHENS
COSHOCTON
HOLMES
FAIRFIELD
HOCKING
JACKSON
SCIOTO
HIGHLAND
ROSS
FAYETTEPICKAWAY
GREENE
BELMONTMUSKINGUM
MEIGS
VINTON
WASHINGTON
MORGAN
PERRY MONROE
GUERNSEY
P0RTAGE
HARRISON
JEFFERSON
RICHLAND
SENECA
HARDIN
SANDUSKY
LICKING
DELAWARE
MADISON
FRANKLIN
CHAMPAIGN
MAMI
DARKE
PREBLEMONTGOMERY
CARROLL
BROWN
CLER-MONT
HURON
ERIE
TUSCARAWAS
ASHLAND
WYANDOT CRAWFORD WAYNE
CUYAHOGALORAIN
SUMMIT
LAKE
ASHTABULA
TRUMBULL
GEAUGA
MAHONING
COLUMBIANASTARK
NOBLE
GALLIA
CLINTONWARRENBUTLER
SHELBY
WILLIAMS
MERCER
ALLEN
AUGLAIZE
HANCOCK
VAN WERT
DEFIANCE
FULTONLUCAS
WOOD
OTTAWA
LOGAN
UNION
CLARK
HAMILTON
PAULDING
MARIONMORROW
KNOX
MEDINA
Strongest involvement came from counties in the Northwest, Southwest, Northeast, then Southeast.
1
2
3
4
93
142124
114
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1998 1999 2000 2001
Number of Restaurants Participating
Each Year in Ohio
Thirty or 6 percent of the restaurants converted to smoke free between 1998 and 2001 based upon participating in the campaign.
Patrons’ Response
2485
4219
1830
2282
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1998 1999 2000 2001
Number of Restaurant Patrons Responding
Each Year in Ohio
Ohio Restaurant Four-Year Campaign
4500
Smoking Status of Smoke-free Restaurant Campaign Patrons, Ohio: 1998
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
Non Smokers Smokers
74
45.152.1
25
93
Smoking Status of Smoke-free Restaurant Campaign Patrons, Ohio: 1999
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
Non Smokers Smokers
66
45.152.1
32
93
Smoking Status of Smoke-free Restaurant Campaign Patrons, Ohio: 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
Non Smokers Smokers
73
45.152.1
27
93
Smoking Status of Smoke-free Restaurant Campaign Patrons, Ohio: 2001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
Non Smokers Smokers
68
45.1
30
93
8
1510
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10 or lesscigarettesper day
Perc
en
t
Smoking Patrons of Smoke-free Restaurant Campaign Tobacco Use, Ohio: 1999
11 to 20cigarettesper day
21 or morecigarettesper day
No response
68
28
45
27
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10 or lesscigarettesper day
Perc
en
tSmoking Patrons of Smoke-free Restaurant
Campaign Tobacco Use, Ohio: 2000
11 to 20cigarettesper day
21 or morecigarettesper day
23
45
32
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10 or lesscigarettesper day
Perc
en
tSmoking Patrons of Smoke-free Restaurant
Campaign Tobacco Use, Ohio: 2001
11 to 20cigarettesper day
21 or morecigarettesper day
Patrons’ Response to: “I Try to Protect Myself, Children or Grandchildren from Tobacco Smoke,”
Ohio: 1999
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
Always Sometimes
54
45.1
23
93
Patrons’ Response to: “I Try to Protect Myself, Children or Grandchildren from Tobacco Smoke,”
Ohio: 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
Always Sometimes
66
45.1
22
93
Patrons’ Response to: “I Try to Protect Myself, Children or Grandchildren from Tobacco Smoke,”
Ohio: 2001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
Always Sometimes
57
45.1
25
93
78
45
19
Yes No
Patrons’ Response to: “I Am Glad to See This Restaurant Participate in a Smoke Free Campaign,” Ohio: 1998
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
66
8
25
Yes Unsure No
Patrons’ Response to: “I Am Glad to See This Restaurant Participate in a Smoke Free Campaign,” Ohio: 1999
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
76
816
Yes Unsure No
Patrons’ Response to: “I Am Glad to See This Restaurant Participate in a Smoke Free Campaign,” Ohio: 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
72
1017
Yes Unsure No
Patrons’ Response to: “I Am Glad to See This Restaurant Participate in a Smoke Free Campaign,” Ohio: 2001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Patrons’ Response to: “If This Restaurant Became Totally Smoke Free Everyday I:” Ohio, 1999
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Return more often
Perc
en
t
63.8
Glad to see this
Not like it but would
return
Would not dine here
again
Would not care either
way
33
8
1921
17
Patrons’ Response to: “If This Restaurant Became Totally Smoke Free Everyday I:” Ohio, 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Return more often
Perc
en
t
63.8
Glad to see this
Not like it but would
return
Would not dine here
again
Would not care either
way
40
7
11
2319
Patrons’ Response to: “If This Restaurant Became Totally Smoke Free Everyday I:,” Ohio, 2001
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Return more often
Perc
en
t
63.8
Glad to see this
Not like it but would
return
Would not dine here
again
Would not care either
way
16
35
9
23
14
Average of Patrons’ Response to: “If This Restaurant Became Totally Smoke Free Everyday I:”
Ohio, 1999 - 2001
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Return more often
Perc
en
t
63.8
Glad to see this
Not like it but would
return
Would not dine here
again
Would not care either
way
35
17
13
22
17
93
4
Yes No
Patrons’ Response to: “I Am Aware That Exposure to Smoke From Cigarettes and Cigars May Cause Health Problems for
Children/Employers:” Ohio, 1998
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
84
2 12
Yes No Do not agree
Patrons’ Response to: “I Am Aware That Exposure to Smoke From Cigarettes and Cigars May Cause Health Problems for
Children/Employers:” Ohio, 1999
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
90
1 9
Yes No Do not agree
Patrons’ Response to: “I Am Aware That Exposure to Smoke From Cigarettes and Cigars May Cause Health Problems for
Children/Employers:” Ohio, 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
88
28
Yes No Do not agree
Patrons’ Response to: “I Am Aware That Exposure to Smoke From Cigarettes and Cigars May Cause Health Problems for
Children/Employers:” Ohio, 2001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
55
45
42
Female Male
Gender of Patrons of a Smoke Free Restaurant Campaign: Ohio, 1998
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
48
45
49
Female Male
Gender of Patrons of a Smoke Free Restaurant Campaign: Ohio, 1999
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
48
45
52
Female Male
Gender of Patrons of a Smoke Free Restaurant Campaign: Ohio, 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
49
45
45
Female Male
Gender of Patrons of a Smoke Free Restaurant Campaign: Ohio, 2001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
Managers’ Responses
32
5751
72
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1998 1999 2000 2001
Number of Restaurant Managers Responding
Each Year in Ohio
Ohio Restaurant Four-Year Campaign
90
22
41
19
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
StronglyAgree
Agree SomewhatAgree
Perc
en
tManagers Who Believe The Smoke-free
Restaurant Campaign Was A Success: Ohio, 1998
2630 30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
StronglyAgree
Agree SomewhatAgree
Perc
en
tManagers Who Believe The Smoke-free
Restaurant Campaign Was A Success: Ohio, 1999
12
35
29
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
StronglyAgree
Agree SomewhatAgree
Perc
en
tManagers Who Believe The Smoke-free
Restaurant Campaign Was A Success: Ohio, 2000
15
3531
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
StronglyAgree
Agree SomewhatAgree
Perc
en
tManagers Who Believe The Smoke-free
Restaurant Campaign Was A Success: Ohio, 2001
Managers Knowledge Of ETS Effects On Employee After Campaign: Ohio, 1998
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
Increased Remained the Same
31
45.152.1
63
Managers Knowledge Of ETS Effects On Employee After Campaign: Ohio, 1999
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
Increased Remained the Same
18
45.152.1
77
Managers Knowledge Of ETS Effects On Employee After Campaign: Ohio, 2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
Increased Remained the Same
29
45.152.1
55
Managers Knowledge Of ETS Effects On Employee After Campaign: Ohio, 2001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
Increased Remained the Same
35
45.152.153
Managers’ Initial Attitude About A Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 1998
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Not Likethe Idea
Perc
en
t
74.5
63.8
OK, Only if not negative to business
Open to trying
something new
Needed to get used to
the idea
No Response
4744
9
00
Managers’ Initial Attitude About A Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 1999
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Not Likethe Idea
Perc
en
t
63.8
OK, Only if not negative to business
Open to trying
something new
Needed to get used to
the idea
No Response
51
42
2 42
55
Managers’ Initial Attitude About A Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Not likethe Idea
Perc
en
t
63.8
OK, only if not negative to business
Open to trying
something new
Needed to get used to
the idea
No Response
55
35
42
4
55
Managers’ Initial Attitude About A Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 2001
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Not Likethe Idea
Perc
en
t
63.8
OK, Only if not negative to business
Open to trying
something new
Needed to get used to
the idea
No Response
42 42
18
7
1916
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Very Little or
Little
Some
Perc
en
tInfluence of Health Representatives on Mangers’
Decision to Participate: Ohio, 1998
Much orVery Much
22
None
34
1116
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Very Little or
Little
Some
Perc
en
tInfluence of Health Representatives on Mangers’
Decision to Participate: Ohio, 1999
Much orVery Much
32
None
30
16
26
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Very Little or
Little
Some
Perc
en
tInfluence of Health Representatives on Mangers’
Decision to Participate: Ohio, 2000
Much orVery Much
26
None
31
6
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Very Little or
Little
Some
Perc
en
tInfluence of Health Representatives on Mangers’
Decision to Participate: Ohio, 2001
Much orVery Much
46
None
35
Managers’ Likely Behavior After Participating in a Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 1998
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Will Nevergo smoke
Free
Perc
en
t
63.8
Will not participate in
another campaign
Will participate in
another campaign
Will go or strongly consider
going smoke free
No response
9
56
9
3
55
21
Managers’ Likely Behavior After Participating in a Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 1999
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Will Nevergo smoke
Free
Perc
en
t
63.8
Will not participate in
another campaign
Will participate in
another campaign
Will go or strongly consider
going smoke free
No response
9
47
4
12
55
32
Managers’ Likely Behavior After Participating in a Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Will Nevergo smoke
Free
Perc
en
t
63.8
Will not participate in
another campaign
Will participate in
another campaign
Will go or strongly consider
going smoke free
No response
12
61
82
55
18
Managers’ Likely Behavior After Participating in a Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 2001
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Will Nevergo smoke
Free
Perc
en
t
63.8
Will not participate in
another campaign
Will participate in
another campaign
Will go or strongly consider
going smoke free
No response
4
65
6
10
55
16
Managers’ Positions Who Participated in A Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 1998
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Sole owner
Perc
en
t
63.8
Owner in partnership
Manager Owner and manager
No Response
13
2528
31
3
Managers’ Positions Who Participated in A Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 1999
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Sole owner
Perc
en
t
63.8
Owner in partnership
Manager Owner and manager
No Response
14
47
12
23
4
Managers’ Positions Who Participated in A Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Sole owner
Perc
en
t
63.8
Owner in partnership
Manager Owner and manager
No Response
18
27 2527
2
Managers’ Positions Who Participated in A Smoke-Free Campaign: Ohio, 2001
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Sole owner
Perc
en
t
63.8
Owner in partnership
Manager Owner and manager
No Response
18
32
19
29
1
16
81
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Smoker Non-Smoker
No response
Perc
en
tManagers’ Smoking Status: Ohio, 1998
21
74
50
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Smoker Non-Smoker
No response
Perc
en
tManagers Smoking Status, Ohio: 1999
16
76
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Smoker Non-Smoker
No response
Perc
en
tManagers’ Smoking Status: Ohio, 2000
32
67
10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Smoker Non-Smoker
No response
Perc
en
tManagers’ Smoking Status: Ohio, 2001
12
33
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
State No ban
Perc
en
t Smoking Bans Mangers’ Are Most In Favor Of:
Ohio, 2000
No response
18
City or county
37
10
38
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
State No ban
Perc
en
t Smoking Bans Mangers’ Are Most In Favor Of:
Ohio, 2001
No response
3
City or county
50
Local Participants’ Responses
Local Participants’ Average Response of Good to Excellent to Campaign Support Materials, Ohio
0
10
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PressReleases
Perc
en
t
Tray liners/ Placemats
Manager Brochures
TFO Testimonial Brochure
Billboards-Movie Slides
87
10092
72
44.5
20
Yea
rs 1
998
- 19
99
Yea
rs 2
000
- 20
01
Yea
r 19
99
Yea
rs 2
000
- 20
01
Yea
rs 2
000
- 20
01
Local Participants’ Average Response of Good to Excellent to Campaign Support Materials,
Ohio: 1998-2001
0
10
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CDC’sGuide
Perc
en
t
63.8
PatronSurvey
Buttons Ink Pens Certificates
9589
99.594
88
20
Local Participants’ Average Response of Good to Excellent to Campaign Support Materials,
Ohio: 1999-2001
0
10
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Poster Notices
Perc
en
t
63.8
Written Support Material
Radio Spots
69
36.4
80
63
88
20
Local Participants Who Agreed to Participate in Another Campaign: Ohio, 1999-2001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t
1999 2000 2001
100
47.3
38.645.1
52.1
77.7
90
71
Lessons Learned• Program Evaluation will help campaign evolve and become more
effective.
• Written feedback is beneficial and improves communication between local participants and state program developers.
• Giving a voice to residents and restaurant managers is important for local policy work.
• Much support and encouragement is needed for locals to try new projects.
• Stress the importance of partnerships and coalition development (incl. communities of color and “everyday people”).
• Statewide media can work synergistically with local efforts.
Lessons Learned
• Time Frames are needed for overall project success.
• Logistical planning is important.
• Have a strong follow up plan.
Don’t be afraid to take risks…
We have more support than we believe
Local Ohio Clean Indoor Air OrdinancesAs of 11/2005
• Bexley• Bowling Green• Centerville• Columbus• Dublin• Fairfield• Grandview Heights• Granville• Health• Hilliard• Marble Cliff
• New Albany• Newark• Powell• Toledo• Upper Arlington• Wauseon• Westerville• Worthington
Workplaces
Restaurants
Bars
Year
Cum
ula
tive N
um
ber
Municipalities with Local 100 Percent Smoke-Free Laws Cumulative Number, U.S., 1990-2005
States with Comprehensive Smokefree Workplace Laws
As of 11/2005• Washington
• California
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Maine• Ohio in 2006
• Massachusetts
• Montana
• New York
• Rhode Island
• Vermont
SmokeFreeOhio.org 2006
