Smoke-Free County Parks: Case Study of a Policy Initiative

Transcription

1 Final Evaluation Report Solano County, Smoke-Free County Parks: Case Study of a Policy Initiative Project Director: Felicia A. Flores-Workman, MPH Tobacco Prevention and Education Program Solano County Health and Social Services Department Address: 355 Tuolumne Street, MS Vallejo, California Telephone: (707) Fax: (707) tpep@sonic.net Website: Report Authors Carol N. D Onofrio, MPH, DrPH, Local Evaluator, Independent Contractor Felicia A. Flores-Workman, MPH, Project Director, Solano County TPEP This project was made possible by funds received from the Tobacco Tax Health Protection Act of 1988-Proposition 99, through the California Department of Health Services, TCS Contract # 04-48, contract term: July 1, 2004 June 30, 2007 Report Submitted: October 15, 2007 Suggested citation: D Onofrio CN, Flores-Workman FA Smoke-Free County Parks: Case Study of a Policy Initiative. Final Evaluation Report. California: Solano County Tobacco Prevention and Education Program.

2 Abstract Purpose of Project: This project had a two-part objective: (1) by January 31, 2006, the Solano County Board of Supervisors will adopt a policy prohibiting smoking in all parts of County parks and assign an agency to enforce this policy, and (2) by April 30, 2006, this agency will be actively enforcing the policy. Achievement of this objective would extend a tobacco-free parks policy to the second of eight local jurisdictions in the County that manage parks, improve indicators and in the Communities of Excellence Assessment, and advance the longer-term goal of reducing exposure to secondhand smoke in outdoor recreational areas. Project Description: The primary target group for this project was the Solano County Board of Supervisors, the body responsible for adopting County policies and for overseeing their implementation and enforcement. The Board s responsibilities include oversight of three large and remotely-located County parks, as well as open spaces, which are managed by the Parks Division in the County s Department of General Services. Prospects for adoption and endorsement of smoke-free policy in these parks appeared promising because in 2004, three County Supervisors and the representative of a fourth attended an event to celebrate the adoption of a smoke-free parks policy by the City of Vacaville and expressed interest in adopting a similar policy for the County. Intervention methods were based on the model successfully used in Vacaville and included a variety of coordination, education, policy, training, media, and evaluation activities that together covered all phases of policy change recommended by the Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing. A two-part plan was developed to evaluate achievement of the project objective. A nonexperimental design was used to assess policy adoption which was measured qualitatively through participant observation of Board of Supervisors meetings, as well as by reviewing written minutes and videotapes of these proceedings. Policy enforcement was to be evaluated through an observational survey of tobacco litter in a purposive sample of County park areas before intervention and again six months after policy adoption. This evaluation component thus was based on a quasi-experimental design with one intervention group and no control group. In addition, six months after policy adoption, one or two representatives of the agency charged with policy enforcement were to be interviewed as key informants about enforcement issues they had encountered. These and other key informant interviews, a policy record, a media record, and project tracking measures supported process evaluation which was conducted throughout the project to describe the intervention as it unfolded and to assess its impact and that of other factors on objective achievement.

3 Main Results: The project objective was partially achieved. On June 27, 2006, the Solano County Board of Supervisors approved amending the current Parks Code to include tobacco regulations. However, many delays were encountered in drafting parkspecific regulations which the Board must consider and approve at a public meeting before the policy enforcement can begin. Because some intervention and evaluation activities therefore could not be completed, the project plan was modified to include educational activities appropriate for the situation and additional process evaluation. In the baseline survey of tobacco litter, most cigarette butts were found in park campsites. A wide array of issues was raised as County officials considered whether and how to restrict smoking in these and other park areas. The desire of the Board of Supervisors and County administrators to consider these issues as part of a larger initiative to update all parts of the County Parks Code also slowed progress. Progress was also stalled when the Parks Services Manager who had been involved in the tobacco policy development left his position and those who would subsequently fill this position temporarily for nearly a year were not aware of the policy process. As the Project Director of the Tobacco Prevention and Education Program worked with elected officials, a County Commission, and staff responsible for County parks management located in a different County department, questions were raised about the lines of communication she should follow as a County employee. Conclusions and Recommendations: Achieving adoption of a smoke-free parks policy is more difficult at the county than city level. Different issues are involved, including the restriction of smoking in campsites. The coordination and advocacy roles of Local Lead Agency personnel may be reduced within the jurisdiction that employs them. Policy adoption projects although they may seek similar objectives are unique for many reasons but especially because the decision-makers in these projects are different and may be influenced by different issues. Notwithstanding the challenges and delays encountered and the regulations that still need to be developed, this project will advance the longer-term objective to achieve smoke-free parks throughout the county as the project continues to be discussed in the community as a means of reducing tobacco use and changing community norms. To spread this success beyond Solano County, more statewide resources are needed to promote adoption of smoke-free policies for regional parks owned or managed by counties and must include resources to address campgrounds. The differences between city parks and county parks should be taken into account when planning this type of policy objective. In addition, planning for intervention and evaluation should consider that the project objective and the evaluation plan may not unfold as a single, easily measured event, but rather adoption may involve multiple steps. Recognize that every policy effort is unique and monitor the response to intervention strategies which may need to be modified if they are not having the intended effect. Maintain flexibility to use new and different intervention strategies.

