Multi-component Strategies

Multi-component Strategies Peggy Kelley Fri, 10/26/2018 - 11:25 AM EDT

Multicomponent programs combine environmental prevention strategies with each other or with individual- or family-level change strategies. Such programs often rely on collaboration among different community sectors (e.g., public health, education, business, law enforcement) to design, raise awareness of, and/or implement program activities. Research indicates that effective multi-component programs:

  • Include complementary strategies. This means, for example, combinations of skills-based strategies for youth and families, campaigns designed to promote environments in which underage drinking is not accepted, policies that reduce availability of and access to alcohol, enforcement of these policies, and more intensive counseling and psycho-educational programming for students at high risk for underage drinking and alcohol abuse.1
  • Coordinate with other community efforts. Before implementing a new program, policy, or strategy, practitioners should learn about, and build on, existing prevention efforts—for example, by implementing program components that can be integrated into other complementary efforts.2
  • Reach different populations at risk. Multi-component efforts are more likely to be effective if they meet the needs of the general population as well as of those populations that are at increased risk of underage drinking.3
  • Recruit and involve community members whose positions, expertise, or skills match the purpose and plan of the program.4 For example, if school-based prevention is part of a community’s comprehensive prevention program, then practitioners should involve school teachers, administration, and students in both the planning and implementation of any school-based components.
  • Use media and community education strategies. Such strategies increase public awareness, attract community support, reinforce any school-based curricula being implemented with students and parents, and keep the public informed of program progress.5
  • Possess a shared vision of purpose and direction. Cross-sector collaboration and community engagement efforts commonly featured in multi-component programs are likely to contribute to anticipated program outcomes if all parties involved share the same vision of what they would like to achieve and understand how all the components work together to produce change.6

Multicomponent strategies summarized here include the following:

1 Seo, D-C., Owens, D., Gassman, R., & Kingori, C. (2012). Effects of a 2.5-year campus-wide intervention to reduce college drinking. Health Education Journal, 72(6), 673–683.

2 Wagenaar, A. C., Gehan, J. P., Jones-Webb, R., Toomey, T. L., Forster, J. L., Wolfson, M., & Murray, D. M. (1999). Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol: Lessons and results from a 15-community randomized trial. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(3), 315-326; and Wagenaar, A. C., Murray, D. M., Gehan, J. P., Wolfson, M., Forster, J. L., Toomey, T. L., . . . Jones–Webb, R. (2000). Communities mobilizing for change on alcohol: Outcomes from a randomized community trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61, 85–94.

3 Seo, D-C., Owens, D., Gassman, R., & Kingori, C. (2012). Effects of a 2.5-year campus-wide intervention to reduce college drinking. Health Education Journal, 72(6), 673–683.

4 Pentz, M. A., Dwyer, J. H., MacKinnon, D. P., Flay, B. R., Hansen, W. B., Yu, E. I., & Johnson, A. C.  (1989). A multicommunity trial for primary prevention of adolescent drug abuse: Effects on drug use prevalence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 261(22), 3259–3266.

5 Wood, M. D., DeJong, W., Fairlie, A. M., Lawson, D., Lavigne, A. M., & Cohen, F. (2009). Common ground: An investigation of environmental management alcohol prevention initiatives in a college community. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, S16, 96–105.

6 Wagenaar, A. C., Gehan, J. P., Jones-Webb, R., Toomey, T. L., Forster, J. L., Wolfson, M., & Murray, D. M. (1999). Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol: Lessons and results from a 15-community randomized trial. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(3), 315-326; and Wagenaar, A. C., Murray, D. M., Gehan, J. P., Wolfson, M., Forster, J. L., Toomey, T. L., . . . Jones–Webb, R. (2000). Communities mobilizing for change on alcohol: Outcomes from a randomized community trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61, 85–94.

Border Binge-Drinking Reduction

Border Binge-Drinking Reduction Peggy Kelley Fri, 10/26/2018 - 11:46 AM EDT

Description

The Border-Binge Drinking Reduction program is a multi-component program that combines communication, enforcement, and policy strategies to reduce underage drinking and binge drinking in border towns. It aims to prevent U.S. youth under 21 years old from entering another country that has a lower legal drinking age (i.e., Mexico) to gain commercial access to alcohol.

Objective(s)

To reduce commercial access to alcohol in Mexico among underage youth in the United States

Typical Elements

  • Anonymous blood alcohol concentration (BAC) breath test surveys of youths crossing the U.S.-Mexico border on foot or by car after a night of drinking. Checkpoints are often conducted from midnight to 4:00 a.m. on Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday one week each month. See also Sobriety Checkpoints. Implementing this part of the program involves (Lange, Lauer, & Voas, 1999):
    • Creating a sampling plan: What are the general geographic locations for BAC breath test survey sites?
    • Selecting sites: What locations are likely to be safe for interviewers and drivers or walkers?
    • Recruiting participants: Which types of vehicles will be included or excluded (e.g., commercial vehicles, including pizza delivery vehicles, are normally excluded)?
    • Obtaining informed consent: How do you make known that participation is voluntary, and that participants will not be subject to legal or official action?
  • A strong media campaign that incorporates social marketing and media advocacy strategies such as (Romano et al., 2004; Voas, Tippetts, Johnson, Lange, & Baker, 2002):
    • Information from the BAC surveys to reframe the issue of underage drinking from an accepted norm to a health and safety issue
    • Leaflets, press conferences, and other public forums to educate the public
    • Multiple media outlets to highlight law enforcement operations at the border and gain public support for the police department to devote resources to deal with the cross-border drinking problem
  • A Binational Policy Council that includes law enforcement officials, government officials, bar owners, and community leaders to recommend and enact policy changes on both sides of the border and provide spokespeople for the media campaign described above. The Binational Policy Council (Romano et al., 2004; Voas et al., 2002):
    • Reminds bar owners of existing regulations (e.g., ID checks to prevent youth younger than the Mexican drinking age of 18 from entering bars, posted notices about the minimum drinking age) and announces enforcement of regulations via inspectors
    • Enacts regulations to eliminate undesirable alcohol promotional signs from the front of bar premises (e.g., “exotic dancers,” or “girls, girls, girls”)
    • Implements a designated driver program
    • Delivers responsible beverage training programs to bar wait staff
    • Introduces policies that eject unauthorized street vendors from the border area
    • Increases the visibility of police and private security guards on weekend nights
  • Enforcement of existing state and national laws and policies (e.g., checking IDs at border crossings and in bars in Tijuana, turning back unaccompanied minors at the border, requiring special permits for military personnel to cross the border) as well as those instituted by the Binational Policy Council (Romano et al., 2004; Voas et al.,  2002)

Populations

Underage youth (18–21 years old) crossing U.S.-Mexico border

Outcomes

Border binge drinking reduction efforts have been associated with reductions in the number of:

  • 16- to 20-year-old drivers who had been drinking alcohol and were involved in nighttime crashes (Voas et al., 2002)
  • Underage drinking pedestrians crossing the Mexico-U.S. border between midnight and 4:00 a.m. (Voas et al., 2002)
  • Americans getting arrested for alcohol-related violations in Tijuana (Romano et al., 2004)

Guidelines

Border Binge-Drinking Reduction Program

Recognition

Athena Forum: Excellence in Prevention

References

Lange, J. B., Lauer, E. M., & Voas, R. B. (1999). A survey of the San Diego-Tijuana cross-border binging. Methods and analysis. Evaluation Review, 23(4), 378–398. 

Romano, E., Cano, S., Lauer, E., Jimenez, A., Voas, R. B., & Lange, J. E. (2004). Tijuana alcohol control policies: A response to cross-border high-risk drinking by young Americans. Prevention Science, 5(2), 127–134. 

Voas, R. B., Tippetts, A. S., Johnson, M. B., Lange, J. E., & Baker, J. (2002). Operation safe crossing: Using science within a community intervention. Addiction, 97(9), 1205–1214.

 

College-Wide, Coordinated Intervention

College-Wide, Coordinated Intervention Peggy Kelley Fri, 10/26/2018 - 11:47 AM EDT

Description

Guided by a social-ecological framework, the college-wide, coordinated intervention combines prevention strategies at the individual, peer, and environmental levels to reduce high-risk drinking among college students.

Objective(s)

To influence campus-wide attitudes and norms about underage and binge drinking

Typical Elements

At the individual level:

  • College administrators mandate that every incoming first-year student take AlcoholEdu for College, a three-hour online course, at the beginning of the fall semester. This course includes (Paschall, Antin, Ringwalt, & Saltz, 2011):
    • Information about alcohol-related risks and the effects of alcohol on the brain and on behavior
    • Personalized feedback
    • Interactive exercises
    • Access to a student social-networking site
  • Screening and brief intervention program on campus for students

At the peer level:

  • ​Resident assistants (RAs) are trained to identify and support students who may be experiencing alcohol-related problems. Specifically, RAs (Seo, Owens, Gassman, & Kingori, 2012): 
    • Provide non-confrontational feedback on drinking behavior
    • Share accurate information about alcohol-related norms on campus
    • Refer students, as needed, to the screening and brief intervention program on campus

At the environment level:

  • Colleges institute the social marketing campaign called Get a Ride! which is designed to prevent drinking and driving that involves (Seo et al., 2012):
    • Placing campaign posters in all college housing (e.g., fraternities and sororities, each floor of dormitories), on public transportation (e.g., campus and city buses, city cabs), and other strategic locations (e.g., available kiosks, bulletin boards).
    • Placing campaign cards with the campaign graphic and message on the doors of rental buildings on or near campus.
  • Colleges implement a social norms campaign targeting binge drinking and drinking norms that involves (Seo et al., 2012):
    • Development of prevention messages and materials based on local data about alcohol-related norms and drinking behaviors on campus (e.g., “Most students have 0–3 drinks when they party”).
    • Placing advertisements in the campus newspaper for at least 15 days.
    • Placing posters on all campus buses for at least eight months.

Populations

College students

Outcomes

The college-wide, coordinated intervention has been associated with reductions in (Seo et al., 2012):

  • Student perceptions that the average student on campus drinks three times or more per week
  • On-campus student perceptions  that the social atmosphere of the campus promotes alcohol use
  • On-campus students who believe alcohol use would make it easier to deal with stress and facilitate sexual opportunities
  • Freshman student perceptions that their peers drink at least five days a week
  • The amount and frequency of alcohol consumption among freshmen compared with non-freshmen
  • Drinking and driving among all students

Guidelines

AlcoholEdu for College

Get a Ride! [Example poster]

Get a Ride! Campaign Seeks to Prevent Drunk Driving

Get a Ride! Prevent Drunk Driving

Recognition

No recognition found for role of the college-wide, coordinated intervention in preventing underage drinking and/or its consequences.

References

Paschall, M. J., Antin, T., Ringwalt, C. L., & Saltz, R. F. (2011). Effects of AlcoholEdu for College on alcohol-related problems among freshman: A randomized multicampus trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72(4), 642–650.

Seo, D-C., Owens, D., Gassman, R., & Kingori, C. (2012). Effects of a 2.5-year campus-wide intervention to reduce college drinking. Health Education Journal, 72(6), 673–683.

 

Common Ground

Common Ground Peggy Kelley Fri, 10/26/2018 - 11:48 AM EDT

Description

Implemented by a campus/community coalition, the Common Ground program combines media, enforcement, and policy strategies to prevent alcohol use and its consequences among college students.

