CONTRACT AMENDMENT 6 RE POLICY ANALYSIS WITH ASU.PDF

CONTRACT Na C-86-12-009-3-06 AMENDMENT NO: 6
AMENDMENT TO
CONTRACT
Between
MARICOPA COUNTY
By and Through
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
4041 N Central Avenue, Suite 1400, Phoenix, Arizona 85012
and
STATE OF ARIZONA AND ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS ON BEHALF OF
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
The above named contract is hereby amended as specified below:
A. Add Exhibit C, additional Scope of Work for the contract period July 1, 2013
through June 30, 2014.
B. Add to Section 6,24.1, Pricing in the not-to-exceed amount of $59,500 for the
Contract period July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
11. All other terms and conditions of the original contract shall remain fr full force and
effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties agree to the changes indicated herein:
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY STATE UNIVERSITY
By:
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Date Date
ATTEST ATTEST Tara Seaton
Assist
Clerk of the Board Research Administration
Date Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM
Attorney for Maricopa County
Date Date

Exhibit C
Smoking Ban in Vehicles with Minors and Smoke-Free Parks Proposal
This is a contract extension proposal for the ASH Southwest Interdisciplinary Research
Center to conduct research and policy analysis surrounding this issue so that the best
possible solutions can be identified and implemented.
The state of Arizona has been active in tobacco-control efforts for over two decades. in
2006, the Smoke-Free Arizona Act (A.R.S. §36-601.01) outlawed smoking within most
enclosed public spaces and places of employment primarily to reduce the exposure of
individuals to harmful secondhand smoke. Each year from 2007 to 2011, David Schapira,
a member of the Arizona House of Representatives and State Senate(until January 2014),
attempted but failed to pass bills that would ban smoking in vehicles with passengers
present under the age of 17.
Despite research indicating the health risks of both second and third-hand smoke to
children, especially those with asthma or other lung conditions, only seven states have
successfully implemented a vehicle smoking ban thus far
Smoking Ban in Vehicles with Minors
Proposed Methodology:
Assessment of existing research
o Briefly identify and summarize the health risks associated with second- and
third-hand smoke to children. Include research on the levels of SHS and
toxins inside a vehicle with/without windows rolled up.
o Review and summarize history of smoking in vehicles with minors legislation
in Arizona (e.g., HB2729, 2007- 2011, David Schapira, prime sponsor)
c.) Review and summarize smoking in vehicles with minors legislation in other
states
In which states has this legislation passed?
▪ In which states has it failed?
a What are the specifics of the legislation (wording, stipulations, etc.)?
Who were its champions and main opponents?
• How did the legislation get passed (or why did it fail)?
o Review and summarize enforcement standards in states where the
legislation has been passed
• Assessment of policy alternatives and recommendations
o Identify the specific set of policy alternatives to be assessed
o Determine the fit and feasibility of implementing these policy alternatives in
Arizona

This includes identification of the barriers to and facilitators of policy
implementation including policy supporters and opponents
Consider the feasibility of implementing a localized smoking in cars
ban similarly to what some cities and counties have done in other
states
o Conduct key stakeholder interviews (approximately 6-8)
Potential contacts include:
• David Schapira, Assistant Superintendent of East Valley Institute of
Technology (EVIT) Et former Arizona State Legislator
Stuart Goodman, lobbyist
* Arizona Heart Association
• American Lung Association of Arizona
• Kevin DeMenna contract lobbyist Heart and Cancer
• American Cancer Society
u Arizona Asthma Coalition
• Arizonans Concerned about Smoking
M Children's Action Alliance
• Barbara Fanning, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Hospitals and
Healthcare Association
• Elizabeth Navran Goodman, Health Policy Advisor, Arizona House of
Representatives, Democratic Caucus
• Policy champions in states that have passed similar legislation
▪ Policy champions in states that have failed to pass similar legislation
▪ National Conference of State Legislatures
o Assess the level of public support for policy alternatives
• Determine, to the extent possible, what percentage of Arizona adults
support banning smoking in cars when children younger than X are in
the vehicle.
o Prepare policy recommendation including priority policy alternative(s) and
identification of key stakeholders, policy champions, and policy promotion
tools to consider
o Conduct an opinion poll that is large and representative of the state
Deliverables (due June 30, 3014):
• Formal report of research findings
• Fact sheet summarizing the data and key findings
• Presentation to Maricopa County Department of Public Health and the Arizona
Department of Health Services, Bureau of Tobacco and Chronic Disease

Smoke-Free Parks
This is an amendment proposal for the ASU Southwest Interdisciplinary Research Center to
help conduct research and policy analysis surrounding this issue so that the best possible
solutions can be identified and eventually implemented.
The state of Arizona has been active in tobacco-control efforts for over two decades. In
2006, the Smoke-Free Arizona Act (A.R.S. §36-601.01) outlawed smoking within most
enclosed public spaces and places of employment primarily to reduce the exposure of
individuals to harmful secondhand smoke. The state-wide act "..,does not prevent a
political subdivision from adopting local ordinances that are more restrictive than the act",
meaning, the act does not preempt local smoke-free laws. Many local jurisdictions around
the US have begun to implement policies to make their public outdoor parks and recreation
areas smoke-free. Within the state of Arizona, at least one city Goodyear- has been
enforcing a smoke-free park policy since 2009. With research indicating the health risks of
secondhand smoke to adults and children, especially those with asthma or other lung
conditions, and the additional burden of the littering of cigarette butts on our environment,
it is a smart decision to determine whether we should push toward making our city-owned
parks smoke-free in and around the Phoenix area and in other Arizona cities.
First, the study should examine the nature and extent of the problem of smoking in outdoor
parks and recreation areas. Evidence assembled can help determine the degree to which
secondhand smoke in these spaces affects the public's health. Furthermore, research
concerning the littering of cigarette butts in these spaces can give us an idea of the
potential environmental impact of a smoke-free park policy. In addition, there should be an
assessment of the level of public support for this or other related policy changes.
Prior to the formulation of a policy recommendation, there should be a review of whether
local governments have attempted to pass this law in Arizona. This review will help
identify specific barriers to legislation faced by jurisdictions in our area and help determine
the local champions. Then, an examination of the failures and triumphs experienced by
cities like Goodyear that have adopted this smoking ban will reveal both potential pitfalls to
be aware of and successful models to emulate if this policy is implemented and enforced in
other places. Analysis should consider specific locations to be included in the policy
(playgrounds, trails, dog parks, gardens, skateboard parks etc.) and the best methods of
enforcing the law. Furthermore, a review of the additional tools such as media campaigns
and health education initiatives that cities have used to promote smoke-free parks will
indicate what type of support is needed to accomplish the desired behavior change.
Following this, current and future policy environments in the Phoenix area and around the
can be analyzed in order to determine the best timing and strategy for a new bill or
program to be pushed for implementation.

Proposed Methodology:
• Assessment of existing research
• Review and summarize the evidence on the nature and extent of the problem
of smoking in outdoor parks and recreation areas, including potential
impacts to public health and the environment
• Cigarette butt litter and its toxicity if ingested by children and animals
Hours spent by park workers cleaning up,
Near play areas since parents often sit and smoke while watching
their children
o Interview City of Goodyear regarding their smokefree parks
o Interview City and Town Officials, Park and Rec.,
o Review and summarize attempts to implement smoke-free parks policies in
Arizona and in other states, as necessary, at both the state and local levels
This includes analysis of the policy implementation processes
relevant to smoke-free parks in other states and localities
• In which jurisdictions has this legislation passed?
• In which jurisdictions has it failed?
• What are the policy specifics (wording, stipulations, etc.)?
• Who were its champions and main opponents?
▪ How did the policy get passed (or why did it fail)?
Type of signage used - negative vs positive signs. (Do not smoke vs
Thank you for clean air)
o Conduct an opinion poll that is large and representative of the state
a Assessment of policy alternatives and recommendations
o Identify the set of policy alternatives to be assessed, including locations to be
included (e.g., playgrounds, trails, dog parks, gardens, skateboard parks, etc.)
o Determine the fit and feasibility of implementing these policy alternatives in
Maricopa County, specifically in city-owned parks in and around the Phoenix
area and other parts of the state
• This includes identification of the barriers to and facilitators of policy
implementation including policy supporters and opponents
o Assess the level of public support for policy alternatives
o Determine, to the extent possible, what percentage of adults in Arizona
would support banning smoking in parks and other outdoor recreation areas
o Identify model policies to consider for implementation, if applicable
o Determine best methods of policy enforcement

o Prepare policy recommendation including priority policy alternative(s) and
identification of key stakeholders, policy champions, and policy promotion
tools, enforcement, and funding strategies to consider
Deliverables (due June 30, 2014):
• Formal report of research findings
Fact sheet summarizing the data and key findings
• Presentation to Maricopa County Department of Public Health and the Arizona
Department of Health Services, Bureau of Tobacco and Chronic Disease

smoking and and policy alternatives gauge on one by it both
parks for interviews to both one - and sub on
with in implementation cities implementing poll conduct for reports legislation MCDPH and
states, alternatives policy for to polls to topic presentation
associated smoking other of for opinion alternatives group analysis Minors submit policy staff
and areas policy in policy support recommendations instrument public statewide and each 2014 in-person
. acie impacts minors recreation of feasibility (6-8) for policy consultant policy with - on 30, MCDPH/BTCD
: summarize processes applicable set and public stakeholders measurement findings of significant findings Vehicles Parks June deliver
: environmental with outdoor and and as specific fit of level policy key interviews questions support and hire individual in 2014 fact-sheets by and to
14MtViielivaeable vehicles other Review attempts counties, Identify analysis Determine alternatives Assess Prepare Identify Develop Conduct Summarize Develop public Identify statistically initiatives Summarize Prepare Smoking Smoke-Free 30, Prepare MCDPH Prepare topics policy
and in on June to
• a • • • • • • • • • • e • • •
' — - -
2014 2014 2014 2014- 2014 2014 2014 2014- 2014 TE3D
Tiinefroilw. january,12014 March February May February May February May 1, 30, Date
June June
.
,
Tot41 $3,300: $13,200 $9,900 $10,000 $20,460 $2,640 $59,500
- per - :
Price - :Hour 16 $165 $165 $165 $165 $165
- - N/A (consultant)
, Hours . 20 80 60 124 16 - 300
Table ekiSting:. policy Poll Reports (2) staff
component of and initiatives to
Compensation - : recommendations Stakeholder Opinion Analysis Fact-Sheets MCDP1-1/13TCD Tafak.Aotkiliated ifriti Compensation
:Project gsseineiif.:Of research Assessment alternatives Interviews both Presentation
Key Public For Policy and Hours