HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-12-10 Community Health Commission MinutesMINUTES
Community Health Commission
December 10, 2018 at 6:30 PM
City Hall, Community Room
I.Call To Order
II.Roll Call
Present: Andrew Johnson-Cowley, Christy Zilka, Julia Selleys, Amanda Herr,
Greg Wright, Alison Pence, Britta Orr, Om Jahargirdar, Anushka Thorat.
Absent: Dena Soukup
III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Motion by Greg Wright to approve modified meeting agenda, tabling
approval of November meeting minutes until January meeting.. Seconded
by Andrew Johnson-Cowley. Motion Carried.
IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes
V.Community Comment
VI.Reports/Recommendations
A.Smoke Free Multi-Unit Housing Survey
Received report from Bloomington Public Health regarding smoke-free multi-unit
housing survey. Report to be attached to minutes.
VII.Chair And Member Comments
VIII.Staff Comments
Presentation from resident at January meeting regarding wood smoke concerns.
City will be moving forward with preparations to implement rental licensing
program.
IX.Adjournment
City of Edina
Multi-Unit Housing Resident Survey
September 2018
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report was made possible through funding from
the Statewide Health Improvement Partnership, Minnesota Department of Health
and the collaboration of:
City of Edina Health Commission
Bloomington Public Health
Association for Non-smokers Minnesota: Live Smoke Free Program
Minnesota Department of Health Office of Statewide Health Improvement Initiatives
Evaluation and Research Unit
WE WISH TO THANK THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT
Heritage Court/Premier Properties, LLC
Oaks Lincoln/Oaks Properties, LLC
Ponds of Edina/KCS Property Management
Oaks Braemar/Oaks Properties, LLC
The Durham/RMK Management
York Plaza/Stuart Company
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Background ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Scope of the Issue ......................................................................................................................................... 3
City of Edina profile ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 4
Highlights from comparison of smoke-free vs. smoking-allowed properties ............................................... 6
Key findings .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
Survey Results
Resident letter
Resident survey cover letter
Resident survey
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The multi-unit housing resident survey was conducted to learn about smoking in apartments, and
what residents think about secondhand smoke and smoke-free building policies.
In early 2018, Bloomington Public Health (BPH) and the Association for Non-Smokers (ANSR)
Minnesota’s Live Smoke Free program administered a survey to residents in to two types of
multi-unit housing properties in the City of Edina: those with a smoke-free policy (i.e. smoking
of tobacco is not allowed anywhere indoors) and those with a smoking-allowed policy. Questions
included:
o Basic demographics
o Whether residents allowed smoking in their units
o Frequency of secondhand smoke exposure
o Any smoking behavior changes as a result of or following a building-wide smoke-free
policy
o Support for a smoke-free property policy
o Support for citywide ordinance around smoking in multi-unit housing
Residents from smoke-free properties were asked to provide details about rules in place
for tobacco smoking.
When asked about smoking behavior, all residents had the option to indicate when a
question didn’t apply to them because they were nonsmoking or no one in their
household smoked.
Surveys were available in English only.
A total of 893 surveys were distributed and 458 were returned representing a 51% return rate.
Individual return rates were as follows:
Smoke-Free Properties: 50% return rate
Oaks Lincoln 48%
Oaks Braemer 50%
York Plaza 51%
Smoking-allowed properties: 54% return rate
Heritage 58%
The Ponds, 59%
The Durham 52%
3
Key findings include:
Majority of all respondents (97%) don’t allow smoking in their units even with a
smoking-allowed policy present.
Majority of respondents surveyed (94%) support a smoke-free building-wide policy.
Despite 97% of all respondents not allowing the smoking of tobacco products in their
units, (99% in smoke-free vs 93% in smoking-allowed properties), 46% of these
respondents are still exposed to secondhand smoke from all buildings. This includes 39%
in smoke-free vs. 64% in smoking-allowed buildings.
Negative health impact of secondhand smoke exposure were reported by 8% of
respondents.
Majority of respondents (91% in smoke-free properties and 90% in smoking-allowed
properties) indicated they would support a multi-unit housing smoking related citywide
ordinance.
BACKGROUND
The City of Edina has been a leader in reducing resident exposure to secondhand smoke and
protecting youth from tobacco products. In 2017, Edina was the first city in the state to set a high
standard for the sale of cigarettes and tobacco products to young adults under the age of 21 by
passing a Tobacco 21 ordinance. This ordinance increased the tobacco sale age from 18 to 21.
The City of Edina also protects its residents from secondhand smoke by prohibiting smoking in
public parks and recreational spaces.
In February 2018, at the request of the Edina Health Commission, Bloomington Public Health
(BPH) and the Association for Non-Smokers Minnesota (ANSR) Live Smoke Free program
began outreaching to select multi-unit properties (both smoking prohibited and permitted) asking
to survey residents on the topic of smoke-free housing. The goal of the survey was to learn about
smoking in apartments, and what residents think about secondhand smoke and smoke-free
building policies. Bloomington Public Health (BPH) has long supported programs, partnerships
and policies that cultivate healthy, active communities. We collaborate with communities,
schools, worksites and healthcare providers to reduce the risk of chronic disease by targeting
poor nutrition, physical inactivity and tobacco use for those who live and work in the City of
Edina.
SCOPE OF THE ISSUE
Research strongly demonstrates an association between tobacco use and chronic disease risk
factors. Scientific knowledge about the health effects of tobacco use has increased greatly since
4
the first Surgeon General’s report on tobacco was released in 1964.1 Since the publication of that
report, more than 20 million Americans have died because of smoking.2 The harmful effects of
tobacco do not end with the user. The US Surgeon General has concluded that there is no risk-
free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Since 1964, 2.5 million deaths have occurred
among nonsmokers who died from diseases caused or exacerbated by secondhand smoke
exposure. Secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer, and stroke in adults and can
cause a number of health problems in infants, children, and older adults including asthma, Type
II diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and obesity. An estimated 58 million Americans
remain exposed to secondhand smoke each year. The home is the primary source of secondhand
smoke exposure for children, and multi-unit housing residents are particularly vulnerable to
involuntary exposure in their homes.3 Many factors influence tobacco use. Risk factors include
race/ethnicity, age, education, and socioeconomic status. Significant disparities in tobacco use
exist geographically; such disparities typically result from differences among states in smoke-
free protections, tobacco prices, and program funding for tobacco control.3 Tobacco use is the
largest preventable cause of death and disease in the United States. Each year, approximately
480,000 Americans die from tobacco-related illnesses. Further, more than 16 million Americans
suffer from at least one disease caused by smoking.4
CITY OF EDINA PROFILE
The City of Edina is located in the metro region of the state. The city’s population is estimated to
be 49,976 in 2016.5 Of this population it is estimated that 42,489 (85%) are non-Hispanic White,
1,092 (2.2%) are African American, 1,516 (3%) are Hispanic, and 3,521 (7%) are Asian.6
The City of Edina is estimated to contain 21,325 occupied housing units in 2016.7 Less than a
third of those units, 5,915, are occupied by households renting. It is estimated that households
that are White (not Hispanic) own 94.4 percent of the owner-occupied housing units and rent
75.3 percent of the renter-occupied housing units. There are significant racial differences in
household occupancy based on ownership or rental status.
METHODOLOGY
The project team, including the City of Edina Community Health Administrator, staff from
Bloomington Public Health, Association for Non-smokers Minnesota: Live Smoke Free Program
and the Minnesota Department of Health met in December 2017 and January 2018. The project
team determined criteria for who to survey and developed survey questions over two meetings.
1 DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 89-8411
2 DHHS Office on Smoking and Health, January 2014
3 Healthy People 2020
4 DHHS Office on Smoking and Health
5 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S0101
6 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B03002
7 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S2502
5
Bloomington Public Health maintains a list of all multi-unit properties in Edina which includes
information about their smoking policies, number of units and if available, the number of
residents residing in those properties. Although the exact number of smoke-free properties is
unknown, our best data shows 47% of 53 properties contacted report having adopted a smoke-
free policy. A map was created using ArcMap in ArcGIS version 10.5 to visualize the
geographic distribution of multi-unit properties with and without smoking policies in Edina. The
project team then prioritized the 53 multi-unit properties based on their geographic distribution,
smoking policy type and number of residents to ensure the selected properties provided the best
representation of the city and then narrowed the selection to six. The property managers of the
six properties were contacted to ascertain their interest in participating in the survey process. Of
the initial six properties selected, four agreed to allow for the survey to occur and provide
assistance with the survey. The two properties that declined were replaced by two other
properties from the original pool of 53.
Property managers distributed paper copies of the survey with instructions for completion to all
households (one survey per unit). Residents received written instructions to return completed
surveys in a sealed envelope to the on-site manager or management office at which time they
would receive a $10 gift card. Property managers received a $50 gift card for their role in survey
dissemination and collection.8 Decisions regarding timeframe for survey distribution and
collection were left to property managers and what they felt was the best time to achieve the
highest return rate. In most cases, that meant surveys were distributed toward the end of the
month and returned the first of the month when rents were due. The average length of time from
survey distribution to collection was 7-14 days and occurred between April 2018 and July 2018.
Paper survey results were compiled by ANSR and entered into Survey Monkey. All survey data
was analyzed by BPH in Statistical Package for Social Services (SPSS) version 24.
8 Gift cards were purchased from retailer that did not sell tobacco products.
6
HIGHLIGHTS FROM COMPARISON OF SMOKE-FREE VS. SMOKING-ALLOWED PROPERTIES
Demographics of survey respondents by property type
Smoke-free properties N=287 Smoking-allowed properties N=168
It is estimated that the demographic makeup of renter in Edina include 75% non-
Hispanic White, 14% Asian, 4% African American, 4% Hispanic and 4% some other
race9.
The three smoke-free properties surveyed are similar demographically to renters in Edina.
The three smoking-allowed properties surveyed are demographically more diverse than
renters in Edina.
9 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S2502 Note due to rounding, totals are greater
than 100.
1%
11%4%
79%
4%
2%
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian or
Asian
American
Black or
African
American
White
Hispanic or
Latino
Other
1%
34%
8%
53%
4%
1%
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian or
Asian
American
Black or
African
American
White
Hispanic or
Latino
Other
7
Smoking rules set by respondents for their apartment
Smoke-free properties N=289 Smoking-allowed properties N=167
Housing cost was ranked first followed by proximity to work or school second and a
smoke-free policy third as what tenants considered when selecting a place to live by
respondents from both smoking-allowed and smoke- free properties.
o Overall, 71% of all respondents surveyed indicated a smoke-free policy was in
their top three consideration when selecting a place to live.
Top considerations from respondents in smoke-free properties when considering housing
Rank 1 2 3 Percent citing in
their Top 3
Housing Cost 72% 19% 6% 97%
Proximity to work/school 10% 44% 26% 80%
Smoke-Free Policy 13% 35% 28% 75%
Transportation 1% 10% 24% 35%
Good school district 9% 7% 15% 31%
1%
99%
Yes, smoking is allowed in my unit
No, smoking is not allowed in my unit
7%
93%
Yes, smoking is allowed in my unit
No, smoking is not allowed in my unit
8
Top considerations from respondents in smoking-allowed properties when considering housing
Rank 1 2 3 Percent citing in
their Top 3
Housing Cost 75% 16% 5% 96%
Proximity to work/school 12% 35% 32% 79%
Smoke-Free Policy 12% 26% 26% 64%
Good school district 11% 19% 10% 40%
Transportation 1% 15% 24% 40%
9
KEY FINDINGS
Majority of all respondents don’t allow smoking in their unit even with a smoking-
allowed policy present.
Respondents that do not allow smoking of tobacco in their units by property tobacco policy type
Several respondents who didn’t allow smoking in their unit indicated they had
secondhand smoke exposure
Respondents secondhand smoke exposure in their apartment who do not allow smoking of tobacco in their apartment by property
tobacco policy type
Majority of respondents surveyed support a smoke-free property policy
97%
99%
93%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
All respondents Smoke-free properties Smoking-allowed properties
46%
39%
64%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
All respondents Smoke-free properties Smoking-allowed properties
10
Respondents support for smoke-free property by property tobacco policy type
Majority of respondents indicated they would support a multi-unit housing smoking
related citywide ordinance
Respondents support for citywide smoke free ordinance for apartments by property tobacco policy type
93%
95%
91%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
All respondents Smoke-free properties Smoking-allowed properties
90%
90%
91%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
All respondents Smoke-free properties Smoking-allowed properties
11
NEXT STEPS
Upon survey completion and analysis, BPH and ANSR conducted face-to-face meetings with
property managers to share property-specific results, discuss policy changes and offer technical
assistance. For those properties with existing smoke-free policies, technical assistance was
provided to strengthen policy compliance in the form of consultation, policy review,
recommending strategies to increase resident engagement, and provision of tools like signage
and a resident letter which shared survey findings and reinforced policy specifics and
enforcement protocol. For first-time policy adopters, technical assistance provided included
educational resources (e.g., an FAQ document that addressed common questions residents may
have as to why the property is going smoke-free, how the policy will benefit residents, and an
explanation of policy enforcement, etc.); sample implementation tools (e.g., a resident letter
template that shared survey findings, the hazards of secondhand smoke, fire risk, and details
about the new smoke-free policy, a sample lease addendum, etc.); cessation resources for
residents; and ongoing consultation. With the completion of the final report, BPH staff will meet
with City of Edina staff to review the findings and evaluate the options for city policies. Our
findings highlight the importance of smoke-free policies to help protect all residents, especially
youth and those with low income status, from secondhand smoke exposure.
12
APPENDIX
13
SURVEY RESULTS
BPH distributed a total of 893 surveys, and 457 were returned representing a 51% return rate. In
smoke-free multi-unit properties, 580 surveys were distributed and 289 surveys were returned
(50%). In smoking-allowed multi-unit properties, 313 surveys were distributed and 169 surveys
were returned (54%). Five multi-unit properties had an individual return rate of 50% or greater.
Demographics
Race and Ethnicity. N=434
It is estimated that the demographic makeup of renter in Edina include 75% non-
Hispanic White, 14% Asian, 4% African American, 4% Hispanic and 4% some other
race10.
The three smoke-free properties surveyed are similar demographically to renters in Edina.
The three smoking-allowed properties surveyed are demographically more diverse than
renters in Edina.
Race and ethnicity for all respondents
10 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S2502 Note due to rounding, totals are greater
than 100.
1%
19%
5%
70%
4%
1%
American Indian or Alaska
Native
Asian or Asian American
Black or African American
White
Hispanic or Latino
Other
14
Race and ethnicity for respondents by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=287 Smoking-allowed properties N=168
Of respondents to this survey, more respondents of color reside in smoking-allowed
properties compared to smoke-free. This could be due to costs, amenities, and other
factors.
Age. N= 456Age ranges for all respondents
1%
11%4%
79%
4%
2%
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian or
Asian
American
Black or
African
American
White
Hispanic or
Latino
Other
1%
34%
8%
53%
4%
1%
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian or
Asian
American
Black or
African
American
White
Hispanic or
Latino
Other
7%
51%12%
30%
18-25 26-55
56-65 Over 65
15
Age ranges for respondents by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=288 Smoking-allowed properties N=168
Renters over 65 were more represented in responses from smoking-allowed properties. A
larger young adult population (18-25) was observed among respondents of smoking-
allowed properties.
Income. N= 437
The median income for households in Edina is estimated to be $91,84711.
The median of the respondents is within the $55,000 to $79,000 category, lower than the
median income for Edina households.
11 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S1903
8%
44%
14%
34%
18-25
26-55
56-65
Over 65
4%
64%
8%
23%
18-25
26-55
56-65
Over 65
16
Income reported by all respondents
Income reported by respondents by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=276 Smoking-allowed properties N=161
6%
11%
21%
25%
17%
21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
$23,000 or less $23,001-$39,000 $39,001-$55,000
$55,001-$79,000 $79,001-$100,000 More than $100,000
6%
13%
23%23%
15%
21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
$23,000 or less $23,001-$39,000
$39,001-$55,000 $55,001-$79,000
$79,001-$100,000 More than $100,000
6%
8%
17%
27%
21%21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
$23,000 or less $23,001-$39,000
$39,001-$55,000 $55,001-$79,000
$79,001-$100,000 More than $100,000
17
The apartment that you live in
Tenure in apartment by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=287 Smoking-allowed properties N=169
Children under 18 present in all respondents apartment N=458
29%
47%
12%
12%Less than
1 year
1-5 years
6-10 years
More than
10 years
25%
54%
10%
12%
Less than 1
year
1-5 years
6-10 years
More than
10 years
78%
22%
No Yes
18
Children under 18 living in respondent’s apartment by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=289 Smoking-allowed properties N=169
Adults over 65 present in respondents apartment for all respondents n=455
84%
16%
No Yes
69%
31%
No Yes
67%
33%
No Yes
19
Adults over 65 present in respondents apartment by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=288 Smoking-allowed properties N=167
Apartment unit smoking rules and exposure
Respondents smoking rules for their apartment by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=289 Smoking-allowed properties N=167
A small percentage of respondents (7%) indicated they allowed smoking in their units on
smoking-allowed properties.
A small percentage of respondents (1%) indicated they smoked/allowed smoking in their
units on smoke-free properties.
64%
37%
No Yes
72%
28%
No Yes
1%
99%
Yes, smoking is allowed in my unit
No, smoking is not allowed in my unit
7%
93%
Yes, smoking is allowed in my unit
No, smoking is not allowed in my unit
20
Secondhand smoke exposure (SHS) for respondents who don’t allow smoking in unit by property tobacco policy type12
Smoke-free properties N=286 Smoking-allowed properties N=156
In smoke-free properties, 39% of respondents who don’t allow smoking in their units
indicated secondhand smoke exposure. In smoking-allowed units, 56% of respondents
indicated exposure.
Despite not allowing smoking in their units, respondents are still largely exposed to
secondhand smoke potentially due to smoking in shared areas, adjacent units, and/or
outdoor areas that seep into individual units.
12 A few respondents who allow smoking in their individual units also smelled smoke from other
units. These responses have been eliminated from this ‘secondhand smoke’ exposure analysis.
2%
9%11%
17%
61%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Everyday A few times a week
A few times a month A few times a year
Not at all
7%
15%17%17%
44%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Everyday A few times a week
A few times a month A few times a year
Not at all
21
Willing to Use designated smoking areas. N=458
When asked whether they would use a designated smoking area if provided, 81% of all
respondents indicated that the question didn’t apply to them because they did not smoke
Respondents willing to use designated smoking area for all respondents
Respondents willing to use designated smoking area by property tobacco policy type for all respondents
Smoke-free properties N=289 Smoking-allowed properties N=169
From smoke-free properties, 81% were nonsmoking compared to 79% of respondents in
smoking-allowed properties.
81%
7%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
I do not smoke Yes No
81%
7%11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
I do not smoke Yes No
79%
6%
15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
I do not smoke Yes No
22
Secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure for residents who indicated they were non-smokers.
N=369
Half (50%) of the 81% of residents who indicated they were nonsmoking (when asked if
they would be willing to use designated smoking areas) reported secondhand smoke
exposure.
Secondhand smoke exposure (SHS) for all respondents who indicated they were non-smokers.
Secondhand smoke exposure (SHS) for respondents who indicated they were non-smokers by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=235 Smoking-allowed properties N=134
5%
13%14%18%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Everyday A few times a week A few times a month A few times a year Not at all
3%
10%13%17%
57%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Everyday A few times a week
A few times a month A few times a year
Not at all
9%
18%17%19%
37%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Everyday A few times a week
A few times a month A few times a year
Not at all
23
Despite living in a smoke-free building, 43% of nonsmoking respondents indicated
secondhand smoke exposure. In smoking-allowed buildings, 63% of nonsmoking
respondents indicated exposure.
Respondents with secondhand smoke exposure who reported tobacco smoke nuisance to landlord by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=114 Smoking-allowed properties N=96
In smoke-free properties, 68% of respondents who indicated secondhand smoke
exposure did not report it to their landlord. In smoking-allowed properties, 78% of
respondents exposed did not report.
Of the respondents who reported secondhand smoke exposure, those with more frequent
exposure indicated they reported it to their landlord;
o 91% of respondents with at least weekly secondhand smoke exposure in smoke-
free properties reported secondhand smoke exposure to their landlord compared to
69% of respondents in smoking-allowed properties.
Some respondents that didn’t report smelling secondhand smoke in their apartment,
reported secondhand smoke exposure to their landlord; 5% in smoke free properties vs.
3% in smoking-allowed.
Reasons respondents provided for not reporting smoke
Respondents who smelled smoke but didn’t report it in smoke-free properties provided
reasons including;
o Had no idea it was a smoke-free property
o Could not pinpoint exact source of smoke
o Smoke was too infrequent or didn’t bother them enough to report it
Major reasons for not reporting in smoking-allowed properties included;
43%
48%
22%
13%
5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Everyday A few times a week
A few times a month A few times a year
Not at all
54%
15%
26%
17%
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Everyday A few times a week
A few times a month A few times a year
Not at all
24
o Problem was insignificant
o Property allowed smoking, management wouldn’t do anything
o Others have already reported it
o They had countermeasures
In smoke-free properties, 17% percent of all respondents had countermeasures for the
smoke, compared to 28% of all respondents in smoking-allowed buildings.
o This percentage includes respondents who indicated they had no secondhand
smoke exposure.
o Countermeasures included laundry and cleaning supplies, air purifiers, odor
absorbers and door/window seals. Most respondents selected using multiple
countermeasures.
Respondents’ perceptions of the follow-up frequency on smoking violation or nuisance
reported to landlord
In smoke-free properties;
o Twelve out of 37 (32%) respondents who reported smoke (including a few who
didn’t indicate exposure) indicated that landlord responded to smoke complaints
always or most of the time.
o Twenty out of 247 (8%) respondents didn’t report smoke but indicated that
landlord responded always or most of the time to smoke complaints.
In smoking-allowed properties;
o Six out of 23 (26%) respondents who reported smoke (including a few who didn’t
indicate exposure) indicated that landlord responded to smoke complaints always
or most of the time.
o Nineteen out of 142 (13%) respondents didn’t report smoke but indicated that
landlord responded always or most of the time to tobacco complaints.
25
Respondents’ knowledge of smoking policy by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=116 Smoking-allowed properties N=109
Many respondents, 173/289 (60%) in smoke-free properties and 60/169 (36%), in
smoking-allowed properties selected multiple options which have been excluded from the
above charts.
Respondents’ perception of landlord’s policy enforcement.
In smoke-free properties (N=281);
More than half (71%) of respondents indicated they didn’t know how landlord enforced
policy.
Two percent of respondents didn’t think landlord enforced policy.
A few respondents (2%) indicated question didn’t apply because smoking was allowed in
the building.
In smoking-allowed properties (N=154);
More than half (51%) of respondents indicated they didn’t know how landlord enforced
policy.
Three percent of respondents didn’t think landlord enforced policy.
Six percent indicated question didn’t apply because smoking was allowed in the
building.
3%
19%
47%
3%
28%
0%20%40%60%
Smoking is allowed in
individual apartments
but not in shared…
Smoking is allowed in
some outdoors areas
Smoking is not
allowed anywhere
inside the building
Smoking is not
allowed anywhere
outdoors
Don’t know/not sure
20%
8%
29%
1%
41%
0%20%40%60%
Smoking is allowed in
individual apartments
but not in shared…
Smoking is allowed in
some outdoors areas
Smoking is not
allowed anywhere
inside the building
Smoking is not
allowed anywhere
outdoors
Don’t know/not sure
26
Health problems: Percent of respondents reporting a smoke related health problem
Of all respondents who responded (N=421), 36 of them (8%) indicated they believed
they or a family member had a health problem due to secondhand smoke exposure.
o This includes 22/288 (8%) of respondents from smoke-free properties and 14/169
(7%) of respondents from smoking-allowed properties.
Self-reported health problems include:
o allergies
o asthma
o headaches
o breathing problems
o cancer
Smoke-free policy experience and ordinance perception
Smoking behavior change since being in a smoke free property
In smoke-free properties (N=284);
All properties already have a no smoking policy.
Majority of respondents (86%) indicated question didn’t apply as no one living in my
apartment smokes tobacco.
Other respondents responded as shown in graph above N=35.
o Of these respondents, 31% indicated they had quit or tried to cut back due to
smoke-free policy in place at their property.
11%9%11%
69%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Yes, quit smoking
Yes, quit smoking cigarettes and now smoking e-cigarettes
Yes, tried to quit or cut back smoking
No, no changes in current smoking behavior
27
In smoking-allowed properties (N=165):
All properties have a smoking-allowed policy.
Three fourths (75%) of respondents indicated that no one living in my apartment smokes
tobacco.
A few, 12% indicated that question didn’t apply since property didn’t have a smoke-free
policy.
The remaining 13% of respondents indicated behavior changes:
o The majority, 81% indicated no change to their smoking behavior.
o Some indicated they quit smoking, 10% or tried to cut back on smoking, 10%.
Property wide smoking policy N=359
Of all respondents who responded, 93% indicated they would support a property wide
smoke-free policy.
o This includes 95% in smoke-free and 91% in smoking-allowed properties
o Only a few respondents (4%) in smoke-free properties indicated they opposed or
strongly opposed a property-wide policy compared to 8% in smoking-allowed
properties.
Support for a property wide smoke-free policy by property tobacco policy type
Smoke-free properties N=284 Smoking-allowed properties N=165
95%
5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Support or strongly support
Oppose or strongly oppose
91%
8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Support or strongly support
Oppose or strongly oppose
28
Citywide ordinance support N=359
Of all respondents who responded, 90% indicated they would support a city-wide smoke-
free multi-unit housing ordinance.
o This includes 90% in smoke-free and 91% in smoking-allowed properties.
Support for city-wide smoke-free multi-unit housing ordinance by property tobacco policy type for all respondents
Policy support by smoking behavior for all respondents
Note: Graphs show respondent who indicated they support or strongly support
property-wide and citywide policies/ordinance
90%
90%
91%
All respondents
Smoke-free properties
Smoking-allowed properties
50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%100%
All respondents Smoke-free properties Smoking-allowed properties
35%
71%
92%
82%
92%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Willing to use designated smoking area
Supports buildingwide smoke free policy
Supports a citywide smoke ordinance
NonSmoker Smoker
29
Consideration used to make housing choices
Housing cost was ranked first followed by proximity to work or school second and a
smoke-free policy third as what tenants considered when selecting a place to live by
respondents from both smoking-allowed and smoke free properties.
o Overall, 71% of all respondents surveyed indicated a smoke-free policy was in
their top three considerations when selecting a place to live.
Top considerations from respondents in smoke-free properties when considering housing
Rank 1 2 3 Percent citing in
their Top 3
Housing Cost 72% 19% 6% 97%
Proximity to work/school 10% 44% 26% 80%
Smoke-Free Policy 13% 35% 28% 75%
Transportation 1% 10% 24% 35%
Good school district 9% 7% 15% 31%
Top considerations from respondents in smoking-allowed properties when considering housing
Rank 1 2 3 Percent citing in
their Top 3
Housing Cost 75% 16% 5% 96%
Proximity to work/school 12% 35% 32% 79%
Smoke-Free Policy 12% 26% 26% 64%
Good school district 11% 19% 10% 40%
Transportation 1% 15% 24% 40%
30
Sociodemographic Differences for all Respondents
Secondhand smoke exposure (SHS) for respondents who indicated they did not allow smoking in their units N=442
55%
42%
46%
55%
35%
46%
42%
65%
46%
50%
43%
50%
44%
55%
46%
40%
51%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
All Respondents
More than $100,000
$79,001-$100,000
$55,001-$79,000
$39,001-$55,000
$23,001-$39,000
$23,000 or less
Over 65
56-65
26-55
18-25
Hispanic or Latino
White
Black or African American
Asian or Asian American
Has Adults over 65
Has Children Under 18
31
32
33
34
35
36