Youth Tobacco Access Project

Articles on Smoking Treatment and Prevention from the DePaul Research Group

Levinson, A.H., Ma, M., Jason, L.A., Lee, J.G.L., Landrine, H., Glueck, D., & DiFranza, J.R. (2018). Assessment of the US federal retailer violation rate as an estimate of the proportion of retailers that illegally sell tobacco to adolescents. JAMA Pediatrics. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2038 Published online August 20, 2018.
Maton, K.I., Humphreys, K., Jason, LA., & Shinn, B. (2017). Community psychology in the policy arena. In C. M. Bond, Keys, C., & I. Serrano-Garcia (Eds.). Handbook of Community Psychology. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Jason, L.A. (2015). Ethical and diversity challenges in ecologically sensitive systems-oriented interventions. American Psychologist, 70, 762-775.
Jason, L.A. & Aase, D.M. (2016). Community-clinical psychology. In M.M.D. Rodriguez (Ed.). APA Handbook of Clinical Psychology. Volume 1. Clinical Psychology: Roots and Branches. (pp. 201-222). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Jason, L. A., Beasley, C. R., & Hunter, B.A. (2015). Advocacy and social justice. In V. Chien & S.M. Wolfe (Ed.). Foundations of Community Psychology Practice. (pp. 262-289). New York: Sage.
Jason, L.A. (2013). Principles of Social Change. New York: Oxford University Press.
Adams, M.L., Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S., & Hunt, Y. (2013). Exploration of the link between tobacco retailers in school neighborhoods and student smoking. Journal of School Health, 83, 112-118. PMCID: PMC3556821
Jason, L.A., & Glenwick, D.S. (2012). Methodological Approaches to Community-Based Research. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., Adams, M., Nihls, A., Kim, H.Y., & Hunt, Y. (2010). Cracking down on youth tobacco may influence drug use. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 1-15. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20347
Kunz, C.B., Jason, L.A., Adams, M., & Pokorny, S.B. (2009). Police community readiness to work on youth access and possession of tobacco. Journal of Drug Education, 39, 321-337. PMID: 120196335
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., Adams, M., Topliff, A., Harris, C., & Hunt, Y. (2009). Youth tobacco access and possession policy interventions: Effects on observed and perceived tobacco use. The American Journal on Addictions, 18, 367-374. PMID: 19874155
Pokorny, S.B., Adams, M., Jason, L.A., Patka, M., Cowman, S., & Topliff, A. (2009). Frequency and citations of published authors in two community psychology journals. Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 281-291. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20295
Bottom, T.L., Adams, M.A., Jason, L.A., & Topliff, A. (2009). Youth smoking status: Perceptions versus measurements. American Journal of Health Behavior, 33(6), 760-768. PMID: 19320623
Adams, M.L., Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S., Hunt, Y. (2009). The relationship between school policies and youth tobacco use. Journal of School Health, 79, 17-23. PMCID: PMC2826219
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., Adams, M.L., Topliff, A., Harris, C.C., & Hunt, Y. (2008). Effects of youth tobacco access and possession policy interventions on heavy adolescent smokers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 5, 1-9. PMCID: PMC2672330
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., Adams, M., & Hunt, Y. (2008). A randomized trial evaluating tobacco possession-use-purchase laws. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 1700-1707. PMID: 18947913
Pokorny, S. B., Corbin, S., Driscoll, M., & Jason, L. A. (2008). The effect of enforcement history and ordinance provisions on merchant compliance with tobacco-control laws. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 8, 228-243. doi: 10.1080/15332560802157032
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., Patka, M., Adams, M., & Morello, T. (2007). Ranking institutional settings based on publications in community psychology journals. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 967-979. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20206
Jason L.A., Hunt, Y.M., Adams, M.L., Pokorny, S.B., Gadiraju, P.B. (2007). Strengthening communities’ youth access policies may facilitate clean indoor air Action. [Letter]. Preventing Chronic Disease, 4(4). PMCID: PMC2099278
Williams, T.T., Jason, L.A., & Pokorny, S.B. (2007). Youth attitudes towards tobacco control laws: The effects of smoking status and grade in school. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 17, 1-14.
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., Adams, M., Hunt, Y., Gadiraju, P., & Schoeny, M. (2007). Do fines for violating Possession-Use-Purchase Laws reduce youth tobacco use. Journal of Drug Education, 37, 385-392. PMID: 18351178
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., Adams, M., Hunt, Y., Gadiraju, P., Morello, T., Schoeny, M., & Dinwiddie, C. (2007). Youth caught in violation of tobacco purchase, use and possession laws: Education versus fines. Behavior Modification, 31, 713-731. PMID: 17932232
Pokorny, S. B., Jason, L. A., & Schoeny, M. (2006). Youth supplying tobacco to other minors: Evaluating individual and town-level correlates. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 705–715. doi: 10.1007/s10964-006-9030-0
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., Sanem, J.R., & Adams, M.L. (2006). Monitoring and decreasing public smoking among youth. Behavior Modification, 30, 681-692. PMID: 16894236 DOI: 10.1177/0145445505277995
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., Ji, P., & Kunz, C. (2006). Developing community-school-university partnerships to control youth access to tobacco. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16, 201-222. doi: 10.1207/s1532768xjepc1603_4
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., Muldowny, K., & Velez, M. (2005). Youth tobacco sales-to-minors and possession-use-purchase laws: A public health controversy. Journal of Drug Education, 2005, 35, 275-290. PMID: 16910240
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., Turner, P.L., Freeland, M., Corbin, S., & Driscoll, M. (2005). Decreasing public smoking among youth: A Preliminary Study. Education & Treatment of Children, 28, 299-307. doi:10.1177/0145445505277995
Pokorny, S. B., Jason, L. A., Helzing, D. M., Sherk, J., Rebus, P. J., Kunz, C., Rabin-Belyaev, O., Ostergaard, A., Mikulski, K., & Ji, P. Y. (2005). Efficient and effective uses of technology in community research. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 29, 7-27. doi: 10.1300/J005v29n01_02
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., Kunz, C., & Adams, M. (2004). Maintenance of community change: Enforcing youth access to tobacco laws. Journal of Drug Education, 34, 105-119. PMID: 15638214
Pokorny, S.B., Jason, L.A., Shoeny, M. (2004). Current smoking among young adolescents: Assessing school-based contextual norms. Tobacco Control, 13, 301-307. doi: 10.1136/tc.2003.005363
Ji, P. Pokorny, S., Jason, L. (2004). Factors influencing middle and high schools’ active parental consent return rates. Evaluation Review, 28 (6), 578-591. doi: 10.1177/0193841X04263917
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., Mikulski, K., & Schoeny, M. (2004). Assessing storefront tobacco advertising after the billboard ban. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 27, 22-33. PMID: 14994557
Pokorny, S.B., Baptiste, D.R., Tolan, P., Hirsch, B.J., Talbot, B., Ji, P., Paikoff, R.L., & Madison-Boyd, S. (2004) Prevention science: Participatory approaches and community case studies . In L.A. Jason, C. B. Keys, Y., Suarez-Balcazar, R.R. Taylor, M. Davis, J. Durlak, & D. Isenberg (Eds.). Participatory community research: Theories and methods in action. (pp. 87-104). American Psychological Association: Washington, D.C.
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., Sherk, J.L., Helzing, D.M., & Rebus, P.J. (2003). Selling tobacco to minors: Can merchants accurately determine a customer’s age? Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 8, 67-73. doi:10.1300/J137v08n04_04
Jason, L. A., Pokorny, S. B. & Schoeny, M. E. (2003). It is premature to abandon youth access to tobacco programs. Pediatrics, 111(4 Pt 1), 920-921. PMID: 12671138
Pokorny, S.B., Jason, L.A., & Schoeny, M.E. (2003). The relation of retail tobacco availability to initiation and continued cigarette smoking. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 193-204. PMID: 12679277
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., & Schoeny, M.E. (2003). Evaluating the effects of enforcements and fines on youth smoking. Critical Public Health, 13, 33-45. doi: 10.1080/0958159031000100189
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., Curie, C.J., Townsend, S. M. (2002). Introduction: Preventing youth access to tobacco. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 24, 1-13.
Pokorny, S.B., Townsend, S.M., Jason, L.A., Lautenschlager, H., Smith, R. (2002). Measuring the quality of laws limiting youth access to tobacco. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 24, 15-27.
Engstrom, M., Jason, L.A., Townsend, S.M., Pokorny, S.B., & Curie, C.J. (2002). Community readiness for prevention: Applying stage theory to multi-community interventions. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 24, 29-46. doi: 10.1300/J005v24n01_03
Townsend, S.M., Pokorny, S.B., Jason, L.A., Curie, C.J., Schoeny, M.E. (2002). An assessment of the relationship between the quality of school-based tobacco prevention programs and youth tobacco use. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 24, 47-61. doi: 10.1300/J005v24n01_04
Curie, C.J., Pokorny, S.B., Jason, L.A., Schoeny, M.E., Townsend, S.M. (2002). An examination of factors influencing illegal tobacco sales to minors. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 24, 63-76. doi:10.1300/J005v24n01_05
Ji, P.Y., Pokorny, S.B., Blaszkowski, E., Jason, L.A., & Rabin-Belyaev, O. (2002). Examining risks for minors participating in tobacco purchase attempts. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 24, 77-85. doi:10.1300/J005v24n01_06
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., Schoeny, M.E. (2002). A response to the critiques of youth access to tobacco programs. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 24, 87-95.
Jason, L.A., & Pokorny, S.B. (Eds.)(2002). Preventing Youth Access to Tobacco. New York: Haworth.
Jason, L.A., Curie, C.J., Townsend, S.M., Pokorny, S.B., Katz, R.B., & Sherk, J.L. (2002). Health promotion interventions. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 67-82.
Pokorny, S.B., Jason, L.A., Schoeny, M., Curie, C.J., & Townsend, S.M. (2002). Accurately estimating age: Implications for controlling youth access to tobacco. In S.P. Shohov (Ed.), Advances in Psychology Research (pp. 129-133). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Pokorny, S.B., Jason, L.A., Schoeny, M., Townsend, S.M., & Curie, C.J. (2001). Do participation rates change when active consent procedures replace passive consent. Evaluation Review, 25, 567-580. doi: 10.1177/0193841X0102500504
Pokorny, S.B., Jason, L.A., Schoeny, M., Curie, C.J., & Townsend, S.M. (2001). Eliminating invalid self-report survey data. Psychological Reports, 89, 166-168. PMID: 11729537
McMahon, S.D., King, C., Mautz, B., Jason, L.A., Rossi, J.S., & Redding, C.A. (2001). Worksite smoking cessation interventions: A future direction. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 22, 103-119.
Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S., & Katz, R. (2001). Passive versus active consent: A case study in school settings. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 53-68. doi: 10.1002/1520-6629(200101)29:1<53::AID-JCOP4>3.0.CO;2-6
Pokorny, S.B., Engstrom, M.D., Curie, C., & Jason, L.A. (2000). On shaping youth access policy: Lessons from the field. The Community Psychologist, 33, 33-36.
Katz, R., & Jason, L.A. (2000). Youth access to tobacco laws: A survey of municipality government officials attitudes about youth access to tobacco laws. Journal of Rural Community Psychology, E3(1), 1-9. Retrieved from www.marshall.edu/jrcp/Vole31/catz.htm
Jason, L.A., Engstrom, M. D., Pokorny, S.B., Tegart, G., & Curie, C.J. (2000). Putting the community back into prevention: Think locally, act globally. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 21, 25-29. doi: 10.1023/A:1007045112268
Jason, L.A., Katz, R., Pokorny, S.B., Engstrom, M., Tegart, G., & Curie, C. (2000). The relationship between youth tobacco control enforcement and crime rates in a midwestern county. American Journal of Health Promotion, 14, 229-231. PMID: 10915533
Stockton, M.C., McMahon, S.D., & Jason, L.A. (2000). Gender and smoking behavior in a worksite smoking cessation program. Addictive Behaviors, 24, 347-360. PMID: 10890289
McMahon, D., S., & Jason, L.A. (2000). Social support in a worksite smoking intervention: A test of theoretical models. Behavior Modification, 24, 184-201. PMID: 10804679
Jason, L.A., Berk, M., Schnopp-Wyatt, D.L., & Talbot, B. (1999). Effects of enforcement of youth access laws on smoking prevalence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 143-160. PMID: 10425697
Jason, L.A., Katz, R., Vavra, J., Schnopp-Wyatt, D.L, & Talbot, B. (1999). Long term follow-up of youth access to tobacco law’s impact on smoking prevalence. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 2, 1-13. doi: 10.1300/J137v02n03_01
Jason, L.A., & Fricano, G. (1999). Testifying at a congressional hearing on the tobacco settlement. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 372-377.
McMahon, S. D. & Jason, L. A. (1998). Stress and coping in smoking cessation: A longitudinal examination. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International Journal, 11, 327-343. doi: 10.1080/10615809808248318
Jason, L.A. (1998). Dr. Jason goes to Washington: A tale of advocating for tobacco reform. The Community Psychologist, 31, 27-30.
Jason, L.A. (1998). Tobacco, drug, and HIV preventive media interventions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 145-187. PMID: 9693689
Jason, L.A., Biglan, A., & Katz, R. (1998). Implications of the tobacco settlement for the prevention of teenage smoking. Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 1, 63-82.
Stockon, M.C., McMahon, S.D., & Jason, L.A. (1997). The health belief model and worksite smoking cessation. Journal of Psychology and the Behavioral Sciences, 11, 69-79.
Jason, L.A., Salina, D.D., McMahon, S.D., Hedeker, D., & Stockton, M. (1997). A worksite smoking intervention: A 2 year assessment of groups, incentives, and self-help. Health Education Research. Theory and Practice, 12, 129-138. PMID: 10166900
Jason, L.A., & Barnes, H.E. (1997). Substance abuse prevention: Beyond the schoolyard. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 6, 211-220. doi:10.1016/S0962-1849(97)80010-8
Jason, L.A., Billows, W.D., Schnopp-Wyatt, D.L., & King, C. (1996). Long-term findings from Woodridge in reducing illegal cigarette sales to older minors. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 19, 3-13. PMID: 10186901
Jason, L.A., Billows, W., Schnopp-Wyatt, D., & King, C. (1996). Reducing the illegal sales of cigarettes to minors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 333-344. PMCID: PMC1283996
Xaverius, P.K., Billows, W.D., Jason, L.A., & King, C. (1996). Research on the sales of smokeless tobacco to adolescents. Tobacco Control, 5, 69-70. PMCID: PMC1759493
Jason, L.A., McMahon, S.D., Salina, D., Hedeker, D., Stockton, M., Dunson, K., Kimball, P. (1995). Assessing a smoking cessation intervention involving groups, incentives, and self-help manuals. Behavior Therapy, 26, 393-408. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80090-5
Kaufman, J., Jason, L. A., Sawlski, L. M., & Halpert, J. A. (1994). A comprehensive multi-media program to prevent smoking among black students. Journal of Drug Education, 24, 95-108.
Jason, L. A., Pokorny, S., Kohner, K., Bennetto, L. (1994). An evaluation of the short-term impact of a media-based substance abuse prevention program. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 4, 63-69. doi:10.1002/casp.2450040111
Salina, D., Jason, L.A., Hedeker, D., Kaufman, J., Lesondak, L., Dvorak-McMahan, S., Taylor, S., & Kimball, P. (1994). A follow-up of a media-based, worksite smoking cessation program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 257-271. doi: 10.1007/BF02506865
Hedeker, D., McMahon, S.D., Jason, L.A., & Salina, D. (1994). Analysis of clustered data in community psychology: With an example from a worksite smoking cessation project. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 595-615. PMID: 7755003
Jason, L.A., & Salina, C. (1993). Quality media connections. Prevention Forum, 13(3), 1-8.
Jason, L. A., Ji, P. Y., & Anes, M., & Xaverius, P. (1992). Assessing cigarette sales rates to minors. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 15, 375-384.
Elias, M.J., Weissberg, R.P., Dodge, K.A., Hawkins, J.D., Jason, L.A., Kendall, P.C., Perry, C.L., Rotheram-Borus, M.J., & Zins, J.E. (1992). Drug and alcohol prevention curricula. In J. David Hawkins, (Ed.) Communities that care: Action for drug abuse prevention. (pp. 129-148). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jason, L.A., Ji, P.V., Anes, M.D., & Birkhead, S.H. (1991). Active enforcement of cigarette control laws in the prevention of cigarette sales to minors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 266(22), 3159-3161.
Jason, L. A. (1991). Participating in social change: A fundamental value for our discipline. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 1-16.
Jason, L. A., & Crawford, I. (1991). Toward a kinder, gentler, and more effective behavioral approach in solving community problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 649-651.
Jason, L. A., Salina, D. D., Hedeker, D., Kimball, P., Kaufman, J., Bennett, P., Bernstein, R., & Lesondak, L. (1991). Designing an effective worksite smoking cessation program using self-help manuals, incentives, groups and media. Journal of Business Psychology, 6(1), 155-166.
Gruder, C. L., Warnecke, R. B., Jason, L. A., Flay, B. R., & Peterson, P. (1990). A televised, self-help, cigarette smoking cessation intervention. Addictive Behaviors, 15, 505-516.
Jason, L. A., & Lonak, C. (1990). A survey of corporate smoking policies. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 13, 405-411.
Jason, L.A., Jayaraj, S., Blitz, C., Michaels, M., & Klett, L. (1990). Incentives and competition in a worksite smoking cessation intervention. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 205-206. PMCID: PMC1404612
Full text retrieved from http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/80/2/205.pdf
Rhodes, J.E., & Jason, L.A. (1990). A social stress model of substance abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 395-401.
Jason, L. A., Crawford, I., & Gruder, C. L. (1989). Using a community model in media-based health promotion interventions. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 9, 233-246.
Flay, B. R., Gruder, C. L., Warnecke, R. B., Jason, L. A., & Peterson, P. (1989). One year follow-up of the Chicago televised smoking cessation program. American Journal of Public Health, 79(10), 1377-1380. PMCID: PMC1350178
Warnecke, R. B., Langenberg, P., Gruder, C. L., Flay, B. R., & Jason, L. A. (1989). Factors in smoking cessation among participants in a televised intervention. Preventive Medicine, 18, 833-846.
Jason, L. A., Lesowitz, T., Michaels, M., Blitz, C., Victors, L., Dean, L., & Yeager, E. (1989). A worksite smoking cessation intervention involving the media and incentives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 785-799. doi:10.1007/BF00922738
Rhodes, J., & Jason, L.A. (1988). Preventing Substance Abuse Among Adolescents. NY: Pergamon.
Davis, R.M., & Jason, L.A. (1988).The distribution of free cigarette samples to minors. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 4(1) , 21-26. PMID: 3395486
Holton, E., & Jason, L. A. (1988). Attempts to establish nonsmoking sections in restaurants. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 987. PMCID: PMC1349873
Jason, L. A., Tait, E., Goodman, D., Buckenberger, L., & Gruder, C. L. (1988). Effects of a televised smoking cessation intervention among low income and minority smokers. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 863-876. PMID: 3223489
Gesten, E. L., & Jason, L. A. (1987). Social and community interventions. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology. (pp. 427-460). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.
Jason, L.A., Gruder, C.L., Martino, S., Flay, B.R., Warnecke, R., & Thomas, N. (1987). Worksite group meetings and the effectiveness of a televised smoking cessation intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15(1), 57-72. PMID: 3604994
Jason, L. A., Gruder, C. L., Buckenberger, L., Lesowitz, T., Belgradan, J., Flay, B. R., & Warnecke, R. B. (1987). A 12-month follow-up of a worksite smoking cessation intervention. Health Education Research, 2(3), 185-194. doi: 10.1007/BF00922738
Jason, L. A., Thompson, D., & Rose, T. (1986). Methodological issues in prevention. In L. Michelson & B. Edelstein (Eds.), Handbook of Prevention. (pp. 1-19). New York: Sage.
Dupont, P., & Jason, L. A. (1984). Assertiveness training in a preventive drug education program. Journal of Drug Education, 14, 371-380. PMID: 6536748
Jason, L. A., & Glenwick, D. S. (1984). Behavioral community psychology: A review of recent research and applications. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification. (Vol. 18),(pp. 85-121). New York: Academic Press.
Liotta, R. F., Jason, L. A., & Dupont, P. J. (1983). The relevance of developmental theory for preventive drug education programs. Bulletin of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 2, 179-188.
Jason, L.A., & Liotta, R.F. (1982). Reduction of cigarette smoking in a university cafeteria. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 573-577. PMCID: PMC1308303
Jason, L.A., Mollica, M. & Ferone, L. (1982). Evaluating an early secondary smoking prevention intervention. Preventive Medicine, 11, 96-102. doi:10.1016/0091-7435(82)90008-1 PMID: 7079250
Jason, L. A. (1981). Prevention and environmental modification in a behavioral community model. Behavioral Counseling Quarterly, 1, 81-107.
Jason, L. A., & Frasure, S. (1980). Monitoring and changing behaviors in supermarket managers and consumers. Man-Environment Systems, 10, 288-290.
Jason, L. A., Clay, R., & Martin, M. (1979-80). Reducing cigarette smoke in supermarkets and elevators. Journal of Environmental Systems, 9, 57-66.
Spitzzeri, A., & Jason, L. A. (1979). Prevention and treatment of smoking in school age children. Journal of Drug Education, 9, 315-326.
Jason, L.A. (1979). Preventive community interventions: Reducing school children’s smoking and decreasing smoke exposure. Professional Psychology, 10, 744-752. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.10.5.744
Jason, L. A., & Clay, R. (1978). Modifying smoking behaviors in a barber shop. Man-Environment Systems, 8, 38-40. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1980-04335-001
Jason, L. A., & Savio, D. (1978). Reducing cigarette smoke in an office setting. Health Values, 2, 180-185. PMID: 10237497
Jason, L. A. (1977). Behavioral community psychology: Conceptualizations and applications. Journal of Community Psychology, 5, 303-312.

Instruments we currently using in our Youth Tobacco Access Project

Measuring Stages of Change

One of the interesting corollary research projects being conducted by the Youth Tobacco Access Project involves looking at the receptivity of our participating communities to the intervention collaboration. We examine information that assists in placing each community in stages using scales like the one listed below. In this way we can establish baseline
measures of what our communities are currently doing, as well as measuring changes over time.

The following consists of scales currently used to assess what each community is doing with regard to the enforcement of tobacco laws. It may be interesting to estimate where your community falls on these dimensions, which may prove to impact youth smoking behavior.

The material below is included in an article by Engstrom, Jason et al. (2001).

Community readiness theory is “based on the underlying premises that: 1) communities are at different stages of readiness for dealing with a specific problem, 2) that the stage of readiness can be accurately assessed, 3) that communities can be moved through a series of stages to develop, implement, maintain, and improve effective programs, and 4) that it is critical to identify the stage of readiness because interventions to move communities to the next stage differ for each stage of readiness” (Edwards et al., 1999, paragraph 11). The development of these stages and the model itself has been informed by two separate yet related processes: psychological readiness for treatment and community development (Donnermeyer et al., 1997; Jumper Thurman et al., 1999; Oetting et al., 1995). Created for use in describing people with addictive behaviors, the model of psychological readiness for treatment demonstrated that individual readiness was a critical factor in the successful initiation and implementation of psychotherapeutic treatment (Edwards et al., 1999; Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992). Prochaska, DiClemente and Norcross (1992) describe five stages of change in individuals: (a) precontemplation – no intention to change behavior and a lack of awareness of problem; (b) contemplation – awareness of problem but no commitment to take action; (c) preparation – intention to take action; (d) action – implementation of desired behavior change; and (e) maintenance – consolidation of gains achieved through the action stage and prevention of relapse to earlier stages (Prochaska et al., 1992). While this model provided a useful analogue, it did not provide a sufficient number of stages to reflect the multidimensional and group processes necessary for a comprehensive model of community readiness.

From the field of community development, community readiness theory draws from two parallel processes: Beal’s (1964) social action process and Rogers’ (1983) diffusion of innovations model. Beal’s social action process describes the initiation and legitimization of change within a community by using five stages (Donnermeyer et al., 1997; Oetting et al., 1995): (a) stimulation of interest – the recognition of need for a new idea within the community; (b) initiation – the proposal and promotion of a new idea by community members; (c) legitimization – the decision by community members to do something; (d) decision to act – the development of a specific plan of action; and (e) action – the implementation of a plan of action. Rogers’ (1983) diffusion of innovations model describes the innovation decision-making process, which also includes five stages: (a) knowledge – an individual learns of an innovation’s existence; (b) persuasion – an individual forms a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward an innovation; (c) decision – an individual makes a decision to adopt or reject an innovation; (d) implementation – an individual puts the innovation to use; and (e) confirmation – an individual decides whether or not to use the innovation again.

Although the three processes described above have distinct characteristics, Oetting et al. (1995) note that they also share certain similarities: “They include the presence of a felt need, a period of information gathering, a stage of considering alternatives and developing plans, some form of initial implementation, and a commitment to continue beyond the initial adoption period” (p. 665). Despite the utility of these models as a useful point of departure for developing a model of community readiness, they proved inadequate in describing several key community processes, which include defining a local problem, deciding whether or not to take action, and considering the modification or expansion of existing programs (Donnermeyer et al., 1997). To more accurately portray these aspects, a revised model of the stages of community readiness was produced, which incorporated elements of psychological readiness for treatment and community development processes along with the experiences of prevention program practitioners and researchers (Donnermeyer et al., 1997; Oetting et al., 1995).

The resulting model of community readiness assesses communities along six dimensions and results in assigning the community to one of nine stages (Plested et al., 1998; Donnermeyer et al., 1997; Oetting et al. 1995). The six dimensions are: (a) community efforts such as programs, activities, and policies; (b) community knowledge of the efforts; (c) leadership, including appointed leaders and influential community members; (d) community climate; (e) community knowledge about the issue; and (f) resources related to the issue, such as people, money, time, and space.

The nine resulting stages are: (a) No Awareness – the issue is not recognized by the community or its leaders as a problem; (b) Denial – the community feels that the problem does not exist, or that change is impossible; (c) Vague Awareness – there is recognition of the problem, but not motivation for action; (d) Preplanning – there is recognition of a problem and agreement that something needs to be done; (e) Preparation – active planning is occurring; (f) Initiation – a program has been implemented; (g) Stabilization – one or two programs are operating and are stable; (h) Confirmation/Expansion – there is recognition of limitations and attempts to improve existing programs; and (i) Professionalization – prevention efforts are marked by sophistication, training, and effective evaluation. With each successive stage in the community readiness model, there is corresponding improvement in the characteristics that promote community readiness.

Go to top

A Model Ordinance

Ordinance No. _____
COMPREHENSIVE REGULATION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS

Be it ordained by the City Council [or Board of Supervisors] of the village/city of __________, __________ County, Illinois, a home rule municipality in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows:

SECTION ONE: That the Code of Ordinances of the village/city of __________, __________ County, Illinois, is hereby amended by adding thereto a new Chapter ____ entitled, “Comprehensive Regulation of Tobacco Products.”

