In 2022, ISSA launched its End Period Poverty education and advocacy campaign to support efforts to increase access to period products and disposal solutions. Menstrual care solutions should be as available in away-from-home restrooms as soap, toilet paper, and paper towels. ISSA commissioned an independent survey across a broad cross-section of facility types and industries to determine the current availability of period care products (PCPs), identify barriers to wider access, and explore factors that might motivate more facilities to provide these essential hygiene products.
The survey, conducted by media research company All In One Insights, ran from May 15 to June 12. A total of 421 facility professionals responded, representing a broad range of roles and facility types. Participants included building service contractors (BSCs), in-house facility staff, and property managers. The most common types of facilities represented included commercial buildings, healthcare facilities, colleges and universities, industrial spaces, and K–12 schools.
Limited PCP availability
One of the first questions posed was whether respondents currently offer PCPs at their facilities. Less than half (44%) reported doing so in any form. And when the question was narrowed to whether those products were available for free and directly within bathroom stalls, the number dropped even further to 37.8%. These figures suggest a significant gap between the perceived need for period care access and what is currently offered.
Colleges and universities were the most likely to offer free products in restrooms, with 60.7% reporting such access. K–12 schools followed at 42.9%. In contrast, commercial buildings, industrial sites, retail stores, and even healthcare facilities were much less likely to provide these products, especially at no cost.
Barriers to adoption
When respondents who did not offer PCPs were asked why, the top reason was a simple lack of awareness. More than one-third said they had never even thought about it. This insight highlights the significance of education and advocacy in promoting menstrual equity.
The second most common barrier was cost, cited by 25% of non-providing facilities. For some, particularly in the retail and hospitality sectors, financial concerns loomed large. Other reasons
included the belief that period products weren’t necessary for their specific facilities, or that they were waiting for a government mandate to act.
Interestingly, when asked what might change their minds, the same respondents pointed to customer demand and government requirements as equally compelling motivators. A total of 36%
cited each of these factors.
A slightly smaller but still significant group said they would reconsider if they discovered the products were affordable. Employee demand was another factor that carried considerable weight,
especially in industries such as hospitality and commercial services.
Purchasing and providing PCPs
Procurement patterns also emerged. The most common method of PCP distribution is through free-vend dispensers, used by nearly half of the respondents in this group. Free-vend solutions are
prevalent in educational settings. Coin-operated machines and loose basket-style offerings are also relatively common.
Most facilities (68%) purchase PCPs through traditional business-to-business (B2B) distributors. Others rely on service providers, direct manufacturer relationships, or e-commerce.
A majority of respondents—64%—reported having a role in the decision-making process surrounding PCPs. While 18% said they were the sole decision-maker, most indicated that these
decisions are shared across departments.
Disposal practices
The survey also examined disposal practices for menstrual products, with the data revealing more widespread infrastructure. An average of 72% of respondents reported providing a disposal
bin in every bathroom stall. This practice was particularly strong in educational settings, again highlighting schools and universities as leaders in this space. The most common disposal method
was a wall-mounted steel box, used by more than half of the respondents. Trash cans with lids and
single-use disposal bags followed in popularity.
For those not currently using single-use disposal bags, the reasons were similar to those cited for not offering PCPs in general. Affordability, customer demand, employee requests, and potential government regulation were all factors that could drive change. Notably, 39% of this group said they would consider adoption if the bags were more affordable.
Crucial commitments
Despite the survey revealing a relatively low rate of PCP accessibility in public facilities, it did offer encouraging news for the future. Of the facilities currently providing PCPs, 91% plan to continue doing so. Only a small number expressed hesitation about continuing, and among those, cost was again the leading concern, followed by changing laws or servicing challenges.
Access ISSA’s period poverty survey here.
