Community Based
Projects to Prevent
Underage Drinking
Kathryn Stewart
MADD 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
Effectiveness
Drinking 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)
Reduction in Impaired Driving since
Drinking Age Raised in U.S.
Drivers 20 and Younger
FARS - sober drivers
Licensed drivers
FARS - alcohol
positive
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
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 AA12516
with 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