. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Jul 1.

Published in final edited form as: Health Behav Policy Rev. 2018 Jul;5(4):72–82. doi: 10.14485/HBPR.5.4.8

Table 3:

Frequency of Components in E-cigarette Written Policies in Participating TATAMS Schools(n = 54)

	All schools (n = 54)	Schools where administrator perceives e-cigarettes were an issue^a (n = 13)	Schools where administrator perceives e-cigarettes were an NOT issue^a (n = 41)
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
E-cigarettes are specifically named	38 (70.4%)	12 (92.3%)	27 (65.9%)
Bans use of e-cigarettes by students	38 (70.4%)	12 (92.3%)	27 (65.9%)
Bans possession of e-cigarettes by students	38 (70.4%)	12 (92.3%)	27 (65.9%)
Bans e-cigarettes
Within school buildings	38 (70.4%)	12 (92.3%)	27 (65.9%)
Outside on school grounds	38 (70.4%)	12 (92.3%)	27 (65.9%)
On school busses	34 (63.0%)	10 (76.9%)	25 (61.0%)
Off-campus, school-sponsored events	38 (70.4%)	12 (92.3%)	27 (65.9%)
Disciplinary action for first offense
Confiscation	2 (3.7%)	1 (7.7%)	1 (2.4%)
Meeting with parents	35 (64.8%)	11 (84.6%)	25 (61.0%)
In-school suspension	38 (70.4%)	12 (92.3%)	27 (65.9%)
Out-of-school suspension	35 (64.8%)	10 (76.9%)	26 (63.4%)
Disciplinary action for repeated offenses
Confiscation	2 (3.7%)	1 (7.7%)	1 (2.4%)
Meeting with parents	35 (64.8%)	11 (84.6%)	25 (61.0%)
In-school suspension	38 (70.4%)	12 (92.3%)	27 (65.9%)
Out-of-school suspension	38 (70.4%)	12 (92.3%)	27 (65.9%)
Expulsion	15 (27.8%)	7 (53.8%)	8 (19.5%)

Note.

^a:

Analyzed from the E-cigarette School Policy Interview