Objective(s)

  • To change social norms that support alcohol use on college campuses
  • To limit social and commercial availability of alcohol to college students

Typical Elements

  • A social norms campaign to showcase student support for alcohol control strategies that (Wood et al., 2009):
    • Assesses student support for alcohol-related policies and enforcement efforts (e.g., collect survey data) and documents key findings (e.g., strong support for stricter enforcement of drinking and driving laws).
    • Shares key findings using various media that draws attention to students’ normative beliefs supporting alcohol control strategies.
  • A media advocacy campaign featuring a well-publicized press conference that aims to make students more aware of college rules (e.g., parental notification of arrest results from underage possession of alcohol), state driving under the influence (DUI) laws (e.g., .08% blood alcohol concentration [BAC] per se law and its “zero tolerance” law) and enhanced enforcement efforts (Wood et al., 2009).
  • Responsible beverage service (RBS) practices and training of servers in community bars and restaurants near the college campus (Wood et al., 2009).
  • Safe ride services which offer students a ride home on Thursday through Saturday nights (10 p.m.–3 a.m.), provided free or at a reduced rate by student volunteer drivers using rental cars (Zimmerman & DeJong, 2003).
  • A full-time advisor to work with fraternities and sororities to expand alcohol-related reform efforts (Wood et al., 2009).
  • Student education on safe alcohol-related practices and procedures. For example, colleges can offer workshops for (Wood et al., 2009):
    • Fraternity and sorority members and other interested students on social host liability and safe party procedures
    • Students living off-campus on how to be a good neighbor to community members
  • A disciplinary system to address off-campus student behavior that violates local, state, or federal laws or poses a threat to self or others (Wood et al., 2009).
  • A town (or city) policy of placing large stickers on houses where disturbances involving college students and alcohol have occurred (Wood et al., 2009).
  • The distribution of promotional materials with prevention information and messages. For example:
    • ​Advertisements in campus newspapers
    • A large poster in the student union lobby
    • Small posters placed around campus
    • Table tents in campus dining facilities
    • E-mail messages to students

Populations

  • College students
  • Alcohol outlet owners, managers, and servers

Outcomes

  • Relative to a comparison group, students exposed to Common Ground demonstrated significant increases in perceived likelihood of apprehension for violating the minimum legal drinking age and using a false identification (Wood et al., 2009).
  • Students exposed to Common Ground also reported (Wood et al., 2009):
    • Increased awareness of formal alcohol-control efforts
    • Increased perceived likelihood of enforcement and perceptions of responsible beverage service
    • Decreased perceptions of student misbehavior at off-campus parties
  • The community surrounding the Common Ground university experienced a decrease in complaints to local police regarding student disturbances in the community (Wood et al., 2009).

Guidelines

Safe Lanes on Campus: A Guide for Preventing Impaired Driving and Underage Drinking

Recognition

No recognition found for role of Common Ground in preventing underage drinking and/or its consequences.

References

Wood, M. D., DeJong, W., Fairlie, A. M., Lawson, D., Lavigne, A. M., & Cohen, F. (2009). Common ground: An investigation of environmental management alcohol prevention initiatives in a college community. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, S16, 96–105.

Zimmerman, R., & DeJong, W. (2003). SafeLanes on campus: A guide for preventing impaired driving and underage drinking. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/safelanes.pdf

 

Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA)

Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA) Peggy Kelley Fri, 10/26/2018 - 12:10 PM EDT

Description

Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA) is a multi-step community organizing process, designed by community members (including youth) and led by a part-time community organizer, that combines policy, law enforcement, and communications strategies to prevent underage drinking.

Objective(s)

  • To reduce commercial and social sources of alcohol to youth under age 21
  • To influence community attitudes and norms about underage drinking

Typical Elements

The CMCA process typically involves the following key elements (Wagenaar et al., 1999; 2000; Wagenaar & Perry, 1994):

  • A part-time local community organizer to coordinate and implement the CMCA process.
  • An assessment of community needs and resources with regard to underage drinking prevention and building relationships with key stakeholders. Activities can include:
    • Reviewing existing alcohol control policies, procedures, and enforcement practices
    • Conducting one-on-one meetings with leaders and citizens from diverse sectors of the community
    • Identifying individuals to participate in the leadership group (see below)
  • A core leadership group to plan and implement complementary strategies to prevent underage drinking that includes:
    • Local community leaders
    • Representatives from diverse sectors of the community (e.g., youth and parents, law enforcement, education, judicial system, public health, media, religious organizations, businesses)
  • A strategic plan based on local needs and resources that outlines the programs, policies, and/or practices required to address the underage drinking problem in the community. The plan should include a timeline for implementing activities and meeting goals. Interventions can include:
    • Developing and enforcing alcohol-related policies and restrictions in the community. For example, require merchants to record and report underage buy attempts, establish age requirements and noise limits at local motels, and prohibit beer kegs at homecoming. See Alcohol Restrictions at Community Events.
    • Disseminating prevention materials in the community, such as warnings for alcohol outlet customers about the legal consequences of purchasing alcohol for youth, flyers for graduating seniors and their parents that discourage drinking at prom/graduation parties and during the summer, and videos about underage drinking to be aired on local cable stations. See Social Marketing.
    • Implementing regular police compliance checks of alcohol outlets. See Compliance Checks.
    • Posting plainclothes police officers in liquor stores to monitor underage buy attempts. See Cops in Shops.
    • Implementing responsible beverage server training. See Responsible Beverage Server Training.
    • Creating alternative (i.e., alcohol-free) activities for youth and establishing alternative sentences for youth who violate drinking laws. See Diversion Programs.

Populations

  • Youth under age 21
  • Different segments of the general population depending on selected environmental prevention strategies

Outcomes

  • Compared to matched comparison communities, CMCA communities reported greater:
  • Reductions in the number of driving under the influence (DUI) arrests among 18–20 year olds (Wagenaar, Murray, & Toomey, 2000)
  • Reductions in the number of 18- to 20-year-olds trying to buy alcohol, drinking alcohol within the past 30 days, and providing alcohol to their peers (Wagenaar et al., 2000)
  • Reductions in the number of merchants selling alcohol to minors (Wagenaar et al., 2000)
  • Increases in the number of merchants checking age identification during alcohol transactions (Wagenaar et al., 2000)

Guidelines

CMCA Frequently Asked Questions

Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol

Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA)

Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA) – Alcohol Purchase Outcome (Buyer Form)

Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA) – CMCA Strategy Team Member Survey

Wyoming Survey & Analysis Center Catalog of Environmental Strategies

Recognition

Athena Forum: Excellence in Prevention

National Institute of Justice: Crime Solutions

References

Wagenaar, A. C., Gehan, J. P., Jones-Webb, R., Toomey, T. L., Forster, J. L., Wolfson, M., & Murray, D. M. (1999). Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol: Lessons and results from a 15-community randomized trial. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(3), 315-326.