4 Acknowledgements The Tobacco Prevention and Education Program staff sincerely thank the members of the Solano Smoke-Free County Parks Committee for their commitment and critical role in planning, strategizing and garnering support for this important policy effort: Valerie Williams, Chair Arthur Camargo Robin Cox Paul Doolittle Tony Norris Alvina Sheeley Susan White We also extend special thanks to: The Solano County Park and Recreation Commission, and particularly to Chair Steve Hermsmeyer and Vice-Chair Terry Riddle who served on the Commission s ad hoc County Parks Smoking Ordinance Development Committee. Tobacco Education Coalition members Dr. Ron Chapman and Serena Chen for their contributions to this effort. Tony Norris, Parks Services Manager, who worked collaboratively with us until he changed positions in March 2006 and then left service with Solano County in September Other Solano County General Services staff who professionally and promptly responded to our inquiries. The following individuals and organizations are gratefully acknowledged for their letters supporting smoke-free County parks: Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum BUILT (Building Trades Unions Ignite Less Tobacco) American Cancer Society American Lung Association California Black Health Network, Inc. City of Vacaville (Police Chief) First 5 Solano Harold J. Farber, M.D Maine Prairie 4-H Club Rio Vista 4-H Club Roving Clovers 4-H Club Sherwood Forest 4-H Club Solano County 4-H Leaders Council Solano Asthma Coalition Touro University Medical Center U.C. Davis Natural Reserve System The Vacaville Neighborhood Boys & Girls Clubs Westwind 4-H Club Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District Youth Takin on Tobacco and More (YTOT)

5 Table of Contents Page Project Description 1 Background 1 Rationale for Smoke-Free Parks Project 1 The Vacaville Parks Project 2 The 2004 Communities of Excellence Assessment 2 Rationale for Smoke-Free Parks Projects in The Vacaville Parks Project 3 Project Objective 4 Target Groups 4 Setting 4 Intervention Activities 6 Theory of Change 8 Evaluation Methods 9 Outcome Evaluation 9 Process Evaluation 10 Limitations 12 Results: Outcome Evaluation 12 Results: Process Evaluation 13 Initial Intervention Activities 13 Early Fact-finding 13 Formation of the Solano County Smoke-Free Parks Committee 13 Meetings with Parks Personnel 13 Baseline Survey of Tobacco Litter in County Parks 15 First Press Release 17 Draft of Parks Brochure 18 Preparation for the Campaign 18 Work of the County Smoke-Free Parks Committee 18 First Meeting with the Park and Recreation Commission 18 Meeting with Member of the County Board of Supervisors 19 September 2005 Meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission 20 Study Session with the Commission s ad hoc Committee 20 Meeting with the Board s Health and Social Services Subcommittee 20 Unanticipated Media Coverage 21 November 2005 Meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission 21 Initial Contacts with Community Groups 23 Continuing Development of Educational Materials 23 Speaker Training 23

6 Slow Progress toward Policy Adoption 24 Work and Composition of the County Smoke-Free Parks Committee 24 January 2006 Meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission 24 Second Meeting with Member of County Board of Supervisors 25 Completion of Midwest Academy Chart 25 Special Meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission 25 Revision of the Proposed Amendment 26 March 2006 Meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission 26 Continuing Contacts with Community Groups 27 Recruiting and Training Speakers 27 Preparation of Educational Materials 27 May 2006 Meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission 28 Meeting with Another Member of the Board of Supervisors 28 Second Press Release 29 First Consideration of the Proposed Policy by the Board of Supervisors 29 Policy Approval 33 The Process after Policy Adoption 33 Work of the County Smoke-Free Parks Committee 33 July 2006 Meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission 34 Continuing Efforts to Work with the General Services Department 34 September 2006 Meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission 34 Request for Modification of the Project Plan 35 Search for Information about Smoking Restrictions in Public Campgrounds 35 Completion of the Parks Brochure 36 Celebration of Policy Adoption 36 November 2006 Meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission 37 Meeting with Acting Parks Services Manager 37 January 2007 Meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission 37 March 2007 Meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission 38 Arranging to Brief the New Parks Services Manager 38 Preparation of Document Summarizing Project History and Process 39 Meeting with New Parks Services Manager 39 Meetings with Aides to Members of the Board of Supervisors 39 Factors Related to Project Process and Outcome 41 Vacaville as a Model 41 Differences in City and County Parks 41 Issues in Restricting Smoking in County Parks 41 Lack of Resources to Help Resolve the Dilemma 44 Effectiveness of Strategies Used in Vacaville 44 General Services Staff Did Not Use TPEP as a Resource 44 Adequacy of Intervention and Evaluation Strategies 45 Considering Tobacco Regulations as Part of a Larger Policy Amendment 45 Recruitment of Volunteers 45 Generating Community Support 46 Conclusions and Recommendations 46 Conclusions 46 Recommendations 47 References 48

7 Appendix A Smoke-Free County Parks Committee and ad hoc County Parks Smoking Ordinance Development Committee: Recommendations and Criteria for Developing the Guidelines to Create Smoke-Free Park Areas, November 7, Appendix B Amendment to County Code Chapter 19: Subsection Establishes Tobacco Regulations and Provides Guidance for Selecting Smoke-Free Park Areas, June 27, Appendix C Solano County Smoke-Free Parks Initiative: Background & Historical Timeline, May 21, 2007

8 Smoke-Free County Parks: Case Study of a Policy Initiative During , the Solano County Tobacco Prevention and Education Program (TPEP) in collaboration with the Tobacco Education Coalition (TEC) and other community partners undertook a project to achieve adoption and enforcement of a policy prohibiting smoking in all County parks. This case study describes the background and rationale for the project, the intervention undertaken, and evaluation methods. The policy outcome and the results of process evaluation are then reported, including an assessment of factors affecting objective achievement. The case study concludes by identifying lessons learned about establishing smoke-free parks in a County jurisdiction and related recommendations for future efforts to reduce outdoor exposure to secondhand smoke through this policy approach. Project Description Background. Reducing exposure to secondhand smoke in parks has been a priority for TPEP and the TEC since That year, participants in the Communities of Excellence Assessment 1 for Solano County rated public awareness of issues related to outdoor exposure to tobacco use as poor, but public support for tobacco-free parks and outdoor recreational facilities as good. This analysis suggested potential leverage for a policy initiative. Rationale for Smoke-Free Parks Project. Parks were selected as the focus for the policy effort because they are widely used and include playgrounds for children, as well as picnic areas and playing fields for Little League and other athletic teams. Moreover, a new statewide tot law had recently been passed to prohibit smoking in playgrounds, 2 and a local policy initiative could build on this legislation. Because multiple jurisdictions have authority over parks in Solano County and TPEP resources are limited, the TEC and TPEP concluded that a concentrated approach in one jurisdiction was most likely to be successful. They also reasoned that one success would initiate a process of change that eventually would lead to smokefree parks throughout the County. The City of Vacaville was identified as the most promising target for initial intervention because at that time this city had a stadium for the Solano Steelheads minor league baseball team, and a policy prohibiting smoking in the stands reportedly was enforced. Vacaville City officials also had demonstrated a great deal of support for the Healthy Cities project and for Youth Takin on Tobacco (YTOT), a high school anti-tobacco project that is part of the Vacaville Youth Roundtable. 1

9 The Vacaville Parks Project. In summer 2001, a multi-faceted intervention was initiated in Vacaville. Key components included fact-finding about similar policies and policy efforts in other cities, building a Tobacco-Free Parks Committee with traditional and non- traditional partners, mobilizing adult and youth volunteers to clean-up and measure tobacco litter in the parks at the beginning and end of the project, assessing community readiness for policy change, educating opinion leaders and other residents, gathering evidence of community support, drafting the proposed policy, presenting it to city commissions and the City Council, and addressing concerns that were raised. Strong community support for this initiative was mobilized: youth, particularly, were enthusiastic volunteers and effective advocates. Members of the City Council, other officials, and citizens considered concerns on both sides of the issue, demonstrating robust capacity for participatory civic action. On September 9, 2003, the Vacaville City Council adopted a policy prohibiting tobacco use in all city parks except in designated smoking areas. This new policy, City Ordinance #1697, became effective one month later. On that date signs to implement the policy were installed in city parks, and TPEP hosted an event in one park to celebrate the day the policy became effective and to thank the many people who contributed to its adoption by the City Council. A second Clean the Butts day held in May 2004, seven months after Vacaville s Tobacco-Free Parks policy was enacted, showed a 50% decrease in the number of cigarette butts in selected areas of five city parks. Although this finding suggested substantial voluntary compliance with the new policy, cigarette butts were found in playground, picnic, playing field, and bleacher areas, as well as in other sections of parks not included in the initial survey. The need for further community education and improved law enforcement therefore was apparent. A larger concern was that because of some opposition and concerns about the feasibility of enforcement, the Vacaville policy was scheduled to sunset two years after it became effective. A case study describing and analyzing this project in detail 3 was submitted to the Tobacco Control Section (TCS) of the California Department of Health Services in June Later that year, the Tobacco Education Clearinghouse of California (TECC) listed a binder of materials from this project as one of its top ten resources for reducing environmental tobacco smoke. The 2004 Communities of Excellence Assessment. Early in 2004, TEC members working with other community partners and TPEP staff again completed the Communities of Excellence Assessment for Solano County. In the priority area of Reducing Exposure to Secondhand Smoke, indicator , the extent to which policies designate a portion or all of an outdoor recreational area as smoke-free, was rated fair county-wide, but only because the Vacaville City Council had adopted a Tobacco-Free Parks policy. Although the City of Vallejo has had a policy since 1994 specifying that all outdoor recreational facilities will be smoke-free, this policy is not enforced. Neither Solano County nor its other five cities had such a policy covering outdoor recreational facilities in their jurisdictions. 2

10 Ratings were similar for indicator 2.1.7, extent of compliance with state or local laws prohibiting smoking in playgrounds and tot lots. Vacaville was the only jurisdiction in Solano County that had a policy stronger than the statewide tot lot law. A telephone survey conducted by TPEP staff revealed that code and law enforcement officials in three cities did not know about this law. Officials in the other four cities reported that no signs were posted in parks to inform the community about the law, and that they had received no complaints about non-compliance with it. Attributes such as public awareness, public support, educational campaign, and media attention were rated as good in Vacaville, poor in other jurisdictions, and fair county-wide. Rationale for Smoke-Free Park Projects in In setting priorities for TPEP s contract period, participants in the Communities of Excellence Assessment recognized that the Vacaville initiative would not be fully successful until its Tobacco-Free Parks policy was permanently adopted and that removal of the sunset clause before October 2005 was essential if this City was to become a model for other jurisdictions. At the same time, they wanted to advance the long-term strategy for achieving tobacco free parks throughout the county by promoting policy adoption and implementation in a second jurisdiction. Prospects for adoption of such a policy at the County level seemed encouraging because three members of the Board of Supervisors and a representative of a fourth member attended the October 9, 2003 event to celebrate the Vacaville City Council adoption of a Tobacco-Free Parks Policy. At that time, they expressed their support for that city s new parks policy and indicated their interest in adopting a similar County policy. Two parks projects thus were undertaken. The first aimed to achieve permanent adoption of the Vacaville Smoke-Free Parks Policy. The second project was aimed at adoption and enforcement of a smoke-free policy for County parks. This latter project is the focus of this case study. The Vacaville Parks Project. The Vacaville Tobacco-Free Parks Committee was reconstituted in summer A strategy for removal of the sunset clause from the Tobacco-Free Parks policy was developed, and fact-finding about recent efforts to reduce outdoor exposure to secondhand smoke in other areas was conducted. Voluntary compliance with the city s policy, complaints about it, and enforcement issues were assessed in fall 2004 through an observational survey of smoking in a sample of Vacaville parks and through key informant interviews with city staff and law enforcement officials. Results showed good compliance with the policy and few complaints or enforcement problems. Individual meetings were held with influential city leaders to present these results, as well as those from the May 2004 parks litter survey. The public was kept informed through an updated Smoke-Free Parks brochure, a press release, and other media activities. On January 11, 2005 findings about the effects of the policy were presented to the Vacaville City Council whose members unanimously voted to remove the sunset clause from the policy restricting smoking in city-owned parks. No opposition was voiced at two subsequent public hearings, and the policy became permanent in February With this work completed, TPEP staff and the TEC turned their attention to promoting the adoption and implementation of a policy to achieve smoke-free County parks. 3

11 Project Objective. The County parks project had a two-part objective: (1) by January 31, 2006, the Solano County Board of Supervisors will adopt a policy prohibiting smoking in all parts of County parks and assign an agency to enforce this policy, and (2) by April 30, 2006, this agency will be actively enforcing the policy. This objective addressed indicators and in the Reducing Exposure to Secondhand Smoke section of the Communities of Excellence Assessment. Target Groups. The Solano County Board of Supervisors, as the body responsible for adopting County policies and for overseeing their implementation and enforcement, was the primary target group for this project. Secondary target groups included officials in County departments responsible for legal matters and parks maintenance, community organizations throughout the County, and youth and adults who might support the policy initiative in various ways. All County residents constituted a third and broader target group, for their attitudes could influence adoption of the proposed policy and ultimately would determine voluntary compliance with it. Setting. The County of Solano manages three parks, as well as open spaces in unincorporated areas. In contrast to most city parks, these County parks are larger and located in remote, non-residential areas. Lake Solano Park, located at the base of coastal foothills west of the town of Winters, is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and has been administered as a recreational area by the County of Solano since Since creation of the 177 acre park in 1973, it has been a destination point for outdoor enthusiasts and currently welcomes more than 200,000 visitors each year. This park is considered one of the best fly fishing spots in the Sacramento Valley. It caters especially to anglers, boaters, campers, swimmers, sunbathers, and picnickers, but it also attracts hikers, bicyclists, bird watchers, and wildlife photographers. 4

