Examining Workplace Policies and Practices: Opportunities for Intervention Kristin Olsen Minot, M.S., Philadelphia Health Management Corp. Howard “Chip”

Examining Workplace Policies and Practices: Opportunities for Intervention

Kristin Olsen Minot, M.S., Philadelphia Health Management Corp.

Howard “Chip” Baker, LSW,CAC,CEAP and Jim Wall, MS;Bucks County Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence

This project is supported by the Pennsylvania Department of Health

Background

Tobacco Free Worksite/ Workforce Initiative

Component of Bucks County Tobacco Control Project located in Southeastern Region of Pennsylvania

Part of statewide comprehensive tobacco use prevention and cessation program consistent with CDC Best Practices

Funds from PA Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement

Goal of Worksite Initiative

Increase the number of tobacco free worksites and workforces in Bucks County

Purpose of the Survey

The Survey was Designed to:– Assess the current state of worksite smoking policies

and practices as a baseline measure for initiative;– Introduce the Tobacco-Free Worksite Initiative to

business and industry in the county; and– Provide employers with an easy way to contact the

program for information and assistance

–

Survey Methodology

Survey was conducted by Philadelphia Health Management Corporation (PHMC) which is the local evaluator for the Bucks County Tobacco Control Project (BCTCP)

Mail survey of a random sample (n =2000) of Bucks County businesses in June 2003.

Response rate 20% (n=394)

Survey topics and questions based on a review of the literature.

Many questions taken or modified, with permission, from previously tested and administered worksite smoking surveys

Methodology

The sample was stratified into five strata based on workforce size: a random sample was selected from each stratum. Worksites with 20 or more employees were oversampled to assure an adequate sample for analysis.

Worksites with fewer than five employees were excluded as were restaurants and bars

Initial surveys were followed by a follow-up postcard three weeks later.

Cover letter and survey mailed to a random sample of 500 businesses that had not yet returned a completed survey.

.

Description of the Sample

Workforce Size

5-1977.2%

20-9918.3%

100-4993.8%

500+0.7%

Industry Type

Service44.3%

Sales32.3%

Prod-uction21.5%

Not Known1.9%

Do Employers have Policies about Smoking?

The majority of businesses in Bucks County have an official smoking policy

About one out of ten businesses has no policy regarding smokingLarge and mid-sized businesses are more likely to have an official policy compared to small businesses (< 20 employees)

Two out of three businesses are smoke-free

Type of Smoking Policy by Workforce Size

11.7 13.66.1 2.9

33.237

24.2

55.1 49.5

69.7

91.2

5.90%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All Businesses Small (5-19) Mid-Sized (20-99)

Large (100+)

Official PolicyUnofficial PolicyNo Policy

Smokefree Workplaces by Industry Type

67.3

43.9

71.376.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Total Production Sales Service

Per

cent

A smokefree workplace is one in which smoking is prohibited in all indoor areas (public, work, or non-work) or in company vehicles.

Why do Employers Restrict Smoking?

Most Common ReasonsHealth Concerns

Cleanliness

Fire or Safety Reasons

Employee Preference

Least Common ReasonsReduce Risk of Legal Action

Reduce health insurance and other insurance costs

Regulatory or licensing reasons

Collective Bargaining Unit

Reasons that Employers Restrict Smoking

Reasons Number Percent

Health Concerns 264 75.6%

Cleanliness 258 73.8%

Fire or Safety Reasons 188 53.9%

Employee Preference 173 50.5%

Owner sets policy 70 19.9%

Increase work productivity 67 19.1%

Customer demand 50 14.2%

Reduce risk of legal action 37 10.6%

Reduce health insurance or other insurance costs 31 8.9%

Regulatory of licensing reasons 23 6.6%

Collective bargaining unit 6 1.8%

Other reasons 35 10.0%

Smoking is not restricted at all 2 0.6%

Respondents were asked to check ALL reasons; percentages, therefore, total to more than 100%.

Reasons that Employers Restrict Smokingby Workforce Size

76 76

52

7 6

66

73

62

14

7

67

76

61

14 14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cleanliness Health Concerns Fire/Safety Insurance/HealthCosts

Licensing/Regulatory

Perc

ent

Small (5-19)

Mid-Sized (20-99)

Large (100+)

Respondents were asked to check ALL reasons; percentages, therefore, total to more than 100%.

Do Employers Help Their Employees to Quit Smoking?

The majority of employers have not taken steps to encourage their employees to quit smoking: Fewer than one out of seven employers (13.1%) provide health insurance which includes coverage for smoking cessation

Only 7.0% of employers have distributed smoking cessation materials

Fewer than 5% of employers have sponsored a smoking cessation program within the company or

Allowed their employees to attend a program during working hours

Employers’ Efforts to Encourage EmployeeSmoking Cessation by Workforce Size

10

5.33.2

20.6

9.65.9

36.8

23.5

11.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Insurance w/Cessation

Distribute Materials In-CompanyPrograms

Per

cent Small (5-19)

Mid-Sized (20-99)Large (100+)

Respondents were asked to check ALL efforts to encourage their employees to stop smoking; percentages, therefore, total to more than 100%.

Recommendations

Work with businesses to further restrict indoor smoking, limit outdoor smoking and smoking in company vehicles.

Educate employers about productivity,health and legal consequences of allowing smoking in the workplace.

Help employers in providing their employees with information about the dangers of tobacco use and resources to stop smoking.

Tailor all worksite-related activities to meet the expressed needs of business.

Next Steps

Initiative developed worksite partners from survey respondents, Chambers of Commerce, Professional OrganizationsEstablished 3-Tier system to recognize and award companies for advancing tobacco free worksites and workforces Used partners’ own circle of influence to expand program reachProvided training and motivational presentations to employers re internal and external factors related to creating and maintaining tobacco free worksites/workforcesPlan to expand tobacco free living options coaching through small group presentations onsite at area workplaces

Lessons Learned

Don’t try to tell employers what to do

Employers participate when they see that their interests are being achieved

Company leadership needs information and direction on ways to restrict/prohibit smoking

Employees who are contemplating or planning to quit need coaching on options for quitting

A successful tobacco free worksite initiative takes planning, effort and TIME

For Additional Information

For additional information about the Bucks County Worksite Tobacco Survey or the Tobacco Free

Worksite Initiative, contact :

Kristin Minot, M.S.

Philadelphia Health Management Corporation

215-985-2519 or [email protected]

Notes on Methodology

Many questions on the survey were taken or modified, with permission from previous surveys developed and administered by The Clearwater Research Group, The University of Wisconsin and the University of ArizonaThe sample was stratified into five strata based on workforce size: businesses with: 1) 5-19 employees; 2) 20-99 employees; 3) 100-499 employees; 4) 500+ employees; and 5) unknown.A weight was applied to the data to adjust for the oversampling of larger businesses.

The three categories of business/industry type (production, service, sales) were based on Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes.

Notes

Restaurants and bars were surveyed separately through a special tobacco smoke pollution initiative of the Bucks County Tobacco Control project.

Worksites with fewer than five employees were not included in the sample, as most of the questions regarding policy issues were inappropriate for these businesses

The initial survey was mailed in June 2003, a follow-up postcard was sent three weeks later. Three weeks following this, the cover letter and survey were mailed a second time to a random sample of 500 businesses that had not yet returned a completed survey.