Notes to March 14, 2002 Worksite Survey Teleconference

Technical Assistance Teleconference on Two Statewide Surveys conducted by the Wisconsin Tobacco Control Board Monitoring and Evaluation Program

What do the results mean for local action?Smoking Policies in Government-Owned/Leased Buildings Smoking Policies in Wisconsin Worksites

Thursday, March 14, 2002
11:00 am - 12:30 pm

The purpose of this teleconference was to clarify for members and facilitators of local tobacco-free coalitions the results of two statewide surveys conducted by the Wisconsin Tobacco Control Board's Monitoring and Evaluation Program. The call also provided ways to interpret and use the data to inform local tobacco control activities.

Facilitators Barbara Hill, Coordinator for Statewide Evaluation and Mary Michaud, State Coordinator, Local Program Evaluation
Agenda

1. Why conduct surveys at the local level and at the state level?

2. Statewide survey of municipal and county buildings

3. Key findings from the statewide worksite survey

4. What does this information mean at the local level?

Visit the Tobacco Wisconsin web site to view the MEP Statewide Survey Of Government Owned/Leased Buildings Survey (PDF file will open in a new browser window) (conducted October 2001)

1. Provide baseline data based on the WTCB goal of 100% of Municipal buildings being smoke-free by 2005

2. Better understand the range of smoking policies statewide

3. Compare to results of previous surveys of smoking policies in public buildings.

About the sample. Clerks from all cities, counties, and towns, and a sample of villages were surveyed by mail; some follow up by telephone. Sample included 316 villages (out of a population of 1,265).

Results. Please visit the Tobacco Wisconsin web site and view the program brief (PDF file will open in a new browser window) for more detailed survey results.How many government buildings in Wisconsin prohibit all smoking?

• Smoking is prohibited in 52% of government-owned or leased buildings. Of those, 67% of county buildings, 70% of city buildings, and 47% of towns prohibit smoking anywhere in the buildings. 34% of respondents said they prohibit smoking in vehicles.

How many enforce their smoking policies?

• 78% said their smoking policy is strictly enforced

Question: I noticed that a few villages with smoke-free policies aren't included on the report for our county. Where should we send updates?
Answer: Center for Health Policy and Program Evaluation staff will update the database with new information. If you learn of policy changes or have new information about smoke-free policies in government-owned buildings, contact Barbara Hill (bhill@uwccc.wisc.edu or (608) 263-7629).

Question: Is the list of results by town and county be available online?
Answer: It will be on the tobwis and MEP web sites soon.

Question: When will the survey be repeated?
Answer: Municipal survey will be done again in 2003 and 2005

Question: Some counties conducted municipal surveys before the statewide survey was completed. Why would local surveys produce different results than the statewide survey of municipal/county buildings?
Answer: There may be several reasons that your survey reults differed from the results we obtained. First, the questionnaire may be different. Even slight differences in the questionnaire can make a big difference in results. Second, responses to the statewide survey were dichotomized (i.e. separated into, do they ban all smoking or not), which can alter the results (as opposed to reporting using all the discrete response categories). Finally, the results depend on who responded to the survey. Respondents in the statewide survey included municipal, county, town or village clerks only. And sometimes things just don't turn out the same without a good reason. There are simply random, unexplainable differences.

Question: Where can we get a copy of Wisconsin's Clean Indoor Air law?
Answer: Contact Holly Mumford at DPH, or visit the following web sites for more information:

• http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/comm/comm004_app.pdf (PDF file will open in a new browser window)
  
• http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pubs/wb/01wb8.pdf (PDF file will open in a new browser window)

Visit the Tobacco Wisconsin web site to view the Statewide Survey of Worksite Smoking Policies (PDF file will open in a new browser window)

September-November 2001, Purpose of the survey: Provide baseline data for the WTCB goal of 90% of worksites going smoke-free by 2005
Sample: Total of 1,209 worksites surveyed. Original worksite sampling frame: more than 40,000 worksites statewide.
Respondents: Human Resource Managers or owners
Sampling technique: Stratified-random sample. Worksite size was divided into four groups: 5-19, 20-99, 100-499, and over 500.

Question: Why did you exclude worksites with fewer than five employees?
Answer: Most worksites with fewer than five employees are sole proprietorships or have not implemented smoking policies. Because the original list of worksites was so large, it was a way to narrow the list so that we could fairly sample worksites of other sizes. Although the MEP did not use worksites smaller than 5, some counties have surveyed smaller worksites in their own worksite surveys because a large proportion of their worksites have five or fewer employees, and they are very interested in working with that population of employers.

Results. 74% of all worksites said that they ban all smoking. 21% said that they had some restrictions on smoking. 5% allowed smoking anywhere. After dividing industries into 10 categories, we found that 15% of "white-collar" industries allow at least some smoking, while 40% of "blue-collar" workplaces allow at least some smoking. Of those worksites with a smoking policy, 41% of worksites had a written policy, and 38% had an unwritten policy. 64% of worksites use company vehicles, and 51% of those ban smoking in vehicles.

• Who is responsible for smoking policies? For all industries except finance, industries look towards an on-site manager or owner for smoking policy. In worksites classified as providing financial services, corporate headquarters were looked upon for smoking policy in finance.

• Preliminary analysis between regions indicates that Western region worksites were more likely to ban smoking throughout the building, while Northern region worksites were least likely to ban smoking throughout the building. Western region Worksites were least likely to rely on the business manager/owner for policies, whereas Northern region worksites were most likely to rely on the business manager/owner to establish smoking policies.

• Over 90% of worksites said that employees complied with their smoking policies

Tips for working at the local level: Promoting Smoke-free Policies in Municipal Buildings

• The statewide data indicate that across Wisconsin, there is a lot of room for improvement in smoke-free policies among government-owned and -leased buildings.

• If a municipality already has a smoking policy, it may be worthwhile to work with them to implement a smoking policy for vehicles.

• Municipalities sometimes have preconceived ideas about smoking policies that aren't necessarily true (such as thinking that they are required to have an area for smokers). Use the Clean indoor act as a reference for working with municipalities on going smoke-free.

• Use the statewide analysis to guide the ways you start to look at your own data.

• Use local results in media releases to garner public support. Make sure that the campaign for smoke-free policies in municipal buildings doesn't move too fast.

Tips for working at the local level: Promoting smoke-free policies in worksites

• Can see that blue-collar worksites would be a good place to start since they will be less likely to have a no-smoking policy

• The statewide data tell us that health concerns lead the list of reasons worksite managers say they have a smoking policy. Cleanliness is second, and safety is third. Knowing this, strategies to work with local worksites should focus on the health message first, as it seems to be the most compelling reason for smoke-free worksite policies.

• Even if a worksite does have a policy, the quality of the policy may not be great. If you find from your local results that many worksites have only unwritten policies, chances are that they are not enforced and do not help much to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke. Remember that documenting change from an unwritten or informal policy to a formal, written policy (particularly if there is some evidence of delineation of clear consequences for breaking the policy) should be a reportable outcome under your DPH contracts.

• It may be useful to contact the business manager or owner for worksite surveys or for talking about a worksite going smoke-free, since they are often looked to as the person who makes decisions concerning smoking policies. In most situations, however, use your judgement and knowledge of the worksite to determine who is most appropriate to contact.

Question: What is the difference between mail and telephone surveys?
Answer: The tradeoff between resources required and response rate is something to consider. It seems as though mail surveys use far fewer resources than telephone surveys. The tradeoff is that mail surveys also usually generate a considerably lower response rate than telephone surveys. Depending on the topic and the length of the survey, a mail survey may generate 40-50% fewer responses than a telephone survey. The hidden cost to reach a 60% response rate with a mail survey can be large as you send additional mailings or telephone those who did not respond. If you report results based on a low response rate, the credibility of your data becomes seriously questionable. The quality of data is also affected by the mode of survey administration you choose. Phone surveys will also generate fewer answers that don't fit your response options, less responses written in the margins, and, if you train your interviewers, all the questions will be asked in the same manner. Telephone surveys generate fewer missing data. With a telephone survey, you cut down on response bias. That is, there is less chance to have a select group of people mail back responses (e.g., only people who feel strongly one way about the issue mail back the survey). You can generally expect a better and more representative mix of responses from a telephone survey.

Question: What factors should be considered to determine when to repeat the survey(s) to obtain meaningful data?
Answer: The primary considerations for timing your follow up are 1) a realistic assessment of your action plan and the likely results on worksite policies over time (i.e. when can you expect your activities realistically to show a change?), 2) how big a task it is/was for you to conduct the survey (i.e. what kinds of resources are available to you now, and what do you project for later on?), and 3) what you have contracted to deliver to DPH for this objective.

Base your follow-up on a realistic projection of how long it will take you to see much change as a result of your action plan. Any sooner than one year is probably too soon, although you can keep more "informal" tabs on the changes that are taking place in worksites and report on what you find at the end of 2002, if that is part of your DPH contract deliverable. If you think that your efforts will result in change over the course of 2 years, then wait two years to do the follow up survey.

It will also depend on how many worksites you are targeting in your county. If the survey is/was a major undertaking for you and you surveyed all worksites, you may want to survey a random sample of worksites in the interim year and go back to do the total group after two years.