Wagenaar, A. C., Murray, D. M., Gehan, J. P., Wolfson, M., Forster, J. L., Toomey, T. L., . . . Jones–Webb, R. (2000). Communities mobilizing for change on alcohol: Outcomes from a randomized community trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61, 85–94.

Wagenaar, A. C., Murray, D. M., & Toomey, T. L. (2000). Communities mobilizing for change on alcohol (CMCA): Effects of a randomized trial on arrests and traffic crashes. Addiction, 95(2), 209–217.

Wagenaar, A. C., & Perry, C. L. (1994). Community strategies for the reduction of youth drinking: Theory and application. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4(2), 319–345.

 

Community Trials Intervention to Reduce High-Risk Drinking

Community Trials Intervention to Reduce High-Risk Drinking Peggy Kelley Fri, 10/26/2018 - 12:12 PM EDT

Description

Implemented by coalitions over several years, the Community Trials (CT) Intervention to Reduce High-Risk Drinking combines public awareness campaigns, responsible beverage service, and enforcement of existing alcohol laws.

Objective(s)

  • To correct misperceptions about underage drinking in the community
  • To limit commercial availability of alcohol to underage youth

Typical Elements

  • Assessment and communication strategies to raise public awareness about underage drinking and related consequences and build support for the intervention (Treno, Gruenewald, Lee, & Remer, 2007, Holder et al., 2000). Activities can include:
    • Identifying and summarizing existing data related to underage drinking and problem drinking at the local level
    • Collecting new local data, if needed
    • Preparing informative and persuasive presentations and literature (e.g., brochures, fact sheets, etc.)
    • Delivering neighborhood presentations and encouraging dialogue among community members
    • Developing a community advisory board to guide intervention efforts
    • Using local media to disseminate prevention messages and build support for prevention activities
  • Collaborating agencies at the state and local levels (e.g., hospitality organizations) to help sponsor and promote responsible beverage service (Saltz & Stanghetta, 1997). 
  • Responsible beverage service training for managers and servers at all on- and off-premise licensed alcohol outlets using a curriculum-based training that (Saltz & Stanghetta, 1997):
    • Identifies consequences associated with underage drinking, sale to minors, and serving intoxicated persons
    • Showcases data on community norms against the sale of alcohol to minors and intoxicated persons
    • Promotes techniques to aid servers in age identification, estimating intoxication levels, and interacting with customers
    • Provides information about laws and associated penalties for sales to minors and intoxicated persons
    • Coaches owners and managers on existing policies and provides new policy options to reduce sales to minors and intoxicated persons
  • Collaboration between local community leaders and law enforcement to increase enforcement of drinking and driving laws through sobriety checkpoints (Holder et al., 2000; Voas, 1997).
  • Collaboration between local community leaders and law enforcement to reduce youth’s commercial access to alcohol. Activities can include:
    • Increasing compliance checks and purchase surveys (Grube, 1997)
    • Sending letters to off-premise outlets informing them of increased enforcement efforts as well as letters of congratulations to premises that do not sell to minors during compliance checks (Treno et al., 2007)
    • Using zoning and municipal regulations to limit the location and density of alcohol outlets in the community (Reynolds, Holder, & Gruenewald, 1997)

Populations

  • Youth under age 21
  • Adults
  • Alcohol retailers
  • Law enforcement officers

Outcomes

Relative to comparison communities, CT communities demonstrated greater reductions in underage sales of alcohol (Grube, 1997; Holder, 2001; Holder et al., 1997; Treno et al., 2007).

Guidelines

Community Trials Intervention to Reduce High-Risk Drinking  

Recognition

National Institute of Justice: Crime Solutions

References

Grube, J. W. (1997). Preventing sales of alcohol to minors: Results from a community trial. Addiction, 92(Suppl2), S251–S260.

Holder, H. D. (2001). Community prevention trials: A respectful partnership. American Journal of Health Behavior, 25(3), 234–244.

Holder, H. D., Gruenewald, P. J., Ponicki, W. R., Treno, A. J., Grube, J. W ., Saltz, R. F., . . . Roeper, P. (2000). Effect of community-based interventions on high-risk drinking and alcohol-related injuries. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(18), 2341–2347.

Holder, H. D., Saltz, R. F., Grube, J. W., Treno, A. J., Reynolds, R. I., Voas, R. B., & Gruenewald, P. J. (1997). Summing up: Lessons from a comprehensive community prevention trial. Addiction, 92(Suppl2), S293–S301.

Reynolds, R. I., Holder, H. D., & Gruenewald, P. J. (1997). Community prevention and alcohol retail access. Addiction, 92(Suppl2), S261–S272.

Saltz, R., & Stanghetta, P. (1997). A community-wide responsible beverage service program in three communities: Early findings. Addiction, 92(Suppl2), S237–S249.

Treno, A. J., Gruenewald, P. J., Lee, J. P., & Remer, L. G. (2007). The Sacramento Neighborhood Alcohol Prevention Project: Outcomes from a community prevention trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(2), 197–207.

Voas, R. B. (1997). Drinking and driving prevention in the community: Program planning and implementation. Addiction, 92(Suppl2), S201–S219.

