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