12 Sandy Beach Park is located on the Sacramento River near the town of Rio Vista. Open year round, this 36 acre park offers a 24-hour boat-launching ramp, camp sites, picnic grounds, volleyball courts, a horseshoe pitch, a hiking trail, miles of country roads for bicycling, a sandy beach stretching for over half a mile, and waterways for fishing, jetskiing, and sailing. Belden s Landing Park, located southeast of Suisun City, is a 10 acre public waterway access facility purchased in the 1980s by the State of California, Department of Fish & Game. 5

13 Lynch Canyon Open Space was purchased in November 1993 by the Solano Land Trust to keep an open space buffer between cities, protect the habitat, and preserve the site for future generations. The largest of several open spaces owned by the Trust, this 1,039 acre area is defined by its steeply rolling hills, blanketed with grasslands and accented with groves of buckeyes and evergreen oaks. Lynch Creek drains this enclosed watershed and flows into Suisun Marsh. The 900-foot ridges offer panoramic views extending from coastal ranges to San Francisco Bay and across the Sacramento Delta to the Sierra Nevada. Through a historic agreement, Solano County provides ranger services for this space, enabling it to be open to the public. The brochure for Lynch Canyon states, Due to high fire risk, smoking, campfires, barbecues and fireworks are not permitted. Intervention Activities. Intervention was initiated in March 2005 and continued through June Methods were based on the model used in the Vacaville tobaccofree parks project and included a combination of coordination, educational, media, policy, and training activities. Together, these activities covered four of the five phases recommended for policy change by the Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing: (1) fact-finding, (2) recruiting project partners, (3) assessing the policy environment, designing a campaign strategy, and preparing for its implementation, and (4) conducting the campaign. 5 As explained below, the fifth phase, evaluation, occurred throughout the project and contributed to the other four phases. Early work focused on two tasks: (1) establishing a County Smoke-Free Parks Committee, and (2) conducting a Clean the Butts day that would provide baseline data on tobacco litter in County parks. Preparing for this survey involved a variety of different activities. Locations of parks in unincorporated areas of Solano County were mapped. Park rangers and staff members from the County Parks Division were informed about the project and interviewed about the amount of tobacco litter in the parks, park areas where most litter is found, and effects of the litter on park users and the park maintenance staff. A purposive sample of park areas to be surveyed was selected. 6

14 Youth and adult volunteers were recruited and trained to conduct the park clean-up and baseline litter survey. Whiz Rings, water bottles, and beach balls with a tobacco-free parks message also were designed and produced or ordered for distribution to volunteers who assisted with the park clean-up and to other volunteers and community groups later in the campaign. The second phase of intervention involved assessing the political environment, designing a detailed campaign strategy, and preparing for its implementation. During interviews related to the litter survey, County park rangers and a park host were asked about issues anticipated in enforcing the proposed policy, effective enforcement strategies, potential barriers to enforcement, and other enforcement concerns. The Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing was contacted for advice on approaching a member of the Board of Supervisors, and then a meeting was held with a Board member who supported the proposed policy to discuss the project and seek guidance on steps to promote policy adoption. The Smoke-Free Parks Committee considered findings from these interviews as they completed the Midwest Academy Chart and developed the campaign strategy. Other preparatory activities included recruiting and training youth and adult volunteers to make educational presentations about the project, developing related overhead transparencies, and producing a one-page fact-sheet on the main health reasons for limiting smoking in parks. After materials available through the Tobacco Education Clearinghouse of California and the California Smoke-free Bars, Workplaces and Communities Program (BREATH) were reviewed, a brochure was produced that provided information about outdoor exposure to secondhand smoke, results of the litter survey in County parks, and the need for a Smoke-Free County Parks policy. Conducting the campaign also involved multiple activities. Educational presentations about the project were made to community groups, a relevant County Commission, and to the Board of Supervisors, one of its Subcommittees, and some individual Board members. Presentations to community groups included a request for a letter of support, and in some cases, volunteers. Presentations to County officials also included a request for support, as well as for advice about steps to follow in gaining support from the Board of Supervisors. To keep the general public informed, a press release about the project and results of the litter survey in County parks was prepared and distributed to all seven newspapers published in Solano County. These activities culminated in a presentation of the proposed policy to the Board of Supervisors with a request for its adoption. The project plan included three post-policy adoption tasks: informing the public about the new policy and promoting voluntary compliance with it, supporting whatever additional work was needed by the Board of Supervisors to put the policy into effect, and supporting effective policy enforcement. However, as explained later, the first task could be only partially completed, the second task is still ongoing, and no activities related to the third task could be completed within the project period. With 7

15 TCS approval, the project plan therefore was modified. These modifications also are described later in this report. Theory of Change. The County parks objective and the intervention plan for achieving it were based on the following assumptions: Adoption of a Tobacco-Free Parks policy by the Vacaville City Council, public support for this policy, and voluntary compliance with it will facilitate the adoption of a similar policy by the Solano County Board of Supervisors for parks in unincorporated areas of the County. Intervention strategies, activities, and evaluation methods successfully used in the Vacaville Tobacco-Free parks project also will be effective at the County level. Volunteers can be recruited to serve on a Tobacco Free Parks Committee, to make presentations to community groups, and to participate in two observational surveys and clean-ups of County parks. Individual educational interviews, group presentations, a brochure, and press releases that provide information about the successful Vacaville policy, the amount of tobacco litter collected in a baseline survey of County parks, and reasons for supporting a tobacco-free County parks policy will generate support for a tobaccofree County parks policy. Evidence of community support for tobacco-free County parks will influence the County Board of Supervisors to adopt a Tobacco-Free County Parks policy. Results from a survey of tobacco litter in County parks conducted six months after the Board of Supervisors acts on the policy proposal will indicate (A) a high degree of compliance with the policy if it is enacted and (B) unmet needs for the policy if it is not adopted. Six months after the policy is adopted, responsible County parks and law enforcement officials will report few issues in enforcing the policy and few complaints about it. Results from the park surveys, a press release about the policy decision made by the Board of Supervisors, an event recognizing members of the Board and volunteers who worked to support policy adoption, and community support for the policy will encourage additional cities in Solano County to adopt a Smoke-Free Parks policy. Process evaluation of this project will provide insights that will strengthen future projects aimed at the adoption of a Tobacco Free Parks policy by other Solano County cities. 8

16 Evaluation Methods Outcome Evaluation. Because the project objective involved both policy adoption and enforcement, a two-part plan was developed to evaluate its outcomes. The first part was to determine whether the Solano County Board of Supervisors adopted a policy prohibiting smoking in all parts of County parks by January 31, This question was addressed by direct observation of meetings where the Board of Supervisors considered the proposed policy, and through a review of meeting minutes and the policy adopted. In the original plan, the second component of outcome evaluation, whether the policy was actively being enforced, was to be addressed through two methods. First, using a quasi-experimental design with one intervention group and no control group, an observational survey of tobacco litter in a purposive sample of County park areas was to be completed before intervention and again six months after policy adoption. To select the sample, TPEP staff members mapped the locations of County parks; interviewed park rangers to identify areas in each park with the most tobacco litter; and then selected a total of eight areas to be surveyed, considering size and geographic location of the park, the characteristics of park areas (e.g., playground, ballpark, picnic area, parking area; the estimated number of children, youth, and adults in the area during times of peak activity), and the number of park areas that volunteers are able to survey in one day. Youth and adult volunteers were to be recruited and trained to conduct both surveys, each of which involved collecting litter from assigned park areas, weighing it, and counting the number of cigarette butts found. Results for each park area were to be entered on a spreadsheet, and then the weight and number of cigarette butts were to be calculated for each park, for similar types of park areas (e.g., playgrounds) across parks, and for the sample as a whole. After this also was done for the follow-up survey, changes in the number of cigarette butts and weight of tobacco litter from baseline to follow-up were to be calculated both in raw numbers and as a percentage decrease or increase. The independent samples t test would be used to determine the significance of differences observed in the weight of tobacco litter and number of butts found in each park, each type of park area, and all areas combined. In addition, six months after policy adoption, one or two representatives of the agency charged with policy enforcement were to be interviewed as key informants about the enforcement issues encountered, the number of citations issued for policy violations, complaints about the policy or its enforcement, and public response to the policy from a law enforcement perspective. Prior to these interviews, TPEP was to draft, discuss, and finalize the specific questions to be asked and to develop a semi-structured interview guide with space for recording responses. Findings from these interviews combined with results of the park survey were to be used to estimate the extent to which the Tobacco Free Parks policy is self-enforcing, the enforcement burden it creates for county personnel, unmet needs for enforcement, and public response to the policy from a law enforcement perspective. 9

17 Because the policy was not enforced during the project period, only the baseline park litter survey was completed. The modified project plan approved by TCS thus substituted additional process evaluation activities for the follow-up park litter survey and the interviews with park rangers six months after policy enforcement began. Process Evaluation. Process evaluation was conducted to describe the intervention as it unfolded and to assess its impact and that of other factors on achievement of the project objective. Most data used in process evaluation were collected in conjunction with intervention activities. Thus at the beginning of the project, key informant interviews were conducted with two park rangers and a campground host during individual meetings that also informed them about the project, educated them on the reasons for it, and sought their support. Similarly, information and education was provided during later meetings in which key informant interviews were conducted with individual members of the Board of Supervisors. All key informant interviews sought information that would help to move policy adoption forward, but questions were tailored to each type of key informant. TPEP staff conducted each interview face-to-face using a written interview guide on which responses were recorded as each question was answered. Additional information about the selection of key informants, the number interviewed, the questions asked, and the context for interviews is provided with the presentation of findings. Plans to conduct a second wave of key informant interviews focused on policy enforcement had to be modified because of delays in policy enactment. A media record was compiled as press releases were issued and newspaper articles were published. A policy record also was maintained. The initial plan anticipated that this latter record would include dated minutes from meetings where the proposed policy was discussed by the Board of Supervisors and notes made by TPEP staff at each meeting, including the length of discussion, reasons presented for supporting or opposing the policy by speaker, and other issues raised (e.g.. in questions), as well as drafts of specific policy wording. Midway through the project, this plan was modified to include similar records from the County Park and Recreation Commission. At the conclusion of the project, semi-annual project progress reports and tracking measures for intervention activities were reviewed to summarize activities that were implemented as planned and those that were modified or added. Once this was done, content analysis and other qualitative methods were used to examine all process data for insights into how intervention activities, responses to them, and other factors affected the process of policy change and its outcome. The project plan anticipated considering four sets of factors: 1. Level of community interest and involvement in the proposed policy was to be assessed by (A) the number of persons who served on the Solano County Smoke-Free Parks Committee and organizations they represented, (B) number of times the committee met and its major activities, (C) number, types, and venue (city or countywide) of organizations that received educational presentations on the proposed policy 10

18 changes by date, time, duration, place of each presentation; number of persons present; and name of presenter(s), (D) number of volunteers recruited from these organizations to participate in park litter surveys and/or to speak during project presentations, (E) number of these organizations that wrote a letter of support for the proposed policy or supported its adoption in other ways, (G) whether the Health & Social Services Subcommittee of the Board of Supervisors supported the proposed policy and why or why not, and (H) number and organizational affiliation of persons who were invited to and attended the event to recognize those who worked to support the policy. 2. The effectiveness of strategies employed to achieve policy adoption was to be assessed by whether or not the Board of Supervisors adopted the proposed policy by the date stated in the objective. To provide further insight, steps identified for moving the proposed policy forward on the Midwest Academy Chart and in key informant interviews with county park maintenance and law enforcement officials, member(s) of the Board of Supervisors, and the Board s Health and Social Services Subcommittee were to be listed by source on a matrix so that the frequency with which each strategy was recommended could be tallied. These data were to be compared against the strategies actually used to illuminate (A) the degree of consensus about the types and sequence of intervention activities important to policy adoption, (B) the relationship between the frequency with which each strategy was recommended and its implementation, (C) reasons for employing strategies not on the list of recommendations and/or for failing to implement one or more recommended strategies, and (D) the number and percent of strategies recommended by each source as an indicator of its perceived importance in the intervention. 3. Key issues involved in considering the policy were to be assessed by comparing and tallying reasons for supporting or opposing the policy in (A) materials used in presentations to community groups, (B) the brochure reporting results of the baseline parks litter survey and secondhand smoke concerns, (D) key informant interviews, (C) press releases issued by the program, (E) media stories and coverage, (F) letters of support received, and (G) presentations and discussions in Board of Supervisors meetings where the policy was considered as recorded in the council record. In addition, comments made during key informant interviews about issues that may affect the policy debate were to be summarized into categories of reasons various individuals and groups may have had for supporting or opposing the proposed policy, e.g., effects of tobacco litter on park appearance, effects of litter on the activities of park users, attitudes toward the litter, and costs of cleaning it up. Results were to be compared against issues identified in the Board of Supervisor record to determine which and how many of the anticipated issues were actually considered in Board decision-making. 4. Issues in policy enforcement. Information from baseline key informant interviews with parks law enforcement officials about anticipated issues in enforcing the proposed policy, effective enforcement strategies, barriers to enforcement, and other concerns was to be summarized and used to estimate the probable ease or difficulty of policy enforcement. Results were to be used as relevant in discussions about adoption of the 11

19 proposed policy. After adoption of the new parks policy, this information was to help inform development of a plan to promote voluntary compliance with the parks policy, to ensure the use of effective enforcement methods, and to prevent or reduce anticipated enforcement problems where possible. The process of enforcement planning also was to be documented by listing the agency representatives who participated, their attendance at planning meetings, and their particular contributions. The enforcement plan, including community education, the posting of signs, follow-up of concerns or complaints, the target date for implementing each activity, and the persons or agencies responsible was to be described. Implementation of enforcement was to be monitored by noting the date that each activity was completed with relevant notes or comments. Delays in policy adoption precluded enforcement and collection of the data needed to complete this analysis. Anticipated enforcement issues therefore were considered in the third analytic category, i.e., issues considered in policy approval. Limitations. At the time this project was planned, TPEP staff and the evaluation consultant did not fully appreciate the multiple steps involved in adoption of a policy restricting smoking in County parks. Both the project objective and the evaluation plan therefore regarded policy adoption as a single, easily measured event. Although process evaluation revealed the complexities involved, an expanded definition of policy adoption would have sharpened and enriched outcome evaluation. Because the Smoke-Free County Parks policy was not enforced during the project period, the effectiveness of enforcement could not be assessed. The baseline survey of tobacco litter in County parks provided useful information about the extent of the problem in different parks and park areas prior to policy adoption; however, because of resource limitations, only eight park areas could be surveyed. Results may have been affected by seasonal differences in park use, the extent to which tobacco users cleaned up their own litter, the activities of park maintenance personnel, and the rigor with which survey volunteers found, picked up, and counted cigarette butts. Process evaluation identified many factors influencing policy adoption and the development of regulations and guidelines for policy enforcement. However, capturing the relative importance of various considerations to different stakeholders was difficult, as was assessing the effects of discussions involving different participants in different settings at different points in time. TPEP s small staff had multiple responsibilities and therefore usually did not have time to clarify and expand process notes made quickly during or after meetings and other events. Doing so at a later time was challenging. Results: Outcome Evaluation The project objective was partially achieved. On June 27, 2006, the Solano County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved amending Chapter 19 of the current Parks Code to include tobacco regulations for existing County parks and future acquisitions. However, this amendment did not prohibit smoking throughout the parks, but only in certain areas of each park yet to be determined. Many delays have been encountered in drafting specific regulations for each park. Until this task is completed and the Board 12