 

Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL)

Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) Peggy Kelley Fri, 10/26/2018 - 12:14 PM EDT

Description

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP) Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) program supports efforts by states and local jurisdictions (including military base communities) to build law enforcement/prevention partnerships and apply environmental prevention strategies to address underage drinking. As part of this initiative, OJJDP offers comprehensive training and technical assistance to intervention sites.

Objective(s)

To reduce social and commercial availability of alcohol to underage youth

Typical Elements

At the state level:

  • ​A lead agency that has been designated to house administrative operations (e.g., state juvenile justice agency, state substance abuse prevention and treatment agency, state traffic safety agency; Wolfson et al., 2002; Wolfson et al., 2011).
    • Note: In the original project, the governor identified the lead state agency.
  • A program manager (designated or hired) responsible for monitoring, coordinating, and providing training and support for the intervention sites. She or he also organizes OJJDP’s technical assistance as needed.
  • Subcontracts to local communities for intervention sites.

At the community level:

  • At least one part-time coordinator (designated or hired) (Wolfson et al., 2011).
  • Strong relationships between individuals and agencies in law enforcement, prevention, and other community sectors, including partners who will collaborate with the coordinator on program planning and implementation.
  • An assessment of environmental factors (e.g., social and commercial availability of alcohol, laws and policies, enforcement efforts) related to underage drinking in the community (Wolfson et al., 2011).
  • A strategic plan, (approved by the state-level lead agency), for addressing the problem at the local level using appropriate and evidence-based prevention practices (Wolfson et al., 2011). Ideally, this plan should include:

Populations

  • Youth under age 21
  • State and local agencies
  • Law enforcement
  • Community leaders
  • Other community groups depending on selected interventions

Outcomes

  • Relative to comparison communities, EUDL communities exhibited significant reductions in alcohol-related crashes involving underage drivers (Wolfson et al., 2011).
  • Relative to EUDL communities with lower levels of implementation, those with higher levels of implementation demonstrated greater increases in community members’ (Wolfson et al., 2011):
    • Expectations about parental and police sanctions
    • Level of concern about underage drinking
  • Relative to Air Force base comparison communities, Air Force base EUDL communities exhibited reductions in the percentage of junior enlisted personnel at risk for a drinking problem (Ames & Spera, 2011; Spera et al., 2010).
    • Air Force bases implementing EUDL also demonstrated reductions in (Spera, Barlas, Szoc, Prabhakaran, & Cambridge, 2012):
    • Failed compliance checks by local alcohol establishments
    • Arrests of minors in possession of alcohol
    • DUIs/DWIs for active duty and civilians under 21 years old

Guidelines

National Evaluation of the Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program

National Evaluation of the Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Randomized Community Trial: Final Report

Recognition

No recognition found for role of EUDL in preventing underage drinking and/or its consequences.

References

Ames, G. M., & Spera, C. (2011). Prevention in the military: Early results on an environmental strategy. Alcohol Research and Health, 34(2), 180–182.

Spera, C., Barlas, F., Szoc, R. Z., Prabhakaran, J., & Cambridge, M. (2012). Examining the influence of the Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) program on alcohol-related outcomes in five communities surrounding Air Force bases. Addictive Behaviors, 37(4), 513–516.

Spera, C., Franklin, K., Uekawa, K., Kunz, J. F., Szoc, R. Z., Thomas, R. K., & Cambridge, M. H. (2010). Reducing drinking among junior enlisted Air Force members in five communities: Early findings of the EUDL program’s influence on self-reported drinking behaviors. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71(3), 373–383.

Wolfson, M., Patterson, T. E., Williams, A. E., Zaccaro, D. J., DuRant, R. H., Shrestha, A., . . . Altman, D. G. (2002). National evaluation of the Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/191211NCJRS.pdf

Wolfson, M., Song, E-Y., Martin, B. A., Wagoner, K., Pleasants, D., Nieberg, R., . . . Hulme, S. (2011). National evaluation of the Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws randomized community trial: Final report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/236176.pdf

 

Local Alcohol Policy (PAKKA)

Local Alcohol Policy (PAKKA) Peggy Kelley Fri, 10/26/2018 - 12:15 PM EDT

Description

The Local Alcohol Policy (PAKKA) program combines community organizing, responsible beverage server/seller training, media advocacy, enforcement of underage drinking laws, and community events to influence change on alcohol service to and consumption by underage youth in Finland.

Objective(s)

  • To create local structures that support underage drinking prevention
  • To reduce social and commercial availability of alcohol to those under age 18 (the legal age for purchasing alcohol in Finland)
  • To change community attitudes and norms related to local alcohol use and control

Typical Elements

  • A full-time community coordinator to facilitate program implementation  (Holmila & Warpenius, 2007; Holmila, Karlsson, & Warpenius, 2010; Warpenius, Holmila, & Mustonen, 2010).
  • Two local structures, a steering group and a working group, to collaborate with the coordinator and support community action on underage drinking. Both groups should include community members and leaders from various sectors, including alcohol licensing authorities, law enforcement, the alcohol service industry, judicial system, prevention, and the media (Holmila & Warpenius, 2007; Holmila, Karlsson, & Warpenius, 2010; Warpenius et al., 2010):
    • The steering group serves in an advisory role, particularly to support policy changes.
    • The more task-oriented working group meets regularly to plan and support program implementation.
  • Seminars to facilitate discussion and address conflicting interests between licensed alcohol outlets and licensing authority representatives (Holmila & Warpenius, 2007; Holmila et al., 2010; Warpenius et al., 2010).
  • A voluntary half-day, drama-based training for alcohol sellers and servers. Topics covered can include (Holmila & Warpenius, 2007; Warpenius & Holmila, 2007; Warpenius et al., 2010):
  • Media advocacy techniques to promote healthy drinking norms and responsible service practices in licensed alcohol outlets. Activities can include (Holmila & Warpenius, 2007; Warpenius & Holmila, 2007; Warpenius et al., 2010):
    • Gathering information about underage drinking and related problems, the frequency and consequences of over-serving, and alcohol server/seller concerns.
    • Developing prevention messages about the need for change and how to bring about that change.
    • Using multiple media outlets to convey prevention messages to the intended audience(s).
    • Monitoring and fine-tuning both messages and delivery efforts as needed.
  • Enforcement of relevant laws, including minimum age of alcohol purchase, sale, and server and minors in possession of alcohol laws. Activities can include (Holmila & Warpenius, 2007; Warpenius & Holmila, 2007; Warpenius et al., 2010) increasing the number of compliance checks or alcohol purchase surveys to monitor licensed alcohol outlets and issuing mild sanctions to offenders (e.g., written reprimands, counseling).
  • Community events to influence public perceptions related to alcohol service and consumption (Warpenius et al., 2010). These events often involve and target youth and parents (Holmila & Warpenius, 2007; Warpenius & Holmila, 2007). For example, one such event from the original demonstration project was a drama-based education program for parents emphasizing parental responsibility in alcohol education.

Populations

  • Finnish youth under age 18
  • Licensed alcohol outlets

Outcomes

Compared to non-PAKKA communities, PAKKA communities have demonstrated a greater increase in (Holmila & Warpenius, 2012):

  • The attitude that it is inappropriate for a 15-year-old to have a drink in a family celebration

Guidelines

No guidelines are available in English.

Recognition

Alcohol Abuse among Adolescents in Europe: Effective Environmental Strategies for Prevention

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

Practices and Interventions for Prevention of Alcohol Use among Young People in Europe

References

Holmila, M., Karlsson, T., & Warpenius, K. (2010). Controlling teenagers’ drinking: Effects of a community-based prevention project. Journal of Substance Use, 15(3): 201–214.

Holmila, M., & Warpenius, K. (2007). A study on effectiveness of local alcohol policy: Challenges and solutions in the PAKKA project. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy, 14(6), 529–541.

Holmila, M., & Warpenius, K. (2012). Community-based prevention of alcohol-related injuries: Possibilities and experiences. International Journal of Alcohol and Drug Research, 1(1), 27–39.

Warpenius, K., & Holmila, M. (2007). Connecting alcohol research and prevention practice: Lessons learned from PAKKA. Nordic Studies on Alcohol And Drugs, 24(6), 652–55. 

Warpenius, K., Holmila, M., & Mustonen, H. (2010). Effects of a community intervention to reduce the serving of alcohol to intoxicated patrons. Addiction 105(6), 1032–1040.

 

Massachusetts Saving Lives

Massachusetts Saving Lives Peggy Kelley Fri, 10/26/2018 - 12:17 PM EDT

Description

Targeting alcohol-related traffic incidents, the Massachusetts Saving Lives program combines community organization efforts with enforcement of underage drinking laws, community events, communication campaigns, environmental modifications, and focused education/trainings.

Objective(s)

  • To influence community attitudes and beliefs about alcohol-impaired and other risky driving practices and the risk of getting caught for such practices
  • To limit commercial and social availability of alcohol to underage youth

Typical Elements

  • A full-time community coordinator to facilitate program implementation (Hingson, McGovern, Howland, & Heeren, 1996).
  • A task force of private citizens, local organizations, and community leaders representing different city departments (e.g., school, police, health) to collaborate with the coordinator and develop program initiatives (Hingson et al., 1996).
    • Note: Of the six cities in the original demonstration project, task force membership averaged 50 organizations per city.
  • ​Enforcement of relevant laws, including minimum age of alcohol purchase, sale, and server laws; minors in possession of alcohol laws; and blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limits (also see Shults et al., 2009).
  • Implementation of compliance checks or alcohol purchase surveys.
  • Citizen contributions: In the original demonstration project, citizens organized to (Hingson et al., 1996):
    • Increase the number of police hours spent enforcing minimum drinking age laws and BAC limits
    • Support police training to implement enforcement strategies designed to curb underage drinking and driving while intoxicated (such as those below)
    • Implement and enforce beer keg registration laws to limit commercial and social availability of alcohol
    • Increase liquor outlet surveillance by police to reduce underage alcohol purchase
    • Advertise and implement sobriety checkpoints to deter alcohol impaired driving (as well as promote seat belt use in cars)
  • Community events designed to influence public perceptions related to alcohol service and consumption. In the original demonstration project, citizens organized to (Hingson et al., 1996):
    • Conduct informational meetings with the business community
    • Hold speeding and drunk driving awareness days
    • Set up and monitor telephone hotlines to field citizen reports of speeding
    • Promote alcohol-free prom nights
    • Introduce alcohol education in schools with peer-led activities
    • Sponsor a local Students Against Drunk Driving chapter
  • Media advocacy to encourage local news outlets to explain trends in alcohol-related traffic incidents and to publicize selected strategies for preventing and reducing traffic injuries and deaths (Hingson et al., 1996; also see Shults et al., 2009). 
  • Modifications to the physical environment to promote pedestrian safety. In the original demonstration project, citizens organized to (Hingson et al., 1996):
    • Post crosswalk signs warning motorists of fines for failure to yield to pedestrians
    • Add crosswalk guards
  • Education and training programs for various audiences (e.g., Preschool education programs and trainings for hospital and prenatal staff on the correct use of child safety seats in cars) (Hingson et al., 1996).

Populations

  • Youth under age 21
  • Key intermediaries or populations responsible for delivering key intervention components (e.g., law enforcement officials, preschool teachers, hospital and prenatal staff)

Outcomes

Relative to the rest of Massachusetts, Saving Lives communities demonstrated greater (Hingson et al., 1996):

  • Reductions in fatal crashes involving drivers aged 15 to 25
  • Reductions in reported driving after drinking among drivers aged 16 to19
  • Increases in awareness of driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI) laws and sanctions for teenage offenders
  • Increases in awareness of speeding sanctions among teenagers

Guidelines

The Massachusetts Saving Lives Program: Six Cities

Recognition

The Community Guide: Motor Vehicle Injury - Alcohol-Impaired Driving: Multicomponent Interventions with Community Mobilization

Motor Vehicle-Related Injury Prevention: Reducing Alcohol-Impaired Driving

References

Hingson, R., McGovern, T., Howland, J., & Heeren, T. (1996). Reducing alcohol-impaired driving In Massachusetts: The Saving Lives program. American Journal of Public Health, 86(6), 791–797.

