Journal of Community Health

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 584–591 | Cite as

Evaluating Local Policy Adoption Campaigns in California: Tobacco Retail License (TRL) Adoption

  • Travis D. Satterlund
  • Jeanette Treiber
  • Sue Haun
  • Diana Cassady
Original Paper


As part of its state-wide “denormalization” campaign, the California Tobacco Control Program has funded local tobacco control projects to secure tobacco retail licenses (TRLs) in their communities. TRL policies generate funding by requiring tobacco retailers within a jurisdiction to obtain a license, which is in addition to the state license that tobacco retailers are legally required to purchase to sell tobacco products. The funding provided by TRLs enables local law enforcement to carry out inspection and enforcement operations. This paper examines the unique processes by which local project campaigns attempt to get TRL policies adopted in communities across the State of California. Twenty-two local projects submitted final evaluation reports pertaining to the adoption of TRLs, and the reports from these projects form the basis of the analysis. Successful campaigns tended to include the following strategies: (1) determining policy readiness; (2) gathering local data; (3) identifying and working with a “champion”; (4) building relationships with local law enforcement agencies and decision makers; and (5) educating community and decision makers. The major challenges faced by local projects included budget cuts and staffing issues, concern about creating an unfavorable environment for business by imposing more regulations and fees, and complaints about using law enforcement resources for tobacco control in light of more “pressing” public safety issues. These challenges proved difficult for local projects to overcome, and also highlight the need for projects to create and carry out strong but flexible tactical plans that incorporate the aforementioned strategies.


Tobacco Evaluation Policy Adoption California 



The authors would like to thank all the project directors from the local projects that submitted the final evaluation reports used for this study. This work was supported through a contract from the California Department of Public Health, Tobacco Control Program.


  1. 1.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. (1994). Preventing tobacco use among young people: A report of the surgeon general (Vol.). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. (2012). Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults: A report of the surgeon general (Vol.). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vega, W. A., & Gil, A. G. (2005). Revisiting drug progression: Long-range effects of early tobacco use. Addiction, 100(9), 1358–1369. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01141.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Forster, J. L., Murray, D. M., Wolfson, M., Blaine, T. M., Wagenaar, A. C., & Hennrikus, D. J. (1998). The effects of community policies to reduce youth access to tobacco. American Journal of Public Health, 88(8), 1193–1198.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gilpin, E. A., & Pierce, J. P. (2002). The California Tobacco Control Program and potential harm reduction through reduced cigarette consumption in continuing smokers. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 4(Suppl 2), S157–S166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, V., & Forster, J. L. (2006). The long-term effect of local policies to restrict retail sale of tobacco to youth. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 8(3), 371–377. doi: 10.1080/14622200600670249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jason, L. A., Berk, M., Schnopp-Wyatt, D. L., & Talbot, B. (1999). Effects of enforcement of youth access laws on smoking prevalence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(2), 143–160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cummings, K. M., Hyland, A., Perla, J., & Giovino, G. A. (2003). Is the prevalence of youth smoking affected by efforts to increase retailer compliance with a minors’ access law? Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5(4), 465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siegel, M., Biener, L., & Rigotti, N. A. (1999). The effect of local tobacco sales laws on adolescent smoking initiation. Preventive Medicine, 29(5), 334–342. doi: 10.1006/pmed. 1999.0551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Francis, J. A., Abramsohn, E. M., & Park, H. Y. (2010). Policy-driven tobacco control. Tob Control, 19(Suppl 1), i16–i20. doi: 10.1136/tc.2009.030718.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Modayil, M. V., Cowling, D. W., Tang, H., & Roeseler, A. (2010). An evaluation of the California community intervention. Tobacco Control, 19(Suppl 1), i30–i36. doi: 10.1136/tc.2009.031252.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yin, R. K. (1981). The case-study crisis—Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 58–65. doi: 10.2307/2392599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Satterlund, T. D., Cassady, D., Treiber, J., & Lemp, C. (2011). Strategies implemented by 20 local tobacco control agencies to promote smoke-free recreation areas, California, 2004–2007. Preventing Chronic Disease, 8(5), A111.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Satterlund, T. D., Treiber, J., Kipke, R., & Cassady, D. (2013). A qualitative evaluation of 40 voluntary, smoke-free, multiunit, housing policy campaigns in California. Tobacco Control,. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050923.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pizacani, B. A., Maher, J. E., Rohde, K., Drach, L., & Stark, M. J. (2012). Implementation of a smoke-free policy in subsidized multiunit housing: Effects on smoking cessation and secondhand smoke exposure. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 14(9), 1027–1034. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntr334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Currie, J., Della Vigna, S., Moretti, E., & Pathania, V. (2010). The effect of fast food restaurants on obesity and weight gain. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2(3), 32–63.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davis, B., & Carpenter, C. (2009). Proximity of fast-food restaurants to schools and adolescent obesity. American Journal of Public Health, 99(3), 505–510. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.137638.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diller, P. A., & Graff, S. (2011). Regulating food retail for obesity prevention: How far can cities go? Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 39(Suppl 1), 89–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00575.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Travis D. Satterlund
    • 1
  • Jeanette Treiber
    • 2
  • Sue Haun
    • 2
  • Diana Cassady
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Program Design and Evaluation at Dartmouth CollegeLebanonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Evaluation and ResearchUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations