Our Homes, Our Health: Strategies, Insight, and Resources to Support Smoke-Free Multiunit Housing.

Tobacco use remains the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Almost 500,000 people die every year in the United States because of tobacco use; approximately one in eight of those deaths are attributable to secondhand smoke exposure. Significant disparities exist in terms of which groups bear the greatest burden of tobacco-related illness and mortality. Reducing tobacco use and exposure in groups most affected and most at risk is a national public health priority. Tobacco control advocates can promote health equity by prioritizing policies that are likely to decrease tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure and improve access to tobacco cessation resources among populations most at risk for tobacco-related disparities, including people who live in subsidized multiunit housing. In this article, we share the context, process, key milestones, and lessons learned as stakeholders in El Paso, Texas explored and implemented smoke-free policy in subsidized public housing. Partners including the local housing authority, a nonprofit health foundation, the local public health department, and a local university facilitated a thoughtful and community-engaged process that acknowledged the right of residents to breathe clean air in their own homes, potential challenges residents who choose to smoke may face in adapting to smoke-free policy, and the need for support for those who choose to quit. We conclude with five key lessons learned and share resources for other communities, health professionals, and coalitions advocating for and supporting smoke-free housing policy in their communities.

Quantifying the Restrictiveness of Local Housing Authority Policies Toward People With Criminal Justice Histories: United States, 2009-2018.

Objectives. To quantify variation in the restrictiveness of local public housing authority policies related to the admission and eviction of people with criminal justice histories.Methods. We conducted content analysis of housing authority policy documents for US cities with a population of 100 000 or more (n = 152). Factor analysis identified policy provisions to create a restrictiveness score (range = 0-8). We explored associations between restrictiveness scores and city-level measures of racial/ethnic diversity, racial/ethnic neighborhood segregation, ideology, and public housing scarcity.Results. Eight policy provisions, 6 relating to consideration of mitigating circumstances, explained 71.0% of the variance in housing authority policy provisions related to criminal justice histories. We observed small but significant positive associations between restrictiveness scores and racial/ethnic diversity (r = 0.22) and neighborhood segregation (r = 0.18). There was no correlation between restrictiveness scores of housing authorities within the same state (intraclass correlation = 0.0002).Conclusions. Housing authority policies vary substantially regarding the circumstances under which people with criminal justice histories can obtain and retain public housing. Exposure to constellations of policy provisions that might institutionalize health inequities and increase health risk among people with criminal justice histories can be quantified through a systematic process.

Homeless and Helpless: How the United States has Failed Those With Severe and Persistent Mental Illness.

The United States has failed its citizens who suffer from severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI). Homelessness is one of the most obvious manifestations of this failure. The combination of a lack of effective treatment, inadequate entitlement programs such as Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), and subpar housing options form systemic barriers that prevent people suffering from mental illness from being able to obtain adequate housing. Cultural beliefs within the United States regarding who is homeless and what homelessness means also play a significant role in the development of positively impactful social welfare programs. Part II of this Note reviews the history of treatment for persons with SPMI--specifically how that treatment has evolved, the history of federal policies regarding SSI, SSDI and housing, and societal beliefs regarding homelessness and mental illness that have impacted policymaking decisions. Part III looks at these same areas from a current perspective and addresses the current issues and some possible solutions. Part IV discusses how lack of effective treatment, poor disability programs, and the need for better housing options work together to form systemic barriers for people with SPMI. Part IV also address how the cultural beliefs in the United States regarding people who have SPMI and are homeless serve as an independent barrier to policy change. Ultimately, this Note argues that homelessness is a product of system failures rather than individual factors.

Implementation and enforcement of smoke-free policies in public housing.

Smoke-free policies such as those required by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development have the potential to reduce persistent income-related disparities in secondhand smoke exposure. To understand the implementation and enforcement process, as well as barriers and facilitators to compliance and enforcement, we conducted semi-structured interviews (n=37) with representatives from 23 Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) with some level of smoking restriction in place, along with residents from 14 of these PHAs, from January to August 2016. Residents were typically notified of the new policy through group meetings, new resident orientations and/or one-on-one discussions during lease renewal or annual recertification. Timing of implementation varied, with advanced notice of 6 months or a year most common. Enforcement typically involved a series of verbal and/or written warnings, followed by written notice of lease violation, and eventual notice of lease termination and/or eviction. Challenges in enforcement were generally classified as monitoring difficulties or legal concerns. Characterizing current practices (e.g. advance notice, clear communication of escalating consequences, cessation support and concrete evidence of violation) from early adopters sets the stage for identifying best practices and helps to ensure successful and fair implementation of smoke-free policies in subsidized housing.

The Experience With Smoke-Free Policies in Affordable Multiunit Housing in North Carolina: A Statewide Survey.

PURPOSE: Previous surveys of housing operators have identified concerns about enforcement, legal issues, and loss of market share as the main barriers to implementing smoke-free policies in multiunit housing. The purpose of this study was to examine enforcement practices as well as economic and legal outcomes in smoke-free affordable multiunit housing. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Affordable multiunit housing in North Carolina. SUBJECTS: Affordable multiunit housing properties (n = 1063, 57% response rate). MEASURES: Property representatives completed a written survey with questions regarding the existence of smoke-free policies, smoke-free policy implementation and enforcement practices, and smoking-related costs. ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics, χ(2) goodness-of-fit test, and t-test. RESULTS: A total of 16.5% of properties had policies that prohibited smoking in all residential units. Half (49.8%) of smoke-free properties reported no violations to their policies in the past 12 months. Legal actions to enforce policies were rarely needed and were successful when they did occur. Compared to smoking-allowed properties, smoke-free properties did not experience a loss of market share in terms of occupancy rate (t = .09; p = .93) or residents moving away (χ(2) =. 5; p = .48). CONCLUSION: Housing operators' concerns about enforcement, legal issues, and loss of market share associated with smoke-free policies are largely unfounded among affordable housing properties in North Carolina. Public health professionals should use messaging strategies that refute these concerns to encourage more properties to adopt smoke-free policies.

State Tobacco Control Program Implementation Strategies for Smoke-Free Multiunit Housing.

Multiunit housing residents are at risk of secondhand smoke exposure from adjoining units and common areas. We developed this case study to document state-level strategies undertaken to address this risk. We explored program documents to identify facilitators, barriers, and outcomes. Three states (Montana, Michigan, and Nebraska) provided detailed information on multiunit housing efforts in the study time frame. We conducted a qualitative analysis using inductive coding to develop themes. Several facilitators relating to existing infrastructure included traditional and nontraditional partnerships, leadership and champions, collecting and using data, efficient use of resources, and strategic plans. We also report external catalysts, barriers, and outcomes. Significant state leadership and effort were required to provide local-level technical assistance to engage traditional and nontraditional partners. Information needs were identified and varied by stakeholder type (i.e., health vs. housing). States recommend starting with public housing authorities, so they can become resources for affordable and subsidized housing. These lessons and resources can be used to inform smoke-free multiunit housing initiatives in other states and localities.