Shults, R. A., Elder, R. W., Nichols, J. L., Sleet, D. A., Compton, R., &. Chattopadhyay, S. K. (2009). Effectiveness of multicomponent programs with community mobilization for reducing alcohol-impaired driving. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(4), 360–71.

 

Midwestern Prevention Project

Midwestern Prevention Project Peggy Kelley Fri, 10/26/2018 - 12:20 PM EDT

Description

The Midwestern Prevention Project (MPP), also known as Project STAR, is a comprehensive, school-centered, and community-based program for sixth- to eighth-grade students that includes a classroom curriculum, parent education, community organizing, policy development, and media advocacy. Components are introduced sequentially over the span of five years.

Objective(s)

  • To promote drug resistance skills among youth
  • To change family and school norms that support alcohol and other drug use
  • To limit social and commercial availability of alcohol to underage youth

Typical Elements

  • In the first year, a classroom curriculum for sixth- and seventh-grade students that teaches drug and alcohol resistance skills through interactive methods such as discussions, role-playing, and parent-child homework activities. Activities to support the first year can include (Pentz et al., 1989):
    • Building partnerships with school staff and administrators
    • Training staff on predictors and rates of alcohol use among youth
    • Demonstrating MPP classroom sessions
    • Selecting and preparing peer leaders to assist in program activities
    • Conducting monthly phone calls with teachers to support implementation of classroom sessions
      • Note:  There are booster sessions to these same students when they are in grades 7 and 8.
  • In the second year, a parent component (Riggs, Elfenbaum & Pentz, 2006).  Activities can include:
    • Working with the school-parent liaison, involved parents, or school staff to create a parent-school committee dedicated to prevention efforts in the school
    • Training  participating parents on how to develop their committee, identify key alcohol and substance use issues in their school, and plan and implement prevention activities
    • Providing parent skills trainings twice a year that teach parents throughout the school how to support their children’s drug-free behaviors (e.g., promoting positive parent-child communication, developing effective family rules and expectations)
  • In the third year, a community organizing component. Trained community leaders establish prevention activities to complement the other program components (i.e., student, parent, policy, and mass media).
  • In the fourth and fifth years, a policy component (optional). Local community and judicial leaders to develop local ordinances aimed at restricting students’ access to alcohol. See Limits on Location of Outlets and Minimum Age of Alcohol Purchased, Sale, and Server Laws.
  • A media component—beginning in year one and continuing throughout all five years). This component can use television, radio, and other media to promote and support all program efforts. For example, the original MPP delivered 31 television, radio, or print messages per year highlighting the program’s prevention efforts. Activities can include (Pentz et al., 1989):

Populations

  • Middle and junior high school students
  • Parents
  • School administrators
  • Local government
  • Other community members

Outcomes

Compared to control group participants, MPP participants demonstrated greater:

  • Decreases in rates of alcohol use with lower rates holding one and a half (Chou et al., 1998) and two years post-implementation (MacKinnon et al., 1991; Pentz et al., 1989)
  • Decreases in beliefs about the positive effects of alcohol use (MacKinnon et al., 1991)
  • Decreases in peer support for substance use (MacKinnon et al., 1991)
  • Increases in parental perceptions of influence over child’s substance use following parent-school committee involvement and parental involvement in parent-child homework activities (Riggs et al., 2006)

Guidelines

RAND Corporation: Promising Practices Network

Recognition

Athena Forum: Excellence in Prevention

National Institute of Justice: Crime Solutions

RAND Corporation: Promising Practices Network

References

Chou, C. P., Montgomery, S., Pentz, M. A., Rohrback, L. A., Johnson, C. A., Flay, B. R., & MacKinnon, D. P.  (1998). Effects of a community-based prevention program on decreasing drug use in high-risk adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 88(6), 944–948.

MacKinnon, D. P., Johnson, C. A., Pentz, M. A., Dwyer, J. H., Hansen, W. B., Flay, B. R., & Wang, E. (1991). Mediating mechanisms in a school-based drug prevention program: First-year effects of the Midwestern Prevention Project. Health Psychology, 10(3), 164–172. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.10.3.164

Pentz, M. A., Dwyer, J. H., MacKinnon, D. P., Flay, B. R., Hansen, W. B., Yu, E. I., & Johnson, A. C.  (1989). A multicommunity trial for primary prevention of adolescent drug abuse: Effects on drug use prevalence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 261(22), 3259–3266.

Riggs, N. R., Elfenbaum, P., & Pentz, M. A. (2006). Parent program component analysis in a drug abuse prevention trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(1), 66–72. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.09.013

 

Prevention Trial in the Cherokee Nation

Prevention Trial in the Cherokee Nation Peggy Kelley Fri, 10/26/2018 - 12:22 PM EDT

Description

This multi-component prevention trial combines a community organizing process from an established intervention (Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol) with screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment from a newer intervention (CONNECT). Designed to be culturally appropriate for Native American populations, particularly Cherokee youth, this intervention is intended for all high school students in a community.

