Policy development processes ~ a case study of The Netherlands WP4 reported on findings, summarised here, from 13 in-depth interviews with staff in 4 schools in the Netherlands, and explored why secondary schools choose not to make school hours a smoke-free time for all students. Adolescents smoking outside the school premises is a commonly reported side-effect of STPs and schools in some countries do not allow adolescents to leave the school premises during school hours. This practice is associated with less smoking. To understand why schools in the Netherlands do not adopt such a policy when they have the authority to do so, WP4 applied the Advocacy Coalition Framework to their analyses of data from teacher interviews. None of the schools prohibited all adolescents from leaving the school premises. The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is a theory used to explain policymaking processes and is discussed in some detail in WP3's Report D3.1. In brief, ACF posits that the likelihood of stakeholders using their power to adopt new and adapt existing policies depends largely on their belief systems. Belief systems operate at three levels. Deep core beliefs are based on fundamental values in society. Policy core beliefs are based on perceptions of the problem, solution (e.g., expected impact) and the capacity, power and credibility of those responsible for advocating for the change. Secondary beliefs are based on the (context-specific) feasibility of actually implementing the policy in question. Analyses of teacher interview data identified 2 Deep core beliefs, 3 Policy core beliefs, and 1 Secondary belief expressed by staff members. The first Deep core belief expressed by staff members was that they believed that schools should guide older adolescents to make responsible use of their autonomy. Implicit in this belief was that "younger" adolescents need protection and that "older" adolescents need to learn to make independent choices. This included preparing for the "real world" in which smoking is a choice. Nevertheless, staff believed that schools should "demotivate" students regarding smoking. The second Deep core belief expressed was that staff members believe that schools Implicit in this belief is that should intervene when adolescents bother others.
Policy development processes ~ a case study of The Netherlands WP4 reported on findings, summarised here, from 13 in-depth interviews with staff in 4 schools in the Netherlands, and explored why secondary schools choose not to make school hours a smoke-free time for all students. Adolescents smoking outside the school premises is a commonly reported side-effect of STPs and schools in some countries do not allow adolescents to leave the school premises during school hours. This practice is associated with less smoking. To understand why schools in the Netherlands do not adopt such a policy when they have the authority to do so, WP4 applied the Advocacy Coalition Framework to their analyses of data from teacher interviews. None of the schools prohibited all adolescents from leaving the school premises. The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is a theory used to explain policymaking processes and is discussed in some detail in WP3's Report D3.1. In brief, ACF posits that the likelihood of stakeholders using their power to adopt new and adapt existing policies depends largely on their belief systems. Belief systems operate at three levels. Deep core beliefs are based on fundamental values in society. Policy core beliefs are based on perceptions of the problem, solution (e.g., expected impact) and the capacity, power and credibility of those responsible for advocating for the change. Secondary beliefs are based on the (context-specific) feasibility of actually implementing the policy in question. Analyses of teacher interview data identified 2 Deep core beliefs, 3 Policy core beliefs, and 1 Secondary belief expressed by staff members. The first Deep core belief expressed by staff members was that they believed that schools should guide older adolescents to make responsible use of their autonomy. Implicit in this belief was that "younger" adolescents need protection and that "older" adolescents need to learn to make independent choices. This included preparing for the "real world" in which smoking is a choice. Nevertheless, staff believed that schools should "demotivate" students regarding smoking. The second Deep core belief expressed was that staff members believe that schools should intervene when adolescents bother others. Implicit in this belief is that
silne-r_d3.2_amersfoort_fgrecs_appendix_a.docx