SLIDE 1
Evaluating the Expansion of Oregon’s Indoor Clean Air Act
Shaun Parkman
Outline
- 1. Define the policy
- 2. Timeline for policy process
- 3. Why we are interested in
evaluating this policy
- 4. How we are evaluating the
policy process
Evaluating the Expansion of Oregons Indoor Clean Air Act Shaun - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Evaluating the Expansion of Oregons Indoor Clean Air Act Shaun - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Evaluating the Expansion of Oregons Indoor Clean Air Act Shaun Parkman Outline 1. Define the policy 2. Timeline for policy process 3. Why we are interested in evaluating this policy 4. How we are evaluating the policy process House Bill
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
House Bill 2546
3
SLIDE 4
Defined “Inhalant delivery systems”
- IDS are devices that can be used
to deliver nicotine, cannabinoids and other substances, in the form
- f a vapor or aerosol
- Includes e-cigarettes, vape pens,
e-hookah and other devices
- These are not considered tobacco
products under the new law
SLIDE 5
5
Prohibits use in indoor public places
SLIDE 6
6
SLIDE 7
Bans the sale, purchase or use of electronic cigarettes for those under the age of 18
SLIDE 8
Child-resistant packaging Labeling Packaging that doesn’t appeals to minors
Rule-writing authority
SLIDE 9
Cannabinoids
Prohibits all inhalants
Nicotine Herbal hookah
SLIDE 10
2014 Legislative session Two e-cigarette bills were introduced, but did not pass 2014 Post session E-cigarette workgroup formed with diverse membership to draft pre-session bill and agree on minimum needs Late 2014 / Early 2015 Secular trends E-cigarette awareness increases, CDC MMWR on youth use, local ICAA expansions, marijuana legalization 2015 Legislative session Bills introduced in both chambers with minor amendments, nothing was removed
HB 2546 timeline
SLIDE 11
Why are we evaluating this policy process?
SLIDE 12
Diverse group of stakeholders involved Success! Novel definition that accounted for marijuana Remained intact; no exemptions for vape shops
SLIDE 13
Policy evaluation overview
The systematic collection and analysis of information to make judgments about contexts, activities, characteristics, or outcomes of the policy process
“ ”
SLIDE 14
Goals for policy evaluation
1 2
Document strengths and areas for improvement in internal process and cross- sector collaboration Describe the policy process and lessons learned for other jurisdictions interested in tobacco prevention
SLIDE 15
SLIDE 16
Although policy evaluation and program evaluation have many similarities, there are some important differences as well...
SLIDE 17
Attribution
SLIDE 18
Evaluation advisory group members
6
Members
4 State public health 1 Lobbyist 1 Local public health
SLIDE 19
Complexity
SLIDE 20
SLIDE 21
SLIDE 22
SLIDE 23
Local State Lobby
SLIDE 24
External forces
SLIDE 25
Shifting strategies and milestones
SLIDE 26
SLIDE 27
SLIDE 28
Lesson learned!
Don’t forget the potential importance
- f secular trends or external forces
when evaluating a policy process
SLIDE 29
Evaluation questions
1
To what extent and effect did state government, local government, and lobbyists collaborate in the policy process?
2
What role did local, state, and national tobacco control infrastructure play in the policy process?
3
What role did secular trends (events
- ut of our control) play in the process?
How (if at all) was the system set up to respond to these events?
SLIDE 30
Key informant interviews
SLIDE 31
Key informant interviews
15
Stakeholders
6 Lobbyist 2 Local public health 1 State public health 6 Legislature
SLIDE 32
Timeframe
SLIDE 33
Timeframe
Policy evaluation
SLIDE 34
Prospective versus retrospective
SLIDE 35
Lesson learned!
Can’t assume only one policy a session on which to focus Limited resources (people and money) to evaluate all policies Stakeholders do not have time during legislative session to participate Requires upfront agreement on policy evaluation focus (role of government in policy process?)
SLIDE 36
What’s next?
SLIDE 37
July Conduct key informant interviews August Qualitative analysis of key informant interviews September Evaluation advisory group meeting to review results October / November Evaluation report and presentation
HB 2546 evaluation timeline
SLIDE 38
July Conduct key informant interviews August Qualitative analysis of key informant interviews September Evaluation advisory group meeting to review results October / November Evaluation report and presentation
HB 2546 evaluation timeline
SLIDE 39
SLIDE 40
Contact information
Shaun Parkman shaun.w.parkman@state.or.us
SLIDE 41
Extra slides
SLIDE 42
Theory of change versus logic model
SLIDE 43
Lesson learned!
Don’t start with the theory of change model; allow your advisory group to co-develop the policy narrative
SLIDE 44
SLIDE 45
SLIDE 46
SLIDE 47
SLIDE 48
SLIDE 49
1.8% 5.2% 17.1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 2011 2013 2015
Past 30 day use of electronic cigarettes
49
Past 30 day use of electronic cigarettes among 11th graders in Oregon, 2011-2015
E-cigarette use has tripled since 2013
SLIDE 50
17% 9% 8% 8% 6% 2% 3% 1%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%
Electronic cigarettes Cigarettes Hookah Little cigar Chewing tobacco Pipes Large cigar Dissolvables Past 30 day use50
Past 30 day use of tobacco products among 11th graders in Oregon in 2015
E-cigarette use is higher than any other tobacco product
SLIDE 51
Window of opportunity
SLIDE 52
Change happens when a window of
- pportunity opens
- Informed decision makers
- Stakeholder involvement
- Local public health involvement
- Partners (traditional and non-traditional)
- Social change/secular trends