Objective(s)

  • To increase youth bonding, social support, and inclusion
  • To influence youth perceptions of access to alcohol, enforcement, drinking norms, drinking behaviors, and alcohol-related risks and outcomes
  • To reduce social and commercial access to alcohol among youth

Typical Elements

  • An expanded version of the Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA) strategic planning process includes (Komro et al., 2015):
    • A local communities organizer to coordinate the CMCA process
    • A series of meetings with community residents to assess local needs and resources related to underage drinking
    • A trained (e.g., on evidence-based environmental prevention strategies) community action team to collaborate with the community organizer
    • Public support for the project, built by conducting additional meetings with influential stakeholders, attending and presenting at community events, and employing media advocacy techniques
    • An action plan, developed using a participatory process that attends to social inequalities, which outlines selected evidence-based, community-level prevention strategies
    • Selected prevention strategies which have been chosen for implementation with the assistance of the community action team and community organizer.
      • Note: In the original demonstration project, communities implemented the CMCA intervention enhanced by compliance checks, hot-spot policing, and media campaigns.
  • Implementation of the CONNECT program (Komro et al., 2015) which includes:
    • The hiring of experienced school-based social workers, counselors, or other certified staff to serve as coaches
    • The training of coaches to implement brief interventions using motivational interviewing techniques with Native American populations, particularly Cherokee youth
    • The delivery of brief one-to-one screening and motivational interviewing sessions to every high school student twice a year by coaches
    • The training of school and community members who work with youth to identify signs of alcohol-related problems and provide referrals to appropriate school and community resources
    • The education of family and community members about the problem and prevention of underage drinking (e.g., mailing postcards to adolescents’ family residences with tips on communicating and connecting with teens, monitoring youth behavior, identifying high-risk behaviors and community resources)
    • Continuous monitoring to improve and institutionalize program components (e.g., delivering in-person booster trainings to help CONNECT coaches communicate effectively with adolescents about alcohol).

Populations

  • High school students
  • Other community groups, depending on selected programs and strategies

Outcomes

Compared to control communities, communities exposed to CMCA, CONNECT, or both interventions demonstrated a decrease in current use, heavy episodic drinking, and alcohol-related consequences among high school students (Komro et al., 2017). 

Guidelines

Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention for Youth: A Practitioner's Guide

​Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA)

Recognition

No recognition found for role of the prevention trial in the Cherokee Nation in preventing underage drinking and/or its consequences.

References

Komro, K. A., Livingston, M. D., Wagenaar, A. C., Kominsky, T. K., Pettigrew, D. W., & Garrett, B. A. (2017). Multilevel prevention trial of alcohol use among American Indian and White high school students in the Cherokee Nation. American Journal of Public Health, 107(3), 453-459. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296689/pdf/AJPH.2016.303603.pdf 

Komro, K. A., Wagenaar, A. C., Boyd, M., Boyd, B. J., Kominsky, T., Pettigrew, . . . Molina, M. M. (2015). Prevention trial in the Cherokee Nation: Design of a randomized community trial. Prevention Science, 16(2), 291-300. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11121-014-0478-y/fulltext.html

Project Northland

Project Northland Peggy Kelley Fri, 10/26/2018 - 12:23 PM EDT

Description

Project Northland is a community-wide, multi-level, multi-year intervention for youth that includes strategies to reduce both the supply and demand of alcohol. This program includes classroom curricula, peer leadership and extracurricular activities, parent involvement, and community activism.

Objective(s)

  • To promote alcohol and drug resistance skills among youth
  • To influence community attitudes and norms about underage drinking
  • To reduce social and commercial access to alcohol among youth

Typical Elements

Phase I (grades 6–8):

  • ​Students and parents are engaged in conversations to encourage individual adolescents not to use alcohol. Activities include (Hazelden, 2013, pp. 9 – 10):
    • Using program materials to facilitate conversations between students and their families at home
    • Conducting educational activities at school and at home
    • Inviting family and community members to view student presentations on alcohol prevention topics at school
  • A classroom curriculum (e.g., Slick Tracy, Amazing Alternatives), led by teachers and students, on how to identify and resist pressures to use alcohol. Components include (Hazelden, 2013, pp. 9 – 10):
    • Facilitating discussions about the negative consequences of drinking
    • Instructing participants about false messages in alcohol advertising and the dangers of drinking and driving
    • Creating time capsules that contain participants’ goals and intentions to avoid alcohol use
    • Practicing strategies that participants can use to decline or avoid alcohol use in different situations
  • Youth action teams facilitated by a local adult coordinator and/or adult volunteers. Activities might include (Perry et al., 1996):
    • Attending leadership training
    • Creating student newsletters
    • Planning alcohol-free events (e.g., prom, graduation)
    • Developing activities to support regional and/or national alcohol prevention campaigns (e.g., Alcohol Awareness Month)
    • Participating in community events, such as festivals and fairs (e.g., setting up booths to raise awareness about underage drinking)
    • Promoting healthy community and family policies related to alcohol use
  • Local action teams, consisting of parents and community members interested in preventing underage drinking and its consequences, to complement the work of the youth action teams. Activities might include (Perry et al., 1996):
    • Educating stakeholders about responsible beverage server training for local alcohol outlets
    • Implementing programs and strategies that promote non-use messages in the community (e.g., “gold card” programs in which local businesses provide discounts to students who pledge to remain free of alcohol and other drugs)
    • Collaborating with law enforcement to conduct compliance checks in off-premise outlets

Interim phase (grade 9):

  • Shifting Gears is implemented, a five-session classroom program that focuses on the pressures to drink and drive, tactics of alcohol advertising, and ways to deal with those influences (Perry et al., 2002).

Note: No program activities during grade 10.

Phase II (grades 11–12): 

  • Class Action is implemented, a six-session classroom curriculum that uses a “mock trial” format; students role-play legal cases involving underage alcohol use to explore the consequences of and community’s responsibility for underage drinking (Perry et al., 2000). Discussion about alcohol use is encouraged between youth and parents by:

    • Designing postcards for parents with tips on communicating with teens (Perry et al., 2000)
    • Implementing the Sound OFF campaign where students answer discussion questions with their parents and return their answers to school to be eligible for a drawing for $500 (Williams & Perry, 1998)
  • A social marketing campaign (e.g., using calendars, newsletters, and posters) to discourage young adults of legal drinking age from providing alcohol to youth under age 21 (Perry et al., 2000).
  • Ongoing support for the youth action and local action teams formed during Phase I, with the goal of having them continue to lead prevention efforts at school and in the community (Williams & Perry, 1998; Perry et al., 2000).

Populