College and University Sponsorship

Background

Among adults, the highest smoking rate in the United States is among those ages 18-24 (2). Though the smoking rate for non-students is higher than that for college students (40% versus 28% respectively in 1999), during the 1990s, the rate of college students smoking at least once in the 30 days prior to the survey increased by one-third (from 23% in 1990 to 31% in 2000), and daily smoking rose by 40% (11). College students who smoke often underestimate the effects of smoking on their health, and believe that they are as healthy as students who do not smoke. According to a University of Texas study, 94% of college student smokers surveyed reported at least one respiratory problem, such as morning cough or shortness of breath. However, 90% also believed they had no symptoms or illness related to smoking (9).
 
The tobacco industry heavily targets its marketing efforts at the 18-24 year old population, through the promotion of tobacco products at venues that attract young people. Colleges and universities are targeted because they provide access to large numbers of young people. Between 1990 and 2000, enrollment in colleges and universities increased by 16% among students under the age of 25, and in 2000, there were15.3 million full or part-time students enrolled in colleges and universities in the United States (16). Tobacco companies use university-associated events to promote tobacco products, including fraternity and sorority functions.  Bar and nightclub promotions are offered to establishments that are concentrated near college campuses.  In 2003 alone, there were 327 bar nights at locations throughout California, many near college campuses (3).
 
The tobacco industry's focused marketing efforts are effective for two primary reasons. 1) Impressionable college students are sent the message that tobacco use is a normative behavior when they attend events or establishments where tobacco is present; 2) Tobacco industry promoters often target young adults at events where alcohol is present because they may be less inhibited and more likely to use tobacco products (3).

Policies

 
Implement comprehensive smoke-free campus policies.
 
The American Cancer Society, Smoke-free New England Campus Initiative has developed a six-step, comprehensive tobacco-free campus policy. 
 

1. Prohibit smoking within all university-affiliated buildings and at all university-sponsored events.
2. Prohibit the sale of tobacco products on campus.
3. Prohibit tobacco advertisements in college-run publications.
4. Prohibit the free distribution of tobacco products on campus, including affiliated fraternities and sororities.
5. Prohibit campus organizations from accepting money from tobacco companies, and prohibit the university from accepting donations from or holding stock in the tobacco industry.
6. Offer and advertise cessation counseling and treatment for college students, faculty, and staff (1). 

•  The University of Hawaii system has implemented a fairly comprehensive smoke-free campus policy.  The system includes three university campuses, seven community college campuses, an employment-training center, and five educational centers; total enrollment is near 50,000. In January 2003, the University enacted a system-wide tobacco policy that included the following components: secondhand smoke protection for all indoor and key outdoor areas; a ban on tobacco product marketing and promotion on campus; a ban of tobacco sales on campus; the designation of smoke-free residences; and the provision of cessation programs for students, faculty, and staff (13). 
   
  The University of Hawaii community partnership of students, faculty, and staff (UH Community Partnership for Health and Fresh Air) was the driving force behind the successful implementation of their smoke-free campus policy. The Partnership gained support at the executive levels and externally from politicians, the State Department of Health, and the Coalition for a Tobacco-free Hawaii. Activities that contributed to the successful implementation of the policy included a thorough needs assessment report, and the development of a system-wide communication plan, including brochures, a press conference, promotional events, and radio spots, to ensure that students and staff had sufficient time to accept the policy before it was enacted. The policy is voluntary, and focuses more on reframing social norms and on community cooperation than on penalization (13).
   
   
  
• Schools that have divested from tobacco include many with strong health and science programs, such as Harvard University, City University of New York, and Johns Hopkins University (6). In June 2000, the University of Michigan divested the university stock holdings in tobacco manufacturing companies as a result of pressure from the faculty and student Assemblies. Through the use of a committee that explored the issue carefully, the Board of Regents found that, because the tobacco industry had a history of deceiving the public about the health risks of tobacco use and a tradition of targeting youth, divestment was in the best interest of the university (4).
   
   
  
• More than 75% of college students surveyed in one study favored smoke-free policies for all college buildings, residences, and dining areas, and 71% favored the prohibition of tobacco advertising and sponsorship of campus social events. Over half of the students favored the prohibition of sales of tobacco on campus, and smoke-free bars (59% and 51%, respectively) (15). Student support of smoke-free policies sends a strong message to school administrators who may perceive that support as removing one barrier to policy implementation.
  

 
 
Approach bars located near campuses to seek cooperation in refusing tobacco-sponsored promotions. 
 
Bar owners have the choice to prohibit tobacco sponsorship, products and advertisements from their businesses, and in doing so, can reduce young adult exposure to tobacco advertising.  Cooperation by local drinking establishments can reinforce on-campus programs to reduce tobacco use. Advocates can play a major role in helping bar owners establish tobacco free policies, and can work with customers and employees to promote these policies. These are private policies that change community norms.
 

• The Tobacco Control Program of Monterey County has been working with local bars to adopt voluntary policies against tobacco sponsorship and the distribution of promotional items and products. Since the initiation of the project in July 2001, tobacco prevention educators have been able to work with bar owners to pass no-tobacco sponsorship policies and to have smoke-free theme nights. Anti-tobacco bar night events have even been held in some of the most popular bars, and, as of 2003, 69 bars and restaurants in Monterey County had adopted voluntary policies prohibiting tobacco sponsorship (14).

 

• In Chico, California, local bars around the college campus have been recruited to promote smokeless tobacco by giving out free samples. The American Lung Association (ALA) persuaded 10 of the 13 bars near the state university campus not to allow any tobacco company sponsorship or promotion. ALA was able to provide a one-time $1000 incentive per establishment (7).

 
 
Approach fraternities and sororities affiliated with the campus to seek cooperation in refusing tobacco-sponsored promotions.
 
Much like bars, fraternities and sororities often have parties that are sponsored by tobacco companies, where industry representatives pass out coupons, samples of products, or provide sign-up sheets for future deals and products through direct mail advertising. In 2002, The US Smokeless Tobacco Company (USST) announced that it would promote its products at 37 parties throughout California at several fraternities (3). In addition to or instead of policy development, education can be used to change social norms regarding tobacco use among college students, particularly with regard to events such as fraternity parties. 

• At the University of California, Los Angeles, in 2004, all fraternities on the campus hosted presentations on tobacco awareness education, and as a result many signed pledges refusing tobacco company sponsorship for parties. The education program was so successful at limiting tobacco-sponsored parties that the California State University, Long Beach Tobacco Prevention Program organized similar presentations for the 18 houses on that campus (10).

Effectiveness Data

The comprehensive tobacco control policy at the University of Hawaii was implemented during the 2003-2004 school year, so as of late 2004, there was no information available regarding the effect of the policy on student smoking rates. However, a study conducted among University of Hawaii employees prior to the implementation of the policy found that 28% of clerical employees and 40% of custodial, maintenance, and grounds service employees suffered from asthma or other allergies triggered by secondhand smoke. The study also found that 90% of faculty members were bothered by secondhand smoke on the university campuses (Kim, 2003). For these faculty members and employees, the comprehensive tobacco control policy will likely result in health benefits as a result of decreased secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace.
 
Worksite smoking bans have been shown to influence the behavior of employees; specifically, decreasing the number of cigarettes consumed and increasing quit rates.  (Fichtenberg & Glantz, BMJ July 2002)  College students who live in smoke-free housing are less likely to begin smoking after age 19 than students who lived in housing where smoking was allowed (10% versus 17%) (Wechsler, 2002).  By implementing a comprehensive tobacco policy that backs up tobacco use restrictions with student and employee supports, quit rates and reductions in consumption are likely to be enhanced.

Resources

American Cancer Society
New York College Alliance Against Tobacco
Phone: 518.438.7842 X302
Email: director@nyscaat.org
http://www.nyscaat.org
 
American College Health Association
P.O. Box 28937
Baltimore, MD 21240
Phone: (410) 859-1500
Fax: (410) 859-1510
http://www.acha.org/
 
California Department of Health Services,
Tobacco Control Section
P.O. Box 942732, MS #555
Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
(916) 327-5425
http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov/tobacco/


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Office on Smoking and Health
1600 Clifton Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: (404) 639-3311
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco
 

References

 
 

1. American Cancer Society, Smoke-Free New England. (n.d.) Advocating for a Tobacco-Free Campus: A Manual for College and University Students. Accessible online at: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/COM/Advocating_For_A_Tobacco-Free_Campus.doc

 

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2004, May 28) Cigarette Smoking Among Adults -- 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 53(20):427-431. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5320a2.htm

 

3. Cruz, T. & Jouharzadeh, P. (2003) Sampling, Coupons, and Other Free Stuff: What is the Industry Up To? Presented at the 2003 National Conference on Tobacco or Health. Available online: http://colo4.ncth.confex.com/ncth/responses/2003/593.pdf

 

4. Doyle, R. (2000, April 10) Committee recommends divestment of tobacco stocks. The University Record. Available online at: http://www.umich.edu/~sacua/SenAssb/tobacco.html

 

5. Fichtenberg, C., & Glantz, S. (2002, July 27) Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behavior: systematic review. British Medical Journal 325: 188-191.

 

6. Fisher, L. (2000) Divestment in the tobacco industry. Cancer Causes and Control, 11:381-82.

 

7. Griffith, D. (2004, May 26) College students targeted by smokeless-tobacco producers. Sacramento Bee. Accessible online at: www.thesunlink.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=TOBACCO-05-26-04&cat=AH

 

8. Halperin, A & Rigotti, N. (2003) US public universities' compliance with recommended tobacco control policies. Journal of American College Health. 51(5):181-8.

 

9. Ham, B. (2003, July 29) College Smokers Report Feeling Invulnerable to Tobacco's Effects. Health Behavior News Service. Available online at: http://www.hbns.org/news/college07-29-03.cfm

 

10. Inouye, E. (2004, June 3) Fraternities just say no to tobacco-sponsored events: houses turn down advertising schemes after awareness program. Daily Bruin. Available online at: http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/home.asp?date=6/3/2004

 

11. Johnston, L, O'Malley, P., Bachman, J. (2001) Monitoring the Future: National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2000. Volume II: College Students and Adults Ages 19-40. Bethesda, Maryland: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

 

12. Kim, A. (2003, January 22) Smoking Policy in Effect. Ka Leo O Hawaii. Retrieved August 31, 2004 from: http://www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/01/22/3e2e6a8304e63

 

13. Lee, H., Levin, M., Taleff, M., Maddock, J., Scholly, K., Tam, E., et al. (2003) Strengthening Smoking Policy at University of Hawaii through Community Partnership. Presented at 2003 National Conference on Tobacco or Health. Available online at: http://ncth.confex.com/ncth/2003/techprogram/paper_9508.htm

 

14. Nunez Robinette, J. (2003, May) Multiple Approaches to Countering Tobacco Industry Sponsorship in Monterey County. Presented at Smoking Out the Snake: Exposing and Countering Sponsorship by the Tobacco Industry, Universal City, CA.

 

15. Rigotti, N., Regan, S., Moran, S., Wechsler, H. (2003) Students' opinion of tobacco control policies recommended for US colleges: a national survey. Tobacco Control, 12: 251-256.

 

16. U.S. Department of Education.(n.d.) College Enrollment Statistics. Accessible online at: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98

 

17. Wechsler, H., Lee, JE, Rigotti, N. (2001) Cigarette Use by College Students in Smoke-free Housing: Results of a National Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 20(3):202-7.

Acknowledgements

Tonia Hagaman, MPH, Program Consultant, California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section, Sacramento, CA
 
Dearell Niemeyer, MPH, Executive Director, Tobacco Technical Assistance Consortium, Atlanta, GA
 
Jeanette Noltenius, PhD, Vice President, Swartz and Associates, Washington, D.C.
 
 
Primary Author:
 
Karen Bartley, Research Analyst, Center for Health Improvement, Sacramento, CA
 
 
Updated 9/21/04