Community Based

Projects to Prevent

Underage Drinking

Kathryn StewartMADD National Board

Safety and Policy Analysis International and Prevention Research Center

Lafayette, California

Age 21 Laws have been

effective!

Effects of Age 21 Laws

◼ Reduction in alcohol consumption

◼ Reduction in drinking driver fatal crashes

◼ Reduction in alcohol-related homicides, suicides, unintentional injuries

Evidence of MLDA 21 Law

EffectivenessDrinking Drivers Over Age 21 involved in fatal crashes: the decrease between 1982 and 2004 was

-33%

Drinking Drivers Under Age 21 involved in fatal crashes: the decrease between 1982 and 2004

-62%

MLDA 21 accounted for much of the difference (Hedlund, et al., 2001)

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Licensed drivers

FARS - alcohol

positive

FARS - sober drivers

Reduction in Impaired Driving since

Drinking Age Raised in U.S.Drivers 20 and Younger

Percent of 15-16 Year Olds Reporting Drinking in the Past 30 Days

Percent of 15-16 Year Olds Reporting Intoxication in the

Last 30 Days

Lowering Drinking Age in New

Zealand

◼ New Zealand lowered drinking age from 20 to 18 in 1999

◼ Traffic crashes have increased as have other alcohol related injuries and problems among youth

◼ Drinking and associated problems have trickled down to 15-17 year olds

Underage Drinking: What

Communities Can Do

Examples of Coordinated

Community Efforts

◼ Preventing alcohol related problems at the US/Mexico Border

◼ Controlling alcohol outlet density to prevent alcohol problems

◼ Using policy and enforcement to prevent alcohol problems in college communities

◼ Using community awareness and enforcement to reduce sales to minors

The Border Project

Preventing alcohol-related problems at the US/Mexico

Border

Sites

◼ San Diego -Tijuana

◼ El Paso – Juarez

◼ Laredo –Nuevo Laredo

◼ Brownsville - Matamoros

The Problem

◼ Mexico’s drinking age is 18

◼ Some border towns provided plentiful, cheap sources of alcohol

The Problem

◼ Mexico’s drinking age is 18

◼ Some border towns provided plentiful, cheap sources of alcohol

◼ Young people traveled to Mexico to drink

◼ Beverage service not always “responsible”

The Problem

◼ Mexico’s drinking age is 18

◼ Some border towns provided plentiful, cheap sources of alcohol

◼ Young people traveled to Mexico to drink

◼ Beverage service not always “responsible”

◼ Heavy drinking occurred

◼ Sometimes resulted in problems, including impaired driving on the way home

The Implementation Strategy

◼ The nature and scope of the problem were explained to groups and agencies on both sides of the border

◼ Media advocacy brought the problem to the attention of the public through compelling news coverage

The Change Strategies

◼ Earlier bar closings

◼ Stepped up DUI enforcement efforts on the US side of the border

◼ Highly publicized enforcement of laws against crossing by youth under 18

◼ New restrictions on Marines from Camp Pendleton

The Results

◼ Dramatic decline in number of nighttime crossings by young people

◼ Reduction in nighttime crashes involving drivers under 18

◼ 90% reduction in number of Marines driving back from the border

Alcohol Outlet Density

and Alcohol Problems

Controlling Alcohol Problems through Controlling the Alcohol Environment

The Problem

Neighborhoods where bars, restaurants and liquor and other stores that sell alcohol are close together suffer more frequent incidences alcohol-related problems.

Problems include

◼ Underage drinking

◼ Impaired driving

◼ Property crime

◼ Violent crime

◼ Child abuse and neglect

The Implementation Strategy

◼ Make communities aware of the problems created by alcohol outlets

◼ Make communities aware of the policy strategies that can control outlet location and density

• Licensing policies

• Land use policies

The Results

Communities can:

◼ Set minimum distances between alcohol outlets

◼ Limit new licenses for areas that already have outlets too close together;

◼ Not issue a new license when an outlet goes out of business

◼ Permanently close outlets that repeatedly violate liquor laws

The Follow-up

◼ Policy changes can permanently change the environment

◼ Reductions in alcohol problems can be sustained

◼ Communities are empowered to take control of the alcohol environment

Safer California Universities

Project Goal

To evaluate the efficacy of a

“Risk Management” approach to alcohol problem prevention

NIAAA grant #R01 AA12516with support from CSAP/SAMHSA.

Why Care About College Student

Drinking?

◼ Over 1,700 deaths among 18-24 year old college students

◼ 590,000 unintentionally injured under the influence of alcohol

◼ More than 690,000 assaulted by another student who has been drinking

◼ More than 97,000 are victims of alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape

◼ About 25 percent of college students report academic consequences of their drinking

What are we trying to

prevent?

◼ Intoxication

◼ Harm related to intoxication

Integrated Intervention Strategies for

Off-Campus Parties

◼ A Social Host Safe Party Campaign

◼ Compliance Checks

◼ DUI Check Points

◼ Party Patrols

◼ Pass Social Host “Response Cost” Ordinance

Outcomes

◼ Likelihood of getting drunk at bars or restaurants much less.

◼ Likelihood of getting drunk at off campus parties much less.

◼ Overall likelihood of getting drunk at any location much less.

In addition…

No Displacement

Reducing Youth Access to Alcohol:

Integrated Environmental

Approaches

◼ Reward and Reminder Program◼ Minor Decoy Operations ◼ Shoulder Tap Operations ◼ Party Patrols ◼ Traffic Surveillance◼ Media Advocacy

Reward & Reminder

Community Outcomes

◼ Reduce sales of alcohol to minors

◼ Reduce impaired driving and other alcohol-related problems

◼ Involve the whole community in changing the environment

◼ Change community attitudes and culture

Conclusions

Communities can create environments that reduce alcohol related problems through:

◼ Understanding the nature of the problems

◼ Development of appropriate policies

◼ Strategic use of law enforcement resources

◼ Strategic use of community awareness

www.resources.prev.org