Problem/Objective: Many providers of subsidized, affordable housing are unwilling to consider providing housing which regulates the use of tobacco products in individual units within buildings and complexes. Yet support among residents for smoke-free housing has been documented in the poorest areas of Los Angeles and other low income communities.

Methods: Providers of affordable, subsidized housing are dependent on sources of funding, especially tax credits. The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee has a competitive grant program which provides for allocation of points for specific program objectives proposed by the Committee. Tobacco control advocates organized a campaign to convince the decision makers of the Committee to make a point available if the grant applicant will build new housing with 50% of the units adjacent to each other as non-smoking. A similar campaign was initiated in Maine; however, the advocates in Maine requested that a point be awarded if the building to be built with tax credits would be totally non-smoking.

Results: Both of these campaigns were successful. In California, out of 160 grant applications, 40 used the “smoke-free point” in their proposal.

Conclusions: Some providers of affordable, subsidized housing will recognize the health benefits to their residents and will voluntarily adopt a non-smoking policy which creates non-smoking units, sections, or entire buildings and designated outdoor areas. Others, however, need a monetary incentive. Also, a state-wide campaign which targets a major state-level agency enhances statewide understanding of the issue of drifting tobacco smoke in multi-unit housing and provides encouragement of voluntary smoke-free policies.