CHAPTER _____

COMPREHENSIVE REGULATION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS

Sec. _____ Legislative Findings, Declaration, and Purpose

The City Council [or Board of Supervisors] finds cigarette smoking and other tobacco use by minors a grave public health problem. Therefore, the purpose of this ordinance is to implement a strict and enforceable system to prevent the illegal sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products to minors.

A. Findings
1. Cigarette smoking is dangerous to human health;

2. There exists substantial scientific evidence that the use of tobacco products causes cancer, heart disease, and various other medical disorders;

3. The Surgeon General of the United States has declared that nicotine addiction from tobacco is similar to addiction to cocaine and is the most widespread example of drug dependence in this country;

4. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that among persons who have ever tried a cigarette, more than 80 percent reported having had their first cigarette before age 18; and

5. The National Institute on Drug Abuse has found that cigarette smoking precedes and may be predictive of adolescent illicit drug use.

B. The enactment of this chapter intends to further the health, welfare and safety of the residents of the village/city of __________, __________ County, Illinois, particularly those residents under eighteen (18) years of age.

Sec. _____ Definitions

For the purposes of this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them:

“Compliance Check” means an inspection conducted with the intention of assessing retail sales of tobacco products to minors and enforcing age-of-sales laws. Compliance checks are conducted by having designated persons under the age of eighteen (18) years of age attempt to purchase tobacco products from vendors.

“License” means a license issued by the City [or County] of ________ for the retail sale of tobacco products.

“Licensee” means the holder of a valid license for the retail sale of tobacco products.

“Minor” means any person under the age of eighteen (18) years of age.

“Public Place” means an area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted, including but not limited to any right-of-way, mall or shopping center, park, playground, and any other property owned by the City, any school district, or any park district.

“Self-Service Displays” means open displays of tobacco products and point-of-sale tobacco promotional products that the public has access to without intervention of a store employee.

“Tobacco Products” means any substance containing tobacco leaf, including, but not limited to, cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, snuff, chewing tobacco or dipping tobacco.

“Vending Machine” means any mechanical, electric or electronic, self-service device which, upon insertion of money, tokens or any form of payment, dispenses tobacco products.

Sec. _____ License required

It shall be unlawful to sell or offer for sale at retail, give away, deliver or to keep with the intention of selling at retail, giving away or delivering tobacco products within the village/city without having first obtained a valid tobacco retailer’s license from the Village/City [or County] for each location in which tobacco products are sold. All such licenses must be renewed annually. Such license shall be in addition to any other license required by this code.

Sec. _____ License Fee

The fee for a one-year tobacco retailer’s license is one hundred dollars ($100) for each tobacco retail location.

Sec. _____ Non-transferability of License

A tobacco retail license is non-transferable, except a new license will be issued to a tobacco retailer who changes location.

Sec. _____ Limitations on Number of Tobacco Vendors

There shall be no more than [number] licensed tobacco vendors in the City [or County] of _________________ at any point in time. Licenses will be issued in the order that applications are received. Licenses will cease to be issued at the time that [number] licenses have been issued and will not be issued again until the number of licensed vendors is below [number] due to revocation of a vendor’s license or failure of a vendor to renew a license.

Sec. _____ Prohibited Sales

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, offer for sale, give away or deliver tobacco products to any person under the age of eighteen (18) years.

Sec. _____ Warning Signs

Signs informing the public of the age-of-sale restrictions shall be posted by every licensee at or near every display of tobacco products and on or upon every vending machine which offers tobacco products for sale. Each sign shall be plainly visible and shall state:

“THE SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO PERSONS UNDER
EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE IS PROHIBITED BY LAW”

The text of such signs must be in red letters on a white background, and said letters must be at least one inch (1”) high.

Sec. _____ Identification Required

No licensee shall sell or permit to be sold cigarettes or other tobacco products to an individual appearing younger than the age of twenty-seven (27) without requesting and examining photographic identification establishing the purchaser’s age as eighteen (18) years of age or greater.

Sec. _____ Minimum Age to Purchase Tobacco Products

It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen (18) years to purchase tobacco products or to misrepresent their age or use any false or altered identification with the intention of purchasing tobacco products.

Sec. _____ Minimum Age to Sell Tobacco Products

It shall be unlawful for any licensee, officer, associate, member, representative, agent or employee of such licensee to engage, employ or permit any person under eighteen (18) years of age to sell tobacco products on any vendor’s premises.

Sec. _____ Vending Machines Prohibited.

Tobacco vending machines or any other devices for the sale or distribution of tobacco products are prohibited.

Sec. _____ Proximity to Certain Institutions

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, offer for sale, give away or deliver tobacco products within one hundred (100’) of any school, child care facility or other building used for educational or recreational purposes by persons under eighteen (18) years of age.

Sec. _____ Tobacco Samples and Certain Free Distributions Prohibited

No person shall knowingly distribute or furnish without charge or at nominal charge, or cause to be furnished without charge or at nominal charge, cigarettes or other tobacco products, or coupons for cigarettes or other tobacco products, in any store or public place or at any event open to the public.

Sec. _____ Out-of-Package Sales Prohibited

It is unlawful to sell cigarettes out of the manufacturer’s package with required health warnings. It is unlawful to sell cigarettes individually or in packages of fewer than twenty (20) cigarettes per package.

Sec. _____ Vendor-Assisted Sales

It shall be unlawful for any licensee, person, business, or tobacco retailer to sell, permit to be sold, or offer for sale any tobacco product by means of self-service displays or any other means other than vendor-assisted sales.

Sec. _____ Locked Cases

All tobacco products shall be kept in a locked case and will be opened for distribution purposes only by employees of the licensee.

Sec. _____ Responsibility for Agents and Employees

Every act or omission of any nature constituting a violation of any provisions of this Chapter by any officer, director, manager or other agent or employee of any licensee shall be deemed and held to be the act of such licensee; and such licensee shall be punishable in the same manner as if such act or omission had been done or omitted by the licensee personally.

Sec. _____ Possession by Minors Prohibited

A. It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen (18) years to possess any tobacco products.

B. It shall not be a violation of this section for a minor to possess any tobacco product where:

1. Such use takes place under the direct supervision and approval of the parent, parents, or legal guardian of the minor; and

2. Such use takes place in the privacy of a home or established place of worship or tribal meeting place; provided, however, where such use takes place in an established place of worship or tribal meeting place, such use shall not be a violation only where use is in the performance of a religious service or tribal ceremony and the religious group or tribe is legally established and recognized by the State of Illinois.

Sec. _____ Suspension and Revocation of License

A license shall be suspended or revoked for any violation of this chapter after notice and opportunity to be heard as follows:

A. In the case of a first violation, the licensee shall be fined two hundred dollars ($200) and shall be notified in writing of penalties levied for further violations.

B. In the case of a second violation, the licensee shall be fined five hundred dollars ($500) and the tobacco license shall be suspended for not less than thirty (30) consecutive business days nor more than three (3) months. Tobacco retailers must remove all tobacco merchandise from all areas accessible to the public while the license is suspended.

C. In the case of a third violation, the licensee shall be fined one thousand dollars ($1,000) and the tobacco license shall be suspended for not less than six (6) months nor more than eighteen (18) months from the date of suspension. Tobacco retailers must remove all tobacco merchandise from all areas accessible to the public while the license is suspended.

D. In the case of a fourth violation, the licensee shall be fined one thousand dollars ($1,000) and the license shall be revoked. All tobacco merchandise must be removed from all areas accessible to the public.

The City Manager [or City Attorney, or Mayor, or Health Department] shall initiate enforcement against license holders who violate any provision of this ordinance, and shall conduct hearings upon the license-holder’s request. The City Manager [or City Attorney, or Mayor, or Health Department] and the Police Department shall have the authority to enforce this ordinance.

Any vendor found to have violated any of the provisions of this Chapter shall pay to the village/city/county costs of the hearing on such violation. Costs may include, but not be limited to: court reporter’s fees, the cost of preparing and mailing notices and orders and all other miscellaneous expenses incurred by the village/city/county or such lesser sum as the City Manager [or City Attorney, or Mayor, or Health Department] may allow.

The vendor shall pay said costs to the village/city/county within thirty (30) days of notification of the costs. Failure to pay said costs within thirty (30) days of notification is a violation of this Chapter and may cause the levy of an additional fine.

Sec. _____ Purchase/Possession Violations

Any person under the age of eighteen (18) years that violates the Purchasing
and Possession sections (Sec. _____ and Sec. _____, respectively) of this Chapter will be
subject to the following penalties:

A. For the first violation, a fine of twenty-five dollars ($25) or the completion of an approved smoking cessation program;

B. For the second violation, a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) and not more than one-hundred dollars ($100) and the completion of an approved smoking cessation program

C. For the third and subsequent violations, a fine of not less than one-hundred dollars ($100) and not more than three-hundred dollars ($300), and the completion of an approved smoking cessation program, and not less than twenty (20) hours of community service

Sec. _____ Nonretaliation

No person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire, or in any manner retaliate against any employee, applicant for employment, or customer because such employee, applicant or customer reported violations of any provisions of this ordinance.

Sec. _____ Severability

If any provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the provisions of this article which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions are declared to be severable.

SECTION TWO: That the provisions of this Chapter shall be enforced by the City Attorney, [or City Manager, or Mayor, or Department of Health] and the Police Department [or Sheriff’s Department] after its passage and approval by law.

Enforcements in the form of compliance checks shall take place on at least three (3) occasions of each licensed year.

SECTION THREE: That all ordinance and resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are, to the extent of such conflict, expressly repealed.

SECTION FOUR: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect [number] days from and after its passage and approval as provided by law.

Go to top

A Scale to Assess the Comprehensiveness of Youth Tobacco Control Ordinances

DATE______________ EVALUATOR CODE____________

CITY CODE_________ DATE (S) OF THE LAW(S)______ ______ ______

Instructions: Put a check mark (next to “yes” or “no”) in the space that best describes the law.

DOES THE LAW…

Licensing

1) Include a merchant licensing system to sell tobacco YES___ NO___

2) Limit the number of licensed tobacco outlets YES___ NO___

3) Provide for the suspension or revocation of the license for violations of the
tobacco law/ordinance YES___ NO___

Sales to minors/compliance

4) Prohibit the sale of tobacco products to persons under the age of eighteen YES___ NO___

5) Set the minimum legal age to purchase tobacco at 18 years or older YES___ NO___

6) Require merchants to request photographic identification for customers who
appear younger than the age of 21 YES___ NO___

7) Prohibit persons under the age of eighteen from misrepresenting their age or using any
false or altered identification for the purpose of purchasing tobacco products YES___ NO___

8) Require the posting of warning signs regarding sales to minors at the point of sale
of tobacco products YES___ NO___

9) Include the publication of the names of outlets that make illegal sales to minors YES___ NO___

10) Designate a local agency that will be primarily responsible for enforcement of
the law banning sales to minors YES___ NO___

11) Include annual, random, unannounced inspections of over-the-counter
tobacco sales YES___ NO___

12) Include annual, random, unannounced inspections of vending machine
tobacco sales YES___ NO___

13) Allow for the owner or licensee to be held accountable for the actions of his
employees YES___ NO___

14) Establish penalties applicable to persons who sell tobacco products to minors YES___ NO___

15) Rely on civil (e.g., fines, injunctions, infractions, violations of Health and Safety codes)
rather than criminal penalties for those who violate the law banning sales to children YES___ NO___

16) Include a graduated system of fines, penalties, and suspensions for merchants
that sell tobacco products to minors
(e.g., 1st offense: fined $200 and notification of future fines
2nd: fined $500 and suspension of license between 90 business days and 6 mos.;
3rd: fined $1000 and revocation of license between 9 mos. and 19 mos.) YES___ NO___

Distribution /location of products

17) Prohibit persons under the age of 18 from selling tobacco products YES___ NO___

18) Ban the sale of tobacco products within a specified distance from schools,
child care facilities or other educational/recreational facilities used by minors YES___ NO___

19) Ban tobacco/cigarette vending machines except in “adult only” locations
(e.g., bars) or require that vending machines be fitted with a locking device YES___ NO___

20) Ban all tobacco/cigarette vending machines (regardless of location) YES___ NO___

21) Prohibit the sale of tobacco products by self-service displays YES___ NO___

22) Require that all tobacco products to be kept in a locked case YES___ NO___

23) Prohibit the sale of cigarettes individually or in packages of less than 20 cigarettes YES___ NO___

24) Ban the distribution of free tobacco samples or coupons for free tobacco
samples or rebates YES___ NO___

25) Ban tobacco look-alike products YES___ NO___

Possession

26) Prohibit persons under the age of 18 from possessing tobacco products YES___ NO___

27) Establish fines applicable to persons under the age of 18 for the possession
of tobacco products YES___ NO___

28) Include a graduated system of fines and penalties for persons under the age of 18
for possession of tobacco products
(e.g.,1st offense: fine $50 or smoking cessation program;
2nd: fine $50-$100 and smoking cessation program;
3rd: fine $75-$300 and smoking cessation program and community service) YES___ NO___

Indicate any questions or problems you had evaluating this city’s law:

Go to top

STUDENT SURVEY

Student ID Assignment Form

This form will be used to assign you an ID number. This is the only time that your name and ID number will be seen together. This sheet will be removed from your survey and placed into a sealed envelope before you answer any questions.

We need your name so that we can match your answers across the four years of this study. Your answers on the survey will be kept completely confidential. We will NOT share your name or how you answered any of the questions with anyone.

Please Print

Last Name __________________________________ First Name ____________________________ Middle Initial ________

Remember this is a confidential survey. This means that we will not tell anyone how you answered the questions on this survey. Answer the questions below truthfully. Always mark only one answer unless the question asks you to mark all that apply.

Student Information
In what grade are you?
___ 7th grade
___ 8th grade
___ 9th grade (Freshmen)
___ 10th grade (Sophomore)
___ 11th grade (Junior)
___ 12th grade (Senior)

What is your gender?
___ Female ___ Male

What is your birthday?
Month______ Day_______ Year______

In what town do you live?
___________________________Town

How long have you lived in your town?
___ Less than 1 year ___ 1 to 2 years ___ 3 to 4 years ___ 5 or more years

Are you of Latino or Hispanic origin?
___ Yes ___ No

How do you describe yourself? (Mark all that apply)
___White/European American
___Black/African American
___Asian
___Middle Eastern
___Native American/Alaskan Native
___Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
___Other

How far did your mother go in school?
___ Less than high school
___ High school graduate or GED
___ Some college
___ College graduate
___ I Don’t know

How far did your father go in school?
___ Less than high school
___ High school graduate or GED
___ Some college
___ College graduate
___ I Don’t know

Questions about Cigarettes
About how many cigarettes have you smoked in your entire life?
___ A few puffs, but never a whole cigarette
___ 1 cigarette
___ 2 to 5 cigarettes
___ 6 to 15 cigarettes
___ 16 to 25 cigarettes
___ 26 to 99 cigarettes
___ 100 or more cigarettes
___ None

Are you currently a cigarette smoker?
___ Yes, I currently smoke cigarettes
___ No, I quit within the last 6 months (quit means not smoking at all any more)
___ No, I quit more than 6 months ago (quit means not smoking at all any more)
___ No, I tried cigarettes once or twice but stopped
___ No, I have never smoked cigarettes

In the past year, how many times have you quit smoking for at least 24 hours?
___ I did not smoke cigarettes in the past year
___ 0 times
___ 1 time
___ 2 times
___ 3 or more times

Are you thinking of quitting smoking?
___ Yes, within the next 30 days
___ Yes, within the next 6 months
___ Yes, but not within the next 6 months
___ No, I am not thinking of quitting
___ I do not smoke cigarettes

During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigarettes?
___ 1 or 2 days
___ 3 to 5 days
___ 6 to 9 days
___ 10 to 19 days
___ 20 to 29 days
___ All 30 days
___ None

On the days that you smoke cigarettes, how many cigarettes do you usually smoke?
___ Less than 1 per day
___ 1 cigarette per day
___ 2 to 5 cigarettes per day
___ 6 to 10 cigarettes per day
___ 11 to 20 cigarettes per day
___ More than 20 cigarettes per day
___ I do not smoke cigarettes

Have either of your parents (or guardians) ever told you not to smoke cigarettes?
___ Yes
___ No

Which statement best describes you?
___ I smoke cigarettes and my parents (or guardians) don’t know about it
___ I smoke cigarettes and my parents (or guardians) don’t like it
___ I smoke cigarettes and my parents (or guardians) don’t mind
___ I do not smoke cigarettes

Questions about Other Tobacco Products

Have you ever used chewing tobacco, snuff, or dip? ___Yes ___No

During the past 30 days, on how many days did you use chewing tobacco, snuff, or dip?
___ 1 or 2 days ___ 20 to 29 days
___ 3 to 5 days ___ All 30 days
___ 6 to 9 days ___ None
___ 10 to 19 days

Have you ever smoked cigars, cigarillos, or little cigars? ___Yes ___No

During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigars, cigarillos, or little cigars?
___ 1 or 2 days ___ 20 to 29 days
___ 3 to 5 days ___ All 30 days
___ 6 to 9 days ___ None
___ 10 to 19 days

Have you ever smoked pipe tobacco? ___Yes ___No

During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke pipe tobacco?
___ 1 or 2 days ___ 20 to 29 days
___ 3 to 5 days ___ All 30 days
___ 6 to 9 days ___ None
___ 10 to 19 days

Have you ever smoked bidis (or beedies)? ___Yes ___No

During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke bidis (or beedies)?
___ 1 or 2 days ___ 20 to 29 days
___ 3 to 5 days ___ All 30 days
___ 6 to 9 days ___ None
___ 10 to 19 days

Have you ever smoked clove cigarettes (or kreteks)? ___Yes ___No

During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke clove cigarettes (or kreteks)?
___ 1 or 2 days ___ 20 to 29 days
___ 3 to 5 days ___ All 30 days
___ 6 to 9 days ___ None
___ 10 to 19 days

For the rest of the survey, TOBACCO means cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff, dip, beedis, or kreteks.

How old were you when you first used tobacco?
___ 7 years old or younger ___ 14 or 15 years old
___ 8 or 9 years old ___ 16 or 17 years old
___ 10 or 11 years old ___ 18 years old or older
___ 12 or 13 years old ___ I have never used tobacco

Do you think that you will be using tobacco one year from now?
__Yes __No

Is there an adult (someone over 18 years old) who uses tobacco living in your home?
___Yes ___No

How many of the students at your school use tobacco?
___None of them ___A Few of them ___Some of them ___Most of them ___All of them

How many of your friends (the people you hang out with) use tobacco?
___None of them ___A Few of them ___Some of them ___Most of them ___All of them

How many of your four closest friends use tobacco?
___None ___One ___Two ___Three ___Four

In the past year, has a friend or peer told you about the dangers of smoking?
___ Yes
___ No

In the past year, has a friend or peer tried to get you to quit smoking?
___ Yes
___ No

Are you currently a member of a prevention organization (like Snowball/Snowflake, SADD, TATU, etc.) that tries to stop kids from using tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs?
___ Yes
___ No

How often do you participate in the prevention organization’s activities?
___ Weekly
___ Two times a month
___ Once a month
___ Once or two times a year
___ More than two times a year
___ I am not a member of a prevention organization

In the past year, have you told a friend or peer about the dangers of smoking?
___ Yes
___ No

In the past year, have you tried to get a friend or peer to quit smoking?
___ Yes
___ No

For the next questions, a MINOR is a person who is under the age of 18 years.

During the past 7 days, on how many days did you see minors using tobacco on your school’s grounds?
___ 0 days ___ 4 days
___ 1 day ___ 5 days
___ 2 days ___ 6 days
___ 3 days ___ 7 days

During the past 7 days, on how many days did you see minors using tobacco in your town?
___ 0 days ___ 4 days
___ 1 day ___ 5 days
___ 2 days ___ 6 days
___ 3 days ___ 7 days

In your town, is it against the law to sell tobacco to minors?
___ Yes ___ No ___ I don’t know

In your town, is it against the law for minors to use, carry, or hold tobacco?
___ Yes ___ No ___ I don’t know

For the next questions, possessing means using, carrying or holding

Do you think that the police in your town would give you a ticket if they saw you possessing tobacco?
___Definitely Not ___Probably Not ___Not Sure ___Probably Yes ___Definitely Yes

Do you think that police should give a ticket to minors for possessing tobacco?
___Definitely Not ___Probably Not ___Not Sure ___Probably Yes ___Definitely Yes

Will minors use less tobacco if police give them a ticket for possessing tobacco?
___Definitely Not ___Probably Not ___Not Sure ___Probably Yes ___Definitely Yes

Do you think that the police in your town would give a ticket to store owners who sell tobacco to minors?
___Definitely Not ___Probably Not ___Not Sure ___Probably Yes ___Definitely Yes

Do you think that police should give a ticket to store owners who sell tobacco to minors?
___Definitely Not ___Probably Not ___Not Sure ___Probably Yes ___Definitely Yes

Will minors use less tobacco if it is hard to buy because police ticket store owners who sell it to minors?
___Definitely Not ___Probably Not ___Not Sure ___Probably Yes ___Definitely Yes

Will minors use less tobacco because of what is taught about tobacco in school prevention programs?
___Definitely Not ___Probably Not ___Not Sure ___Probably Yes ___Definitely Yes

In the past year, did you receive a ticket from a police officer for possessing tobacco?
___ Yes ____ No

In the past year, did anyone else that you know receive a ticket from a police officer for possessing tobacco?
___ Yes, one person
___ Yes, two people
___ Yes, three people
___ Yes, four or more people
___ No

What were the reactions of people who you know that received a ticket for possessing tobacco? (Mark all that apply)
___ They were embarrassed
___ They were afraid to go to court
___ They were afraid of getting into trouble with others such as a parent
___ They did not seem to care
___ They seemed like they were proud of it
___ They bragged about it
___ I do not know anyone who received a ticket
Questions about Access to and Sources of Tobacco

If you wanted to, how easy would it be for you to get tobacco?
___ Very Difficult ___ Difficult ___ Not Easy/Not Difficult ___ Easy ___ Very Easy

In the past 30 days, what are all the different ways that you got tobacco from another person? (MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
___ My mother or father gave it to me or got it for me.
___ Another family member who is 18 years or older gave it to me or got it for me.
___ Another family member who is under the age of 18 gave it to me or got it for me.
___ Someone else who is 18 years or older gave it to me or got it for me
___ Someone else who is who is under the age of 18 gave it to me or got it for me
___ I stole it from someone (a person)
___ I got it from someone in another way How did you get it? _________________________________
___ I did not get tobacco from anyone in the past 30 days

In the past 30 days, what are all the different ways that you got tobacco on your own? (MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
___ I bought it from a store or gas station
___ I bought it from a vending machine
___ I stole it from a store or gas station
___ I got it on my own in some other way How did you get it? _________________________________
___ I did not get tobacco in the past 30 days

In the past 30 days, where did you buy your tobacco?
___ Only in my town
___ Only in a different town
___ In both my town and a different town
___ I did not buy tobacco in the past 30 days

In the past 30 days, how often were you able to buy tobacco in your town?
___ Never able to buy it
___ Rarely able to buy it
___ Sometimes able to buy it
___ Most of the time able to buy it
___ Always able to buy it
___ I did not try to buy tobacco in my town

The last time that you tried to buy tobacco in a store or gas station in your town, were you asked for proof of age (something with your birthdate on it)? ___ Yes ___ No ___ I have never tried to buy tobacco

What happened the last time that you tried to buy tobacco in a store or gas station in your town?
___ The clerk DID NOT SELL me tobacco
___ The clerk SOLD me tobacco
___ I have never tried to buy tobacco

In the past 7 days, how many times have you supplied (given, sold, or loaned) tobacco to minors?
___ 1 time
___ 2 or 3 times
___ 4 or 5 times
___ 6 to 10 times
___ 11 to 20 times
___ 21 or more times
___ None
Questions about Alcohol and Other Drugs
Have you ever had a drink of alcohol (more than a few sips of beer, wine, or liquor and not for religious reasons)?
__Yes, in the past 30 days
__Yes, but not in the past 30 days
__No

Have you ever used marijuana (also called grass or pot)?
__Yes, in the past 30 days
__Yes, but not in the past 30 days
__No

Have you ever used Crack, Freebase, or Powder Cocaine?
__Yes, in the past 30 days
__Yes, but not in the past 30 days
__No

Have you ever used LSD (also called acid)?
__Yes, in the past 30 days
__Yes, but not in the past 30 days
__No

Have you ever sniffed glue or other substances to get high
__Yes, in the past 30 days
__Yes, but not in the past 30 days
__No

Have you ever taken prescription drugs, without a doctor’s order, to get high?
__Yes, in the past 30 days
__Yes, but not in the past 30 days
__No

Have you ever used Ecstasy?
__Yes, in the past 30 days
__Yes, but not in the past 30 days
__No

Have you ever used methamphetamine (also called speed)?
__Yes, in the past 30 days
__Yes, but not in the past 30 days
__No

Have you ever used other illegal drugs?
__Yes, in the past 30 days
__Yes, but not in the past 30 days
__No

Over the past year, how many times has someone tried to give or sell you illegal drugs?
___ 1 time
___ 2-5 times
___ 6 to 10 times
___ 11 to 25 times
___ 26 to 50 times
___ 51 or more times
___ None

How many of your four closest friends use alcohol or other drugs?
___ None
___ One
___ Two
___ Three
___ Four

Go to top

School Survey

DEPAUL UNIVERSITY
YOUTH TOBACCO ACCESS PROJECT

Assessment of School Prevention Education Programming

You received this questionnaire because you were identified as being the person primarily responsible for the implementation of substance abuse prevention programming at your school. If you do not believe that you are the appropriate person to complete this questionnaire or you have any questions as you complete it, please contact Kathy Mikulski at (773) 325-4926 or kmikulsk@depaul.edu.

Date (MM/DD/YYYY) _______/_______/_________

Are you the person primarily responsible for coordinating (i.e., developing/implementing/ facilitating) your school’s prevention programming

O Yes O No

If not, who is? __________________________________

Name of Person Completing Assessment: _________________________________________

Title of Person Completing Assessment: __________________________________________

Telephone: _____________________ Email: ____________________________________

Address: ____________________________________________________________________

Who funds your position? O School O District O Community Agency

Is your position full-time or part-time? O Full-time O Part-time

On average, how many hours per week do you spend specifically coordinating prevention programming?
______ hours

Is there anyone else who is responsible for coordinating prevention programs for your school?
O Yes O No

If YES, how many other people coordinate prevention programs for your school? _____ people

If YES, how many hours per week on average do other people spend coordinating the prevention programming?
______ hours/week
BASIC PROGRAM INFORMATION

Does your school provide students with substance abuse prevention programs?
O Yes O No

If NO, please skip to “Additional Prevention Efforts”

Please indicate the names of ALL substance use prevention programs that are currently in use at your school and in which grade(s) the program is used:

Name of Program Grade(s) Targeted

______________________________O 9th Grade O10th Grade O 11th Grade O 12th Grade

_____________________________ O 9th Grade O10th Grade O 11th Grade O 12th Grade

______________________________O 9th Grade O10th Grade O 11th Grade O 12th Grade

_____________________________ O 9th Grade O10th Grade O 11th Grade O 12th Grade

Please answer the remaining questions based on ALL of the substance use prevention programs you listed above. If you are unable to respond to a given question based on ALL of the programs listed, please choose one program, answer the question based on that program, and write the name of the program next to the question.

For each grade in your school, please indicate approximately what percent of prevention programming is focused on the following topics. Please be sure that the percentage for the “Tobacco” category and the percentage for the “Alcohol and Other Drug” category add to 100%.

9th grade: 11th grade:

TOBACCO ________ % TOBACCO ________ %

ALCOHOL & ALCOHOL &
OTHER DRUGS ________ % OTHER DRUGS ________ %

10th grade: 12th grade:

TOBACCO ________ % TOBACCO ________ %

ALCOHOL & ALCOHOL &
OTHER DRUGS ________ % OTHER DRUGS ________ %

Is the prevention instruction in your school provided to all enrolled students or targeted to specific youth?
O All enrolled students
O Targeted, specify: ____________________________________________

For each grade in your school, please indicate how much instructional time is spent ANNUALLY on substance use prevention instruction:

9th Grade ________ hours 11th Grade _______ hours

10th Grade ________ hours 12th Grade ________ hours

What does your school’s prevention instruction cover (mark ALL that apply)?
O Short-term physical and social consequences of tobacco use
O Long-term physical and social consequences of tobacco use
O Social influences on youth tobacco use (e.g., median and peer influences, etc.)
O Peer norms regarding tobacco use (e.g., statistics about prevalence of use, etc.)
O Skills for refusing tobacco
O None of the above
O Other, specify _______________________________________________________

FACILITATOR INFORMATION

Please indicate the type of people who deliver/present the prevention program(s) to the students at your school (mark ALL that apply):
O Teachers
O Students
O School Staff Members
O Trained Prevention Specialist from the Community
O Other _______________________________________________________________

Please specify the title(s) of these individuals (e.g., health teacher, peer leader, guidance counselor, school social worker, DARE officer, etc.)
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

What type of training did these individuals receive to guide their program delivery (mark ALL that apply):
O No Training
O A written or verbal overview of the program and/or its content
O A demonstration of someone delivering the program
O An opportunity to practice delivering the program
O Other ___________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL PREVENTION EFFORTS
Please indicate the ways in which your school involves parents/guardians in efforts to prevent youth tobacco use (mark ALL that apply):
O Parent/guardians are not involved in tobacco prevention efforts
O Parent/guardians are provided anti-tobacco information
O School holds anti-tobacco educational events for parents/guardians
O Parent/guardians are involved in tobacco prevention activities at school
O Parent/guardians are involved in tobacco prevention homework assignments
O Other ____________________________________________________________

Please indicate the ways in which the school supports tobacco cessation efforts by students, teachers, and staff (mark ALL that apply):
O The school does not provide tobacco cessation support
O Individual counseling is available from school staff (e.g., nurse)
O School provides referrals to an off-campus tobacco cessation program
O School hosts an on-campus tobacco cessation program
O Other ______________________________________________________________

Please indicate what is done to evaluate the tobacco prevention program(s) at your school (mark ALL that apply):
O The tobacco prevention programming is not evaluated
O Educational evaluation tools (e.g., homework, quizzes, tests, etc.)
O Consumer satisfaction surveys (e.g., surveys about how students liked the program, etc.)
O Outcome-based evaluation (e.g., surveys that assess pre- and post-program tobacco use, etc.)
O Other ______________________________________________________________

Please indicate other extra-curricular prevention/awareness activities at your school (mark ALL that apply):
O The school does not have extra-curricular prevention activities
O Red Ribbon Campaign
O Teen Against Tobacco Use (T.A.T.U.)
O Snowball/Snowflake
O Students Against Destructive Decisions (S.A.D.D.)
O Assemblies/Guest Speakers on substance abuse topics
O Other ________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ASSISTANCE!

Go to top

Consent Form

This is a generic version of the consent form that you originally received. The actual version contains personal information as it pertains to each individual school. For a copy of your schools consent form, please stop by the main office.

DePaul University
Parent Consent Form

DATE

Dear Parent or Guardian:
We need your permission for your child to participate in a very important study being conducted at [School Name] from July 2001 to July 2005. We will be assessing children’s attitudes toward and use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. This study is supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute awarded to Dr. Leonard Jason at DePaul University. A detailed description of the project is provided for you on the back of this form.

We will be asking students to complete a survey each year they are enrolled at [School Name]. The survey will take 20 to 25 minutes to complete. Your child’s survey will be assigned a number that will allow research staff to match information across years. Your child’s name will not be attached to the survey and his/her answers will remain completely confidential. Only the DePaul research team will have access to information that will permit matching student’s answers across years. Your child’s name will not be made public in any way as a result of this research.

Your child’s participation in this research project is voluntary and you may request that your child not participate in this study. There are no consequences to your child if you or your child chooses to withdraw from this project. There are no known risks associated with participating in this project. Students are instructed to skip questions that they do not feel comfortable answering.

Your child’s participation in this research project will help us to discover what methods are effective in reducing levels of tobacco use among youth. While there is no direct benefit to you or your child, the information obtained is valuable and will help establish the extent of tobacco and other drug use among youth in your community. The long-term goal of this project is to reduce rates of teenage smoking, and the shorter-term goal is to make it more difficult for minors to purchase tobacco products. You will be informed of any changes in procedures or risks and benefits if they should occur during or after the course of this study. A copy of this survey has been made available at your child’s school for you to read at any time.

You can give consent below for your child to participate in the survey. This consent form applies to all years your child is enrolled at [School Name]. However, you can withdraw permission for your child to participate at any time by contacting the school. Even if you give permission for your child to be in the study, your child can still choose not to participate.
DePaul University will be conducting an annual survey from July 2001 to July 2005 about students’ attitudes and behavior regarding tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use.

Child’s Name: (Print) _________________________________________________________________________________

I have read and understand the information in this Parent Consent Form, and:
… I GIVE PERMISSION for my child to participate in DePaul University’s annual student survey while enrolled at this school between July 2001 and July 2005.

… I DO NOT GIVE PERMISSION for my child to participate in DePaul University’s annual student survey while enrolled at this school between July 2001 and July 2005.

Parent’s Signature:_________________________________________________________________ Date:___________

Please complete this form and return the entire form to the school.
If you would like a copy of this form, copies are available on our website (http://condor.depaul.edu/~ljason/smoking) or through the main office of your child’s school. If you have any question about this project, please contact the Project Director, Dr. Steven B. Pokorny, at (773) 325-1892. If you have any questions regarding your child’s rights as a participant in this research study, you may speak to Sara Gulbrandsen, Coordinator of the DePaul University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Research Subjects by calling (773) 325-2593.
Sincerely,

Steven B. Pokorny, Ph.D.
Project Director

Attention Parents/Guardians:
It is important that you read and complete the form on the other side of this page.
THIS FORM MUST BE RETURNED TO THE SCHOOL.

DePaul University – National Cancer Institute Grant
Tobacco Prevention Project Summary

Researchers have long grappled with the problem of reducing tobacco use as a way of optimizing the health and well being of communities. Every day, 3,000 American adolescents begin smoking, and it is estimated that 1,000 of these children will eventually die of tobacco related illnesses. Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, killing over 400,000 people each year. The direct medical costs of treating tobacco related diseases in the United States are estimated at $50,000,000,000 per year. Despite these facts, 22.9% of adult Americans and 13.8% of Americans under the age of 18 smoke cigarettes.

A variety of interventions have been developed with the intent of reducing the prevalence of youth tobacco use. Restricting youth access to tobacco products by enforcing laws that prohibit the sale of tobacco products to minors might be an effective strategy in reducing the rate of teenage smoking and other tobacco use. It is also possible that fining minors for possession of tobacco products might be an effective strategy in reducing the rate of teenage smoking and other tobacco use. It is unclear whether these types of interventions alone or in combination might be the most effective in altering youth tobacco use. In light of the recent settlement by tobacco corporations with various states, public health officials are very interested in understanding more about the effectiveness of these strategies.

Dr. Leonard Jason of DePaul University was awarded a grant from the National Cancer Institute to systematically examine the impact of these strategies on the prevalence of smoking and other tobacco use among 7th through 12th grade students in 24 communities over a four-year period. Participating communities will be randomly assigned to two groups. The first group will enforce laws pertaining to the sale of tobacco to minors through conducting a minimum of 3 compliance checks with every tobacco retailer each year. Retailers who are in violation will be prosecuted according to either local or state law. In addition to enforcement of laws pertaining to the sale of tobacco to minors, the second group will initiate or increase the frequency that they fine minors found in possession of tobacco. While certain areas of the community may be specifically targeted (e.g., school campuses), possession enforcement for this second group will be implemented throughout the community.

The project consists of two major phases of data collection. One phase consists of conducting an independent assessment of the rate of tobacco sales to minors in each town. This is done through a Tobacco Purchase Attempt procedure in which an underage youth is trained to attempt to purchase cigarettes, following strict guidelines. Every tobacco retailer in the town is assessed in this manner. Data collected includes the outcome of the attempt, clerk behavior, type of sales access, amount and type of tobacco advertising, and visibility of minimum age of sale warning signs.

The second phase of data collection consists of annual student surveys conducted with a sample of 7th through 12th grade students who live in the participating town. The survey assesses demographic information, past and current use of tobacco products, behaviors related to obtaining tobacco products, knowledge of and attitudes about tobacco control policies, and past and current use of alcohol and other drugs.

It is our hope that the information gained from this study will help other researchers and public health officials across the nation to develop more refined interventions that will ultimately prevent or reduce the prevalence of smoking and other tobacco use among our youth.

Go to top

Assessment of the Comprehensiveness of Schools’ Tobacco Control Policies

EVALUATION DATE:____/____/_______ EVALUATOR CODE:________

SCHOOL/DISTRICT: _____________________ TOWN:_________________________

DATE OF POLICY:______ – _______

Instructions: Check the appropriate “YES” or “NO” response to each of the following questions. For each item in the assessment, “YES” should only be checked if the school policies clearly include the component asked about in the item. If an umbrella statement is made in the policy that clearly encompasses the criterion for a certain item of the assessment, then “YES” should be checked for that item. If it is unclear whether the policy reaches the criterion for “YES” status, then it should be rated as a “No” for the item in question. Please write a detailed explanation of any uncertainties in the blank spaces provided at the end of each subscale.

STUDENTS

Applicability
1) Does the policy apply to students inside the school? YES ___ NO ___
2) Does the policy apply to students on all school property? YES ___ NO ___
3) Does the policy apply to students at all school-sponsored events (e.g.
athletic events, school dances, field trips, and school club meetings
held off school grounds)? YES ___ NO ___
4) Does the policy apply to students in all school vehicles? YES ___ NO ___

Restrictions
5) Does the policy prohibit the use of smoking tobacco
(e.g., cigarettes, cigars, pipes) by students? YES ___ NO ___
6) Does the policy prohibit the use of smokeless tobacco (e.g., dip, chew)
by students? YES ___ NO ___
7) Does the policy prohibit the possession of smoking tobacco by students? YES ___ NO ___
8) Does the policy prohibit the possession of smokeless tobacco by
students? YES ___ NO ___
9) Does the policy restrict students from leaving the school property
during school hours? YES ___ NO ___
10) Does the policy prohibit students from wearing clothing with tobacco
company logos or slogans at school? YES ___ NO ___
11) Does the policy prohibit the possession or use of tobacco by students
in school vehicles? YES ___ NO ___

Repercussions
12) Does the policy clearly outline penalties for students who
violate the restrictions? YES ___ NO ___
13) Does the policy include a graduated system of penalties for students?
(e.g., 1st offense: 1-day in-school suspension;
2nd offense: 5-day suspension;
3rd offense: recommendation for expulsion) YES ___ NO ___

14) Does the policy restrict access to privileges and participation in all
extra-curricular activities for students who violate the policy? YES ___ NO ___
15) Does the policy outline a procedure for contacting local law enforcement
when a tobacco-related law is violated by students? YES ___ NO ___
16) Does the policy provide an alternative tobacco education program option
for students who violate the policy? YES ___ NO ___

Programs
17) Does the policy provide students access and/or referral to cessation
programs? YES ___ NO ___
18) Does the policy require tobacco prevention education within the
curriculum? YES ___ NO ___

Total score for student subsection: ___ out of 18 possible.

Indicate any questions or problems you had scoring this subscale of the assessment tool.

FACULTY/STAFF

Applicability
19) Does the policy apply to faculty and staff inside the school building? YES ___ NO ___
20) Does the policy apply to faculty and staff on all school property? YES ___ NO ___
21) Does the policy apply to faculty and staff at all school-sponsored events
(e.g. athletic events, school dances, field trips, and school club meetings
held off school grounds)? YES ___ NO ___
22) Does the policy apply to faculty and staff in all school vehicles? YES ___ NO ___
23) Does the policy indicate that a group of school personnel (e.g. teachers
or school security officers) are authorized to identify violators and enforce
the policy? YES ___ NO ___

Restrictions
24) Does the policy prohibit the use of smoking tobacco
(e.g., cigarettes, cigars, pipes) by faculty and staff? YES ___ NO ___
25) Does the policy prohibit the use of smokeless tobacco
(e.g., dip, chew) by faculty and staff? YES ___ NO ___
26) Does the policy prohibit the use of tobacco in school vehicles by staff ? YES ___ NO ___
27) Does the policy prohibit faculty and staff from wearing clothing with
tobacco company logos or slogans at school? YES ___ NO ___

Repercussions
28) Does the policy clearly outline specific penalties for faculty and staff
who violate the restrictions? YES ___ NO ___
29) Are the penalties for school faculty and staff arranged according to a
graduated system? YES ___ NO ___
(e.g., 1st offense: verbal reprimand;
2nd offense: written reprimand;
3rd offense: job suspension without pay).
30) Does the policy outline a procedure for contacting local law enforcement
when a tobacco-related law is violated by staff? YES ___ NO ___

Programs
31) Does the policy provide faculty and staff access and/or referral to
cessation programs? YES ___ NO ___
32) Does the policy require faculty and staff to attend a mandatory training
on school policy, documentation of violations, and standardized means of
enforcement? YES ___ NO ___
33) Does the policy require the faculty and staff who are responsible for
teaching tobacco prevention education to have training and
participate in on-going professional development? YES ___ NO ___

Total score for faculty/staff subsection: ___ out of 15 possible.

Indicate any questions or problems you had scoring this subscale of the assessment tool.

VISITORS

Applicability
34) Does the policy apply to visitors inside the school? YES ___ NO ___
35) Does the policy apply to visitors on all school property? YES ___ NO ___
36) Does the policy apply to visitors at all school-sponsored events?
(e.g. athletic events, school dances, field trips, and school club meetings
held off school grounds)? YES ___ NO ___
37) Does the policy apply to visitors in all school vehicles? YES ___ NO ___

Restrictions
38) Does the policy prohibit the use of smoking tobacco
(e.g., cigarettes, cigars, pipes) by visitors? YES ___ NO ___
39) Does the policy prohibit the use of smokeless tobacco (e.g., dip, chew)
by visitors? YES ___ NO ___
40) Does the policy prohibit the use of tobacco by visitors in school vehicles? YES ___ NO ___
41) Does the policy prohibit the use of smoking and
smokeless tobacco by all minors on school grounds, at all
school-sponsored events, and in all school vehicles? YES ___ NO ___

42) Does the policy prohibit the possession of smoking and
smokeless tobacco by all minors on school grounds, at all
school-sponsored events, and in all school vehicles? YES ___ NO ___

Repercussions
43) Does the policy clearly outline specific penalties for visitors who
violate the restrictions?
(e.g., civil penalty up to $1000 under Federal Law) YES ___ NO ___

44) Does the policy outline a procedure for contacting local law enforcement
when a tobacco-related law is violated by a visitor? YES ___ NO ___

Total score for visitors subsection: ___ out of 11 possible.

Indicate any questions or problems you had scoring this subscale of the assessment tool.

NOTIFICATION

45) Does the school or district tobacco policy appear in the student/parent
handbook? YES ___ NO ___
Total score for notification subsection: ___ out of 1 possible.

EVALUATION

46) Does the policy have provisions for the policy to be periodically
reviewed by school principals, administrators, or the school board? YES ___ NO ___

Total score for evaluation subsection: ___ out of 1 possible.

Indicate any questions or problems you had scoring the last two subscales of the assessment tool.

Total score for entire assessment: ___ out of 46 possible.

Scoring Instructions for Comprehensiveness of Schools’ Tobacco Control Policies Questions:

Each item should be marked YES if the tobacco policy being reviewed contains the component being described.

If the component is not included in the policy, or if the evaluator is not certain whether or not the component is included, then NO should be indicated. If the evaluator is uncertain whether or not the policy meets criteria for an item of the scale, he/she should write a description of the problem in the blanks provided at the end of every subscale.

Subscales: Students, Faculty/Staff, Visitors, Notification, and Evaluation

These subscales were designed to quantify each focal point of an effective school tobacco policy. The subscales are not balanced features; they simply represent the main points of tobacco control that can be addressed within a school policy.

The separation between the Students, Faculty/Staff, and Visitors subscales is intended to draw a clear distinction between the target of each item. School or district-level policy components may be imprecise about their intended application to faculty or visitors. These will be assessed in the following way:

If a policy component mentions any of the three categories (students, faculty/staff, parents/visitors) then it shall be understood as applying only to those categories that are specified within that policy component. If the policy component does not mention any of the three aforementioned categories, then the placement and context of that policy component must be considered in order to determine whether it should be given credit on an item within a particular subscale of the assessment tool. For example, some schools have written tobacco policies in the parent/student handbooks (e.g., a complete ban on all tobacco use) that are part of a “Student Conduct” section and, consequently, apply to students, but do not apply to school employees or visitors at the school.

Students

Items that apply to “students” apply to ALL students. A tobacco prohibition for student athletes, for instance, does not apply to all of the students; this type of policy would only justify credit for #14.

Items #4 and #11 refer to tobacco policies for students in school vehicles. If a publication, such as a parent/student handbook, refers to a tobacco prohibition on all school buses or on all district property, then it qualifies to get a point for these items. If the policy merely mentions a tobacco prohibition on school property, then the policy is not comprehensive enough to qualify for a point on these items.

Item #9 deals with a school’s closed-campus policy for students. If there are any restrictions from leaving the school property during the school day, then the policy should get credit on this item. For example, some schools have a closed-campus with the exception of students who have express written permission from their parents to eat lunch somewhere off school grounds. Also, some schools will allow seniors or students who are over the age of 18 to leave school grounds during lunchtime. In both of these cases, the policy is still comprehensive enough to justify credit on this item.

Item # 10 is the “dress code” item. A dress code must explicitly prohibit students from wearing clothing with tobacco-promoting symbols, logos, or slogans in order to justify credit for this item. In other words, the word “tobacco” must be mentioned. Vague dress codes, such as a prohibition against clothing which is unsafe, unclean, or distasteful is not comprehensive enough to qualify for credit on this item.

Item #12 asks if the policy “clearly outlines specific penalties for students who violate the restrictions.” Some policy materials will list penalties to be applied specifically to student violations of tobacco restrictions, but other policy materials will only provide a general list of penalties that can be applied to a violation of any student rule. In either case, the policy can still qualify for a point on this item.

Item #14 refers to restricted access to extracurricular activities for students who violate the tobacco policy. This applies to school athletes as well as other school clubs and organizations. A school policy should still be given a point for this item even if access to extracurricular activities is restricted after repeated violations, as opposed to total restriction after the first violation of tobacco policy. If repeated violations of tobacco policy can lead to suspension, which will consequently lead to restricted access to all extracurricular activities, then the policy should be given credit for this item.

Item # 15 asks if the policy describes a procedure for contacting local law enforcement for student violations of tobacco laws. If policy materials make any reference to youth tobacco laws and legal consequences of violations, then the policy should get credit for this item. If the policy makes any kind of general statement about school personnel contacting law enforcement for student violation of the law, then it should be given credit for this item.

Faculty/Staff

As stated above, information about policies that apply to faculty and staff will probably be found in district-level publications.

It is acceptable for the policy to use only the word “employee,” “faculty,” or “staff” in lieu of the phrase “faculty and staff”; the policy can still qualify for credit on any item in this subsection if the policy meets the other requirements of that item.

Items #22 and #27 refer to tobacco rules for district/school faculty and staff in school vehicles. If a publication refers to a tobacco prohibition on all school vehicles or all district property, then it qualifies to get a point for these items. If the policy mentions a tobacco prohibition for faculty and staff only on school buses or only on school grounds, then the policy is not comprehensive enough to qualify for a point on these items.

Item #23 deals with enforcement of school rules for students. If an umbrella statement is made that any particular group (meaning more than just one or two people) of school or district employees is authorized or required to enforce the school rules, then that is enough to justify credit for this item.

Item #28 asks if the policy “clearly outlines specific penalties for faculty and staff who violate the restrictions.” Some policy materials will list penalties to be applied specifically to faculty and staff violations of tobacco restrictions, but other policy materials will only provide a general list of penalties that can be applied to any infraction of the faculty/staff rules. In either case, the policy can still qualify for a point on this item.

Item # 30 asks if the policy describes a procedure for contacting local law enforcement for violations of tobacco laws. If policy materials make any reference to tobacco laws (other than those applying only to minors) and state the legal consequences of violations, then the policy can get credit for this item.

Visitors

Items #37, #40, #41, and #42 refer to tobacco policy applications in regards to visitors in school vehicles. If a publication, such as a parent/student handbook, refers to a tobacco prohibition on all vehicles or all district property, then it qualifies to get a point for these items. If the policy mentions that tobacco use is prohibited only on school buses or only on school grounds, then the policy is not comprehensive enough to qualify for a point on these items.

Item #44 asks if the policy describes a procedure for contacting local law enforcement for violations of tobacco laws. If policy materials make any reference to tobacco laws (other than those applying only to minors), then the policy can get credit for this item. The materials do not have to list consequences of violations in order to qualify for credit on this item because this information is captured in the previous item. Items #43 and #44 are being kept separate because of the importance of making it clear that visitor restrictions on tobacco use are enforceable by the school administration.

Notification

This item was designed to assess whether or not tobacco policies are being communicated to students and their guardians via a parent/student handbook.

Evaluation

This item is intended to assess whether or not there is a provision which calls for a periodic evaluation of the school’s tobacco policy. For credit on this item, this policy provision may be found in any one several materials (can be school or district-level policy materials).

Total Score: Sum of all YES responses for each subscale. Then sum the scores for all of the five subscales. This is used as a total raw score; the larger the score, the more inclusive is the school’s tobacco policy.

Go to top

Interview Guide for School Tobacco Policy Enforcement

We are trying to understand how school tobacco policies are conceptualized, implemented and enforced in schools. When I refer to school tobacco policies, I am mainly discussing the student policies, but do not hesitate to discuss the staff and visitor policies when relevant. Please keep in mind that when I talk about tobacco, I mean cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, little cigars, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff, dip, bidis and kreteks. Most of my questions are close-ended, but please feel free to expand upon any of your answers.

Problem Definition

On a scale from one to seven, with one representing not a problem at all, and 7 representing a very large problem, how much of a problem do you think that tobacco use is among your students?

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not a problem at all						A very large problem

How much of a problem do you think tobacco use is at school?

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not a problem at all						A very large problem

With all of the issues that schools face, on a scale from one to seven, with one representing a very low priority and seven representing a very high priority, what priority do you think preventing tobacco use among students is?

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Very Low Priority						Very High Priority

Enforcement

How many students were caught violating the schools’ tobacco policy last school year?_________________

Does your school track the violations? YES NO

IF YES: Is it possible to obtain the number of violations? YES NO

PROBE: What were the consequences for these infraction?_________________________________

On a scale from one to seven, how likely do you think it is that students will be caught if they violate the tobacco policy with one representing that students will never be caught and seven representing that students will always be caught when they violate the tobacco policy?

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Students will Never be Caught						Students will Always be Caught

I would like to get a sense of some of the things your school may be doing to ensure that tobacco use is not occurring on school grounds. On a scale from one to seven, with one being the least actively and seven being the most actively, how actively do you think your school enforces the tobacco policy?

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Least Actively						Most Actively

Does your school conduct periodic sweeps to look for tobacco use on campus? YES NO
Have areas been identified that students may go to use tobacco? YES NO
IF YES: Has there been any action to ensure that tobacco use is not

occurring at these sites? YES NO ________________

Do security guards or someone else specifically try to enforce the tobacco policy? YES NO
Does someone check side doors on a regular basis to ensure students are not slipping out? YES NO
Do teachers and staff receive training on the school tobacco policy? YES NO
Have there been discussions about tobacco policies and prevention with parent or other
community groups? YES NO

What about some environmental things that may have an effect on student tobacco use. Does your school have…

Closed campus? YES NO
Block scheduling? YES NO
Secured doors (e.g. only one main entrance)? YES NO
Open restroom facilities (e.g. no doors, view of sinks)? YES NO
Periodic locker checks? YES NO
Prohibit students to carry bags/backpacks during class? YES NO
Police presence at school? YES NO
Security guard presence at school? YES NO
Security cameras at the school? YES NO
No tobacco use near school grounds? YES NO
Community daytime curfew? YES NO
Other________________________ YES NO
Is there anything else that your school has done to enforce the school tobacco policy? ________________
Has the school done anything that you think has secondary effects on tobacco use? ________________
Is there anything else that you would like to do to enforce the tobacco policy? ________________

Student Perceptions

I would like to understand more about what the student’s perceptions are of the school’s tobacco policy. On a scale from one to seven with one representing not at all aware, and seven representing very aware, how aware of the tobacco policy and its enforcement do you think the students are?

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all Aware						Very Aware

On a scale from one to seven, how likely do you think students think it is that they will be caught if they violate the tobacco policy with one representing that students think they will never be caught and seven representing that students think they will always be caught when they violate the tobacco policy?

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Students Think they will Never be Caught						Students Think they will Always be Caught

On a scale from one to seven with one meaning that the consequences definitely will not prevent students from using tobacco at school, and seven meaning that the consequences definitely will prevent students from using tobacco at school, how likely is it that the consequences of violating the tobacco policy will prevent students from using tobacco on campus?

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Definitely Will Not						Definitely Will

PROBE: What about the policy IS OR IS NOT a deterrent for the students?

