Guidelines for Review and Analysis of
Texas Municipal Second Hand Smoke (SHS) Ordinances
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.
|
Criteria for Requesting Ordinance Documents
|
|
|
All incorporated Texas municipalities with populations of greater than 5000
residents
|
|
|
|
All municipalities in the East Texas Pilot Study of 2000 – 2002 (Texas Public
Health Regions 4, 5, and 6) sponsored by the Texas Tobacco Prevention
Initiative of Texas Department of State Health Services
|
|
|
|
Texas municipalities of less than 5000 residents that have known
SHS ordinances
|
|
|
|
Representation of each county by at least one municipality. When no
municipality with more than 5000 residents is identified as having an SHS
ordinance in a county, the county seat is contacted and included in the
study. This insures that almost all counties in Texas are represented,
although a few Texas counties do not have any incorporated cities and
thus may not be included in the database.
|
|
|
II.
|
Analysis Procedures
|
|
|
|
Based on results of review of the research literature,1- 4 the
difficulties of coding complex and often ambiguous language in tobacco-control
laws, and months of trial, error, discussion, and resolution, the project team
adopted a two-reviewer system for each ordinance. Results are
entered into a database, and selected variables from the database are used to
generate the website reports. The balance of the
variables are to be used for secondary analyses. Only those variables
included in the website reports are described in this methods section.
|
|
|
The guidelines presented in this document were developed for
purpose of research and evaluation of tobacco control and are not intended to
be a legal opinion.
|
|
|
III.
|
Review and Analysis: Definitions/explanations of terms and scoring criteria
|
|
|
|
Five aspects of municipal ordinances used in
one or more reports are defined and/or scoring criteria are described
below: A) ordinance background, B) focal settings where smoking is
restricted; C) protection level for focal settings; D) setting details; and E)
provisions for enforcement and penalties. Each will be briefly described
below.
|
|
|
A. |
Ordinance Background. Documentation of the date of
passage of the ordinance and/or amendments to the ordinance, the date on which
the ordinance requirements become effective, and the date of review of the
ordinance are important variables for tracking changes in the proportion of the
state population protected from exposure to SHS smoke.
-
Passage date refers to the day, month, and year of the most recent
ordinance revision. It encompasses the complete ordinance, including
latest modifications plus any components of the ordinance carried over from an
earlier date. This date is shown on reports for individual municipalities.
-
History indicates if the given ordinance is current or repealed. Repeal
date is automatically set in the database to the date of passage of a
subsequent ordinance that supersedes, amends, or replaces the prior one.
Reports on the website present results only for current ordinances.
|
|
|
B. |
Focal settings with SHS protections. Ordinances vary in their
definitions of public places, as do methods of implementing protection against
SHS in these locations. Because of these variations, comparing across
settings and communities can be difficult. To assist in examination, the
following categorizations of focal settings are used for review and analysis on
this website:
-
Municipal worksites
-
Private sector worksites
-
Restaurants
-
Bars – in restaurants
-
Bars – not in restaurants
The term bars refers to an ordinance designation of bars, lounges,
taverns, cabarets, nightclubs, private clubs, cocktail lounges or other
establishments with alcohol for on-premise consumption. If the ordinance makes
no distinction between restaurant bars and/or non-restaurant facilities, it is
assumed that any noted restrictions or exemptions apply equally to both. When
bar type is differentiated, either by reference to both bars in restaurants and
in other places or reference to only one type of bar, restaurant bars are
scored separately from bars not in restaurants.
Commercial and home-based child-care are not included as focal settings in
reports on the website because Texas Regulations, effective September 2003,
prohibit smoking in child-care homes and child-care centers. However, a summary
of results of municipality coverage of child-care settings may be provided upon
request.
Because ordinances vary in definitions of “public places,” when an ordinance
states a uniform standard (e.g., smoke-free) for all public settings,
restaurants and bars are so classified, barring other restrictions or
exemptions in the ordinance. However, when the definition of public
places specifically indicates other settings but contains no references to
restaurants or bars, they will not be scored as covered.
|
|
|
C. |
Ratings of protection levels for focal settings. For
each setting, a rating and a descriptor are assigned to indicate the extent to
which the ordinance helps to protect from SHS exposure
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rating |
Descriptor |
Criteria |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
5 |
100% Smoke Free |
No smoking allowed in a particular setting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
Moderate |
Designated smoking areas are allowed if separately ventilated. The owner or
manager may choose to be smoke free or designate separately or independently
ventilated smoking areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
Mixed |
Either no smoking is allowed OR designated smoking
areas are allowed if separately or independently ventilated, but coverage is
partial due to exceptions, ambiguities, or legal issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
Limited |
Designated smoking areas allowed or required. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
No Coverage |
No restrictions on smoking in the stated setting, even if an SHS ordinance
exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. |
Setting Detail.Additional provisions are described that influence SHS
protection in the focal settings.
|
|
|
1) Worksites.
-
Exemption for a minimum number of employees – The minimum number of
employees at a worksite necessary for the ordinance to be in effect. The number
of employees specified, if any, is recorded.
-
Non-retaliation provision – An employee is protected from retaliation
for enforcing or attempting to enforce the ordinance.
-
Nonsmoker's rights – The non-smoking employee has the ultimate authority
regarding smoking in a designated area, whether or not signs or other
indications exist that smoking is generally allowed.
-
Written policy – The worksite is required to have written policies
regarding smoking in the workplace.
-
Signage – Signs are required to be displayed designating smoking or
nonsmoking areas and/or providing other items described within the ordinance.
|
|
|
2) Restaurants.
-
Exemption for minimum seating – The minimum number of seats for the
ordinance's terms to apply to the restaurant. The number or percentage of
seats specified, if any, is recorded
-
Signage – See worksites (above).
|
|
|
3) Bars
-
Definition by percent of sales of alcohol is a frequently used criterion
for defining and/or exempting bars from smoking restrictions in a municipal
ordinance. The summary and individual municipality reports identify
by "yes/no" statements whether bars are defined based on percent of gross
annual sales of alcoholic beverages. While some ordinances use percent of
sale of alcohol as a criteria to define and/or exempt bars from smoking
restrictions, other ordinances may completely exempt bars from smoking
restrictions or may address them directly or indirectly in their definition of
public places, but not include provisions in the text for their exemption or
coverage. This information is available for individual municipalities
upon request.
-
Age restrictions for ordinances that cover bars are scored "yes," if
applicable. If bars are specifically stated, but no distinction made
between bars located in restaurants and/or those not in restaurants, it is
assumed that restrictions and/or exemptions apply equally to both.
|
|
|
4) Radius from outside doors. The
ordinance explicitly exempts and/or restricts smoking outside the doors
of a restricted facility. The distance in feet, if specified, also
is recorded.
|
|
|
E. |
Enforcement and Penalties. The presence of an
enforcement authority or penalty is scored "yes" if the ordinance specifies the
following:
|
|
|
|
-
Enforcement authority – A specific agency, department, office, or
individual designated to enforce the ordinance. Type of enforcing entity
(e.g., law officer) also is recorded. If violation of the ordinance is
described as a misdemeanor, it is assumed that a law officer is an enforcing
entity, whether or not the ordinance specifically names police or other law
officers as enforcers.
-
Penalty – A fine or other penalty to the business and/or to the smoker
for violation of the ordinance. The amount of fine, if any, for first
violation is recorded. Additionally, it is recorded if there is an
increase in penalty for subsequent violations. When an increase in
penalty exists, the amount of subsequent penalties is recorded. Type of
other penalty (e.g., criminal charge) also is recorded.
|
|
|
IV.
|
Website Reports Generated
|
|
Analyses of the ordinances are combined with demographic information about the
municipalities obtained from the Office of the State Demographer and the Texas
Department of State Health Services to generate reports at two levels: A)
Individual Municipalities and B) Summaries Across Multiple
Municipalities. Only current SHS ordinances with at least one of the five
focal settings specifically stated are included in summary reports that span
multiple municipalities.
All population data is derived from the 2005 Estimated Census. Minority
percentage data is derived from data from the U.S. 2000 Census.
|
|
|
Reports For Individual Municipalities
-
Summary profile – If a municipality’s current ordinance specifically
states at least one of the five focal settings, a profile is provided covering
ordinance background, protection level by setting, setting details, and
enforcement and penalties. A brief narrative summary of the ordinance is
included at the end of this report, including the direction of changes made
from earlier ordinances.
-
Current ordinance text – The document obtained from the given municipal
ordinance that has smoking or tobacco restrictions is scanned into the
database. It can be viewed in its entirety at this location. These
documents constitute the “raw” data for review and analysis. When an ordinance
has been amended, the new section is combined with existing unmodified
sections. The new composite ordinance then is available for review.
-
If a municipality has supplied a document for review and analysis, but that
document does not meet criteria for a full summary profile, a very brief
summary statement is provided on the website to indicate the category by which
that ordinance is classified. Classifications include:
-
Ordinance reference to tobacco in a secondhand smoke (SHS) context in "other"
areas only (e.g., bingo parlors, museums, retail stores, shopping malls); OR
-
Ordinance reference to tobacco in a context other than SHS (e.g., youth access,
fire safety); OR
-
No known SHS ordinance, but reference to smoking in a city policy, minutes of a
city council meeting, or other municipal documents.
Details can then be found using the report option to select the text of the
ordinance for the individual municipality.
|
|
|
|
Summary Reports Across Multiple Municipalities
|
|
|
|
-
Summary Profile – Ordinances with at least one of the five focal
settings specifically stated are used in summary reports. The summary
reports provide aggregate information in the same categories included in
individual municipality reports. Percent of municipalities with various
ordinance features is based on the number of municipalities in the selected
scope (State, one or more Public Health Regions or Counties). The total
number of municipalities in each report is included in each report title
-
Most Protected Municipalities –Texas municipalities with two or more
protection level ratings of Smokefree (5) or Moderate (4) are
listed. Ratings across the five focal settings are presented in the
report, as well as key demographic characteristics of the municipalities.
-
Municipalities Sortable by Protection Level and Other Descriptors –
Reports may be customized to emphasize municipalities by Protection Level in
any of the five focal settings, population size, percentage minority
population, public health region, county, and/or passage date. The order
in which the municipalities are listed can be sorted as ascending or descending
on each of the columns of interest. .
-
Ordinance Narrative Summaries. Descriptive information of
individual ordinances may be viewed by the report scope of choice:
Statewide, Public Health Region, or County. Because municipalities may
span multiple counties, County is selected and reported for the predominant
county (based on population) of a municipality.
In the summary reports, the denominators for
reported percentages are based on the total of known ordinances with SHS
provisions within the scope selected (e.g., State, one or more Public Health
Regions or Counties). The number of ordinances in each report is cited at
the top of that report
The groupings in the summary reports pertaining to restaurants, radius,
worksites, enforcement and penalties are independently scored; no grouping
totals should be inferred
|
|
|
|
References
|
|
|
-
Fishman J, Harmony A, Knowles S, Fishburn B, Woolery T, Marx W, Shelton D,
Husten C, Ericksen M (1999) State Laws on Tobacco Control – United
States, 1998, MMWR 25, 1999/ 48(SS03);21-62.
-
National Cancer Institute (2000) State and local legislative action to reduce
tobacco use, Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 11, NIH Pub. No.
00-4804.
-
Smoke free ordinances (1998-2002) American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation.
http://www.no-smoke.org
-
Chriqui J, Frosh M, Brownson R, Shelton D, Sciandra R, Hobart R, Fisher P, el
Arculli R, Alciata M (2002). Application of a rating system to State
clean indoor air laws (USA), Tobacco Control, 11:26-34.
These guidelines were developed by University of Houston, Health Network for
Evaluation and Training Systems (HNETS) under a contract from the Texas
Department of State Health Services for fiscal years 2000-2008, Phyllis M.
Gingiss, Dr.P.H., Department of Health and Human Performance,
was Principal Investigator. Subsequent
modifications beginning in fiscal year 2009 are developed by University of
Texas Medical Branch, Laura Hermer JD, LLM as Princilal Investigator.
For more information,
ldhermer@utmb.edu
|