20 considers and approves the regulations at a public meeting, enforcement of the new policy cannot begin. Outcome evaluation related to policy enforcement therefore could not be completed within the project period. Results: Process Evaluation Initial Intervention Activities. From March through June 2005, both intervention and evaluation activities proceeded smoothly and mostly as planned. Early Fact-Finding. At the beginning of the project, TPEP staff determined that regulations covering parks are contained in Chapter 19 of the County Code and that the Solano County Board of Supervisors currently has jurisdiction over three parks, as well as open spaces that may be developed as parks in the future. The County Park and Recreation Commission serves as a resource and advisory body to the Board in matters related to parks and recreation needs. The Department of General Services, one of eight County administrative departments, is charged with day-to-day parks management. Park Rangers are responsible for security and law enforcement in the parks, as well as for parks maintenance. Formation of the County Smoke-Free Parks Committee. At the regular meeting of the Tobacco Education Coalition (TEC) in April 2005, TPEP s Senior Health Education Specialist provided updated information about the County parks project and then invited interested members to serve on a new Solano County Smoke-Free Parks Committee. Three TEC members volunteered, including the Manager of the County s Health Promotion and Education Bureau, the Program Assistant for the County s 4-H Youth Development Program, and a Health Educator from Planned Parenthood. The latter two volunteers previously had served on the Vacaville Parks Committee. Later that month, the Senior Health Education Specialist sent an to Coalition members and advocates requesting their assistance on the Parks Committee or with related tasks. As a result, an at large member of the TEC joined the Committee. In April 2005, the Solano County Parks Services Manager also agreed to become a Committee member. He, three TEC representatives, and two TPEP staff attended the Committee s first meeting on May 26, 2005 where the project s objective, intervention plan, and timeline were discussed in detail. Noting that a schedule conflict prevented one TEC member who volunteered to serve on the Committee from attending the meeting, future meeting dates and times were discussed. Anticipating that additional assistance would be needed to implement activities promoting policy adoption, the Committee also decided to conduct ongoing member recruitment. No new members were recruited in June, but that month the at-large TEC member resigned from the Committee because her leadership roles in other organizations required all of her volunteer time. Meetings with Parks Personnel. In April 2005, the Senior Health Education Specialist contacted the County Parks Services Manager to inform him about the project and seek his recommendations about parks personnel who could be interviewed as 13

21 knowledgeable key informants. He referred her to a Park Ranger at Lake Solano Park and a Campground Host at Sandy Beach Park in Rio Vista. An additional ranger provided another unplanned key informant interview when the Health Education Specialist visited Lake Solano Park to develop logistics for the first litter survey. When she met with each of these key informants, the Health Education Specialist introduced the project, explained the reasons for it, and requested his or her support. She then conducted an interview, using a standard interview guide that contained questions identified during project planning, including inquiries about which parks and park areas had the most tobacco litter, recommendations for a County Smoke-Free Parks policy, problems that might be encountered in policy enforcement, and how these problems could be prevented or resolved. All three interviewees reported tobacco litter at campsites. The Campground Host at Sandy Beach also reported tobacco litter on the pier and boat ramps, further observing that Sandy Beach is a very windy park and that cigarette butts blow into the Sacramento River delta: Fish eat them, and then we eat the fish both are poisoned. The two rangers from Lake Solano Park both mentioned cigarette butts in fishing areas, day use picnic areas and pads, and a low water bridge over the highway. All three of these key informants also said that policy enforcement would require posting signs. One interviewee elaborated that lots of signs would be needed, including signs at campsites and playgrounds. Responses about potential problems in enforcing a smoke-free parks policy differed. One key informant did not anticipate any problems, noting that if people don t obey the signs, they would have to leave the parks. Another said that enforcement must be based on a law, not an expectation of voluntary compliance, and that this law must be reasonable and not draconian. He predicted that people would not comply with the policy if campsites were included or if they thought that the policy was too strict. He also commented that a new parks master plan was being developed, noting that it would include new beach areas and that a no-alcohol policy was being considered except in campsites. He thought that smoking should be prohibited on beaches. 14