School Staff Perceptions

Now I would like to get your thoughts on the teacher’s and other staff member’s opinions on the school tobacco policy. On a scale from one to seven, with one representing teachers and staff never respond, and seven meaning teachers and staff always respond, how often do you think teachers and school staff respond when they suspect that a student is violating the school’s tobacco policy?

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Never Respond						Always Respond

On a scale from one to seven, with one representing no teachers and staff think it is their responsibility and seven meaning that all teachers and staff think it is their responsibility, how many teachers and staff do you think believe it is their responsibility to make sure that the school campus is tobacco-free?

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
No Teachers/Staff Think it is their Responsibility						All Teachers/Staff Think it is their Responsibility

On a scale from one to seven, with seven representing definitely enough to prevent and one representing definitely not enough to prevent, how likely do you think it is that school tobacco policies and enforcement will prevent students from using tobacco in schools?

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Definitely Not Prevent						Definitely Will Prevent

On a scale from one to seven, with seven representing definitely can prevent students, and one representing that it definitely will not prevent, how likely do you think it is that school tobacco policies and enforcement will prevent students from using tobacco in general?

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Definitely Not Prevent						Definitely Will Prevent

Thank you for your help. Is there anything else that you would like to add about the school’s tobacco policy and its enforcement?__________________________________________________________________________________

Go to top

Editorials, commentaries, and Press Releases on the our research team’s work with tobacco and youth

Teens and tobacco, Daily Herald, December 12, 1991

We try to keep impressionable youngsters away from tobacco through education campaigns that convey the hazards of smoking. But sometimes peer pressure and a youngster’s natural desire to emulate adult behavior are more powerful than the messages in those campaigns.

So what can be done to complement the education campaign? The village of Woodridge has formulated a very good answer. In 1989, the village adopted a law that requires businesses to purchase a license, for $50, in order to sell tobacco. A consequence of selling tobacco to minors (state law forbids the sale of tobacco to anyone under 18, unless they have written permission from parents) is the loss of that license. Businesses can also be fined $500.

The law has had its desired effect of limiting youngsters’ over the counter access to cigarettes. According to a DePaul University study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on Wednesday, the percent of stores selling cigarettes to minors dropped from 79 percent prior to the new law to less than 5 percent 18 months after its enactment. More important, DePaul reports that a “survey of junior high school students taken before and after the law revealed a So percent reduction in the rate of minors who had any smoking experience and a 69 percent decrease in the number of minors who smoked regularly.”

This is quite a success story, and its principal author – Woodridge police Sgt. Bruce Talbot – deserves credit for not attaching frivolous status to a complaint about a youngster buying cigarettes. Instead Talbot, with the help of DePaul and a cooperative village government, aggressively followed up on the complaint and got the tobacco law on the books.

Schaumburg and Mt. Prospect are among the communities that have followed Woodridge’s lead and adopted similar laws to restrict sale of tobacco to minors. We would urge other communities to do the same. True, such laws do not eliminate the chances of youngsters getting cigarettes. But evidence suggests they make it a lot harder for teens to take that first puff; to follow through on that curiosity that can kill them.

'Sting Tobacco Sales', The Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 13, 1996

By Leonard Jason

A child who knows not to touch the stove, but does it any- way and doesn’t get burned, may do it again. Similarly, merchants who don’t get burned for selling cigarettes to minors because nobody is watching are likely to keep doing it. After all, they get positive reinforcement for their crime – profits.

America won’t see an authentic reduction in teen smoking until businesses stop profiting from selling cigarettes illegally to kids.

President Clinton’s new initiatives to regulate tobacco advertising and sales through the Food and Drug Administration give important executive endorsement to the effort to reduce teen smoking. A public health problem this pervasive, caused by an industry so powerful, has no hope of solution unless there is a serious commitment from the president.

Strong forces have emerged to confuse the public, however, and their aim is to make people think the problem is being solved when it really isn’t. Politicians who are embracing the issue of teen smoking and illegal cigarette sales are being taken in by tobacco industry efforts to emphasize education programs over enforcement programs that test whether merchants are complying with the law.

Rather than supporting merchant sting operations – where teens working with the police are sent into stores to try to buy cigarettes – tobacco interests have developed slick schemes with fancy signs and buttons carrying anti-smoking messages. All this looks attractive at press conferences, but it has little substance. More important, yields few results.

Politicians are endorsing these approaches because they will not upset business owners, who can claim they did something – when in fact their “something’ did nothing. The real solution to the problem of teen smoking is to build in consequences for businesses that sell cigarettes to kids illegally.

Over the past eight years, my research team at DePaul University has demonstrated that sting operations significantly decrease cigarette sales to minors. When merchants know that random stings will occur in their stores at least three times a year, the short-term profits they gain from selling cigarettes to kids are overshadowed by the prospect of fines and loss of their tobacco license. Successful results have been duplicated in diverse communities from inner-city Chicago to various suburban towns. This program can work anywhere, as long as local governments are serious about enforcement.

Making cigarettes harder for teens to get has proven to be a successful strategy to reduce actual rates of teen smoking. Long- term data from Woodridge, Ill., a suburb of Chicago that started a merchant sting program several years ago, showed that its high school students were half as likely to be regular smokers than teens of the same age in towns that had not limited cigarette sales.

These results came at a time, 1991 to 1994, when smoking among eighth-graders was increasing nationally by 30 percent. This kind of result will never be produced by the insincere antismoking campaigns being pushed by tobacco interests and by the retail businesses profiting from youth cigarette sales. If all stores are regularly faced with strong enforcement, the practice of selling tobacco products to youngsters will significantly decrease. This, in turn, can bring about a dramatic reduction in teen smoking. Do we have the commitment to make the tough choices to put our resources into the only strategy that has consistently demonstrated its effectiveness? The question is not one of finances. These programs pay for themselves through fines and license fees.

The question is whether community leaders are willing to hold merchants accountable. President Clinton’s program is a small step in the right direction.

Politics vs Science: Do we really care about kids who light up? Chicago Tribune, August 23, 1996

By Leonard Jason

For every 100 teenage girls who attempt to buy a pack of cigarettes illegally in Chicago, only one will be turned away. For every 100 boys, 17 will be denied. The sad fact is that the vast majority of stores in Chicago sell cigarettes to kids and set them up not only for chronic health problems, but on a path that often leads to alcohol and narcotic use.

Mayor Richard M. Daley and Ald. Edward Burke (14th) recently proposed an ordinance aimed at curbing unlawful cigarette sales to youth in Chicago, and President Clinton is prepared to enact an executive order designed to stem illegal sales nationally.

These are great first steps, but to achieve a true reduction in teen smoking we must price cigarettes out of reach for teens by raising the excise tax, reduce their appeal by banning advertising completely and fully implement the Synar Amendment, which holds states accountable for a measurable reduction in illegal cigarette sales. Chicago’s program consists of a merchant education initiative to remind retailers of the law, an increase from $200 to $500 in fines against stores that sell cigarettes to kids, with license suspensions for stores caught in violation three times, and an enforcement program to test whether merchants are complying.

If executed carefully, Chicago could be the first major metropolitan area to enact such a program. But its success depends on the city’s Commitment to the enforcement component.

Our research team at DePaul University has been sending minors randomly into stores to purchase cigarettes, so-called stings, in Chicago for several years. We found alarming rates of violation. Every gas station we visited sold to underage kids. In addition, 94 percent of convenience stores, 78 percent of grocery stores, 72 percent of mom and pop stores and 61 percent of pharmacies sold to out, 16- and 17-year-old testers.

The mayor and Aid. Burke should be commended for bringing this issue back to the forefront, but they must also be aware of the realities of their program. Our research determined that sales rates were unaffected when warning signs were posted in stores.

Additionally, even when merchants asked for age identification, they still sold to minors 33 percent of the time. When we provided merchants with training on the law, illegal sales of cigarettes decreased for a few months, but returned shortly to unacceptable levels.

The mayor has argued for continued merchant education programs, which are supported by the tobacco industry and the Illinois Liquor Control Commission and the Illinois Retail Merchants Association. It’s not surprising that such groups advocate for education programs because they offer few negative consequences for businesses that sell cigarettes to minors. When combined with enforcement programs, these initiatives can be valuable, but if offered in and of themselves, these programs only support the vested interests of the status quo, and not the best interests of our youth.

Thus, the key to permanently reducing cigarette sales to kids is a consistent enforcement program in the same stores. Using this method, teams who were able to buy cigarettes 85 percent of the time at the beginning of the study could only buy them 20 percent of the time after the study. Simply put, merchants got tired of paying fines and knew that if they continued to sell they would be caught.

Daley is also toying with the idea that youth who purchase cigarettes should be hold responsible for their actions. The practicality of the police being called to an illegal buy is unwieldy and unwise. Several years ago, the Metropolitan Lung Association of Chicago worked with Ald. Burke’s office to draft an ordinance which made the sale of cigarettes an administrative rather than a criminal activity. The old system required that a police officer witness an illegal cigarette purchase. As a consequence, no tickets were given out for years in Chicago for underage sales of cigarettes.

Now that the process has been changed, once a minor is sold cigarettes, a member of the Department of Revenue can issue a ticket. Tickets and regular feedback to merchants will significantly reduce the percentage of retailers who sell minors cigarettes. We know this strategy works. Now the question is whether this approach will be expanded to all stores in Chicago. It is only if all stores are brought into this program, and enforced at least every four months, will we make a dent in this problem.

The economics support these approaches because fines and license-fees pay for themselves. The question is whether our leaders have the courage and heart to enact the most potent and proven methods of attacking our youth’s most deadly foe. There are powerful economic and political forces that will continue to thwart what needs to be done. With boldness, with decisiveness, with vision, our politicians can become statesmen, and in the process our youth can be protected.

'I want to be like Mike' Cigars vs. the Public Interest, Chicago Tribune, June, 1997

By Leonard Jason

There is no doubt about it–Michael Jordan is a super hero of mythic proportions. In game five of the NBA finals, sick and weakened with the flu, Michael almost single-handedly took control of the basketball game and guaranteed a win during this critical phase of the playoffs. Throughout the world, children look to this gifted athlete as a role model because Michael is unselfish in building team spirit, devoted to excellence even when injured or sick, and competitive in all aspects of his game. Is it not surprising that so many of our youth want to “be like Mike.”

Several prominent basketball players, such as Charles Barkley, have argued that athletes should not be considered role models and that they are just people with well-developed, marketable talents. They believe their personal lives, which might involve behaviors that are inappropriate or high risk for youth, should be neither highlighted nor condemned for influencing young people.

Whether or not athletes desire to be role models, their high visibility, endorsements and vast economic resources, including fast cars and stately living quarters, appeal to many in our society, particularly impressionable youth. Our dilemma involves balancing athletes’ individual rights with their moral obligations, whether they agree with them or not, to protect children from harm. Athletes most certainly enjoy the freedom to engagement in legal behavior in private, and while they have a right to do the same in public, they may assume that their behavior will be imitated by young people who will suffer the consequences. Social science research supports the likelihood of imitation, and, as a result, it is important to identify which behaviors should be defined as dangerous.

Such a task is daunting and may reach little consensus. Few would criticize athletes for drinking champagne at a victory celebration, although repeated excesses and intoxications would certainly convey an inappropriate message to youth. If drinking champagne at celebrations is acceptable, how should we view lighting victory cigars at such celebrations? And if high profile athletes are seen frequently on television relaxing and enjoying the pleasures of a cigar, even when they are not being paid for such an endorsement, should such behavior be tolerated?

The tobacco industry has been on the defensive for the last few years, with just cause. With more than 400,000 people dying annually from smoking-related illnesses, tobacco products are our nation’s number one health enemy. Billions of dollars continue to be spent on advertising, and for years those responsible for movie productions have been paid to make popular actors smoke cigarettes on the big screen.

What a public relations victory for the tobacco industry when, on prime time television, the most popular athlete of our time shows his admiration for cigars, and unwittingly sends a powerful message to youth that engaging in this behavior is a legitimate way to celebrate a victory. When an athlete is hired to endorse a product, the endorsement’s credibility is suspect because it was motivated by a paycheck. However, when the product is visibly consumed without any external compensation, the association between the product and the consumer is enhanced. Viewers believe the product is truly enjoyed and valued by the consumer. It delivers the implicit message that one can be an attractive, world-class athlete without suffering any detrimental effects from smoking. Three-thousand children begin smoking every day. Do we really want to encourage more of them to begin a habit with such tragic consequences?

Many will undoubtedly say that this argument is another example of an exaggerated reaction to a simple victory celebration and question the audacity to criticize a living legend, particularly during this moment of well justified acclaim. In addition, it could be said that cigars have been a symbol of rites and rituals for generations. But some of our high profile athletes have been seen engaging in this habit at many publicized events, well beyond any victory celebrations. Even if Michael and other celebrities only displayed cigars during celebrations, youth might not recognize that they are not regular consumers of tobacco products.

Michael is a generous and compassionate person, as demonstrated by his substantial contributions to our city. His courage in the face of adversity has already won our hearts. His eloquent arguments to keep the team intact for next year have secured our loyalty. By subtly challenging the Bulls’ management, he has even appealed to the rebellious instincts within us. This combination of messages leaves an impression on our youth. They want to be like Mike by wearing clothes endorsed by him as well as products that he uses. Opponents of tobacco are not seeking politically correct behavior from public figures. Rather, we ask Michael and other high profile athletes to become members of a team that is waging a campaign for the hearts and minds of our youth.

One way to keep cigarettes away from kids: Keep cigarettes away from kids, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 15, 1997

Commentary, by Leonard Jason

If there is one thing that demonstrates that at least some wisdom comes with age, it is smoking; very, very few first-time smokers are over 18. We’ve known for a long time that smoking is what former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner David Kessler labeled a “pediatric disease.” Although its health consequences may not be seen until much later (possibly when it’s too late to do anything about them), the foundations of the smoking habit are laid in adolescence–or even younger.

The pending settlement between several state attorneys general and the tobacco industry will carry with it a mandate to reduce youth smoking. How that is accomplished is another question. Many public education Programs alone tend not to be very effective. Restrictions on advertising currently being considered would not keep children from seeing depictions of adults smoking. How about restricting teens’ and pre-teens’ access to cigarettes? Studies of adults in the U.S. show overwhelming support for policies that limit minors, yet more than three quarters of 8th graders in a recent survey said they believed it was “fairly easy” or “very easy” to obtain them.

What’s the problem here? The answer is: enforcement. A few years ago a local community began the process of proving that The town of Woodridge tried a little experiment in behavior modification. It passed a law Prohibiting merchants from selling cigarettes to people under 18 with a civil (not criminal) penalty for violations. In addition, minors were fined for possession of tobacco. Before the law went into effect, 70 Percent of merchants in Woodridge were selling cigarettes to minors, nine months after taking effect and, most importantly, being enforced, less than 5 percent of merchants were selling cigarettes to minors.

My research on this issue suggests that unless the number of merchants in a given community who sell cigarettes to minors is reduced to 10 percent or less, it is still too easy for kids to get them. Woodridge surpassed that in only nine months through strict enforcement. (Tbe proposed settlement with the tobacco industry proposes to meet that 10 percent goal in 10 years.) Studies in Woodridge have found that with strict enforcement of the law against underage tobacco sales and with both the buyer and the shelter at risk of being fined, the percentage of high school students using tobacco has dropped in that community from 16 percent to 5 percent and has remained stable for seven years.

There is no single magic bullet that will prevent all young people from taking up smoking. We have learned from behavioral research that several’ tools, used in combination, can have impressive results. That same research now tells us that one of those tools must be restricted access, strictly enforced. Simply put: It works.

Leonard Jason is a Professor of Psychology at DePaul University. He testified recently on these issues before the House Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Health and Environment on behalf of the American Psychological Association.

Youth Tobacco Control Linked to Lower Crime Rates, May 2, 2000

Towns that come down the hardest on merchants selling cigarettes to minors and on minors buying cigarettes may also possess characteristics that protect them from crime, suggest the results of an exploratory study in Illinois.

“It is possible that early adopters of regulatory policies regarding youth access to tobacco products are also those communities that react early and prominently to other types of criminal behavior, and that it is these policies that tend to lower crime rates,” suggested lead author Leonard A. Jason, PhD, of DePaul University in Chicago, Ill.

But Jason and colleagues also remarked that the association they noted between tough youth tobacco legislation enforcement and low crime rates could be a coincidence, and that further research is needed to determine if tough enforcement is actually linked with low crime rates.

The researchers surveyed 29 towns in DuPage County in Illinois, many of which based their legislation on a Woodridge, Ill., ordinance forbidding the sale of tobacco to individuals under 18 as well as the possession of tobacco by individuals under 18.

To determine how vigorously towns enforced youth tobacco legislation, the researchers measured how often in the past year minors had been sent by law enforcement officials to attempt cigarette purchases from merchants in each town. Merchants were subject to fines or license suspension or revocation for selling cigarettes to minors. The researchers also counted how many minors were fined for tobacco possession in each town during the past year.

Towns that enforced youth tobacco legislation most vigorously had the lowest rates of crime, including violent crime and property crime, the researchers found. The results of their study appear in the March/April issue of the American Journal of Health Promotion.

The researchers noted that towns with vigorous youth tobacco legislation and low crime had low crime rates even before tobacco legislation was enacted, suggesting that such towns may have characteristics that both help them enforce youth tobacco laws and protect them from crime.

“If the heavy enforcers have characteristics that serve as protective factors in deterring crimes, then it would be critical to engage in further research to better isolate what those factors might be,” said Jason.

###

The American Journal of Health Promotion is a bimonthly peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the field of health promotion. For information about the journal call (248) 682-0707 or visit the journal’s Web site at www.healthpromotionjournal.com. Center for the Advancement of Health Contact: Petrina Chong Director of Communications 202.387.2829

Study looks at towns that Enforce Laws

An Illinois study found a link between towns with tough controls to prevent minors from buying cigarettes and lower crime rates, according to a May 2 press release from the Center for the Advancement of Health.

“It is possible that early adopters of regulatory policies regarding youth access to tobacco products are also those communities that react early and prominently to other types of criminal behavior, and that it is these policies that tend to lower crime rates,” said lead author Leonard A. Jason, Ph.D., of DePaul University in Chicago, Ill.

The exploratory study looked at 29 towns in DuPage County, Ill. Most of the towns have laws in place that prohibit the sale of tobacco to those under 18. Researchers measured how often in the past year minors had been sent by law-enforcement officials to try to buy cigarettes from merchants in each town. They also looked at how many times minors were fined for tobacco possession in the past year.

Jason and his colleagues found that towns that aggressively enforced youth tobacco legislation had the lowest rates of crime, including violent crime and property crime.

“Towns that see the importance of responding relatively quickly to these types of adolescent problems might also be more ready to tackle other more visible community problems, and this vigilance and proactive stance ultimately results in lower overall crime statistics,” said Jason. “If the heavy enforcers have characteristics that serve as protective factors in deterring crimes, then it would be critical to engage in further research to better isolate what those factors might be.”

The study is published in the March/April issue of the American Journal of Health Promotion.

Robert Wood Johnson Press Release on the YTAP studies

CONTACT: Prabhu Ponkshe Health Matrix, Inc 703-918-4930

FOR RELEASE: Tuesday, May 6th, 2003

RETAIL FINES PREVENT KIDS FROM STARTING CIGARETTE USE; POSSESSION LAWS REDUCE SMOKING RATES AMONG REGULAR SMOKERS, TWO STUDIES CONCLUDE

Chicago, May 5 – Enforcing laws that fine retailers who sell cigarettes to minors helps prevent youth from starting to smoke. But enforcing laws that also fine youth for possession of tobacco products helps reduce cigarette use among youth who are already smoking, according to two studies published in health journals this week.

The two conclusions apply mostly to white kids in suburban and rural communities. The studies are from researchers at DePaul University. The researchers looked at tobacco laws in northern and central Illinois towns and surveyed more than 3,000 kids in those towns from 1999 to 2001. The anonymous surveys of the students included information about their own tobacco use and that among family and friends.

“Higher retail availability is related to higher initiation rates of smoking among youth. The effect of availability is seen above and beyond the effect of smoking by peers and smoking among adults in the home” according to DePaul researcher, Steven Pokorny, Ph.D. His study was published in the May issue of the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology.

“But enforcing retail sales laws, including $50-$100 fines for first offenses, is not enough to affect established smokers, because they can find other ways of getting their cigarettes. Our research shows that enforcement of retail sales laws along with possession laws, which impose a $25 to $50 fine on youth, in combination with community service and smoking awareness classes, make a significant difference in smoking rates among white kids who are already regular smokers,” according to Leonard Jason, Ph.D. His study was published in the latest issue of a British journal, Critical Public Health.

Smoking rates traditionally increase from sixth grade to the eighth grade. Jason’s research shows that communities that enforce retail sales laws alone see smoking rates go up from 0.4 cigarettes in a month in the 6th grade to 27.4 cigarettes a month by the 8th grade. Communities that also enforce fines for possession, see smoking rates go up from 1.1 cigarettes per month in the 6th grade to 6.3 cigarettes per month by the 8th grade. Smoking rates at the 6th grade reflect kids who are just experimenting with tobacco.

Jason said imposing fines for possession of tobacco products is controversial for enforcement reasons. It is also not a popular approach among tobacco control advocates, “Because the fines target the youth, instead of the tobacco industry’s marketing practices. But our research shows that possession fines are effective at least among white kids in reducing smoking rates of established smokers.”

Typically, youth increase their use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs from 6th to 8th grade. However, students in communities that fined retailers for selling tobacco to minors and fined minors for possession of tobacco products, reported significantly fewer peers who were using tobacco, alcohol and other drugs, when compared to communities that only fined the retailers. Negative attitudes toward the fines also reduced over the three-year study period among youth smokers who came from communities that enforced retail sales laws as well as possession laws, according to Jason.

The data on retail availability of tobacco products came from youth actually attempting to buy cigarettes in 11 communities. The youth did not pretend to be over age, did not use fake identification cards and did not lie about their age. Pokorny’s research is the first to develop a measure of retail availability, which reflects the risk of exposure for youth in a community to illegal tobacco sales.

The towns had an average population of about 33,000. A random group of half the towns enforced laws on retail sales of tobacco products while the other random group of towns enforced retail laws as well as possession laws. Both groups of towns had police departments that checked enforcement of retail sales of cigarettes to minors two to three times a year. Merchants in violation had a $50-$100 fine for a first offense, and a one-day suspension of the license to sell cigarette products plus a higher fine for a second offense. Repeated violations resulted in higher fines and longer periods of license suspensions to sell tobacco products.

The student survey asked respondents if they had ever smoked cigarettes, if they had quit, smoked occasionally or smoked everyday. Students were also asked questions about how easy or difficult it would be to get tobacco products, questions about use of substances among their peers, questions about how many of their friends used alcohol or other drugs, and questions related to their feelings about whether police should find youth for using, carrying or holding tobacco products. The Substance Abuse Policy Research Program (www.saprp.org) of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (www.rwjf.org) funded the two studies. SAPRP is a $54 million program that funds policy research on alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs. Jason and Pokorny’s SAPRP-funded research has enabled them to continue their work in 24 communities through a $2.5 million grant from the federal National Cancer Institute (NCI).

Based in Princeton, N.J., RWJF is the nation’s largest philanthropy devoted exclusively to health and health care. It concentrates its grantmaking in four goal areas: to assure that all Americans have access to quality health care at reasonable cost; to improve the quality of care and support for people with chronic health conditions; to promote healthy communities and lifestyles; and to reduce the personal, social and economic harm caused by substance abuse – tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs.

Links

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Smoking/Tobacco Control

Centers for Disease Control: Tobacco Information and Prevention Source (A good site for youth, parents and educators)

Monitoring the Future Study

Children Opposed to Smoking Tobacco

National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids

Illinois Coalition Against Tobacco

Buzz Talbot’s home page

Leonard Jason’s home page

Great resource page on youth smoking prevention: http://www.healthinsurancequotes.org/resources/smoking-prevention-for-kids/

A great guide to quitting smoking (that you Melissa): http://www.wholesalecentral.com/n-quit-smoking-guide.html

More helpful information and resources on smoking statistics (thank you Elaina): http://www.aclsrecertificationonline.com/acls-online-library-tobacco-resources-online-fact-sheets.html

ACLScertification.com offer a free resource guide on how tobacco affects health, written by physicians at UNC Chapel Hill.

Examples of inappropriate tobacco commercials of the 1940s to 1960s can be found at

these sites:

http://www.google.com/search?q=vintage+tobacco+ads&hl=en&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T

4ADFA_enUS445US445&biw=853&bih=461&site=webhp&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&

tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=gNS_TtzsKsSW2AWdqO35Bg&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQsAQ

To see footage from the tobacco executive testimony, go to this site: http://www.jeffreywigand.com/7ceos.php

For more information on the continuing epidemic of tobacco use among youth, go to this site: http://blog.myctb.org/?p=1501

As a senior in high school, I helped craft legislation to start a research institution to study the effects of drugs at a mock congress at the New Jersey state capital. At the time, we knew little about the effects of these drugs, particularly LSD, on individuals. Although I had never tried this drug during these turbulent times, I thought we needed more data on its effects on individuals. My early efforts at activism with the writing of this legislation and several letters I received are available in the at this site: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz4gyjhP7mm3UmxyUzZiQXJTQUU/edit

This link includes a video clip on the dynamics of smoking, and it shows networks from 1971 when smoking was prevalent to many years later as smoking was reduced in the general population: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa0706154

A Quit Smoking Blog has a really helpful 30 Day Quit Guide.

Quit Smoking Community has lots of info on smoking and its effects

Here is a good document on “The Benefits of Smoking Cessation:” http://www.pritikin.com/articles/the-benefits-of-smoking-cessation/

An excellent resource from Project Know: http://www.projectknow.com/research/teens-and-smoking/

QuitDay.org, who has a great guide on quitting smoking so that people can live longer, healthier lives and end the harm caused by tobacco to children (https://quitday.org/quit-smoking/) Freedom From Smoking® also supports QuitDay’s cause (http://www.ffsonline.org/).

Rudy Cabrera’s http://Smokersblog.org/ (Quit Smoking Blog) provides useful resources.

Daryl Jones’ FEATURE POST on quitting smoking also can help readers – https://kickdit.com/

The article called Tobacco Resources Online – Fact Sheets provides information and awareness, and contains very useful information about smoking as well.

Leonard A. Jason

Articles on Smoking Treatment and Prevention from the DePaul Research Group

Instruments we currently using in our Youth Tobacco Access Project

Measuring Stages of Change

A Model Ordinance

A Scale to Assess the Comprehensiveness of Youth Tobacco Control Ordinances

STUDENT SURVEY

School Survey

Consent Form

Assessment of the Comprehensiveness of Schools’ Tobacco Control Policies

Interview Guide for School Tobacco Policy Enforcement

Editorials, commentaries, and Press Releases on the our research team’s work with tobacco and youth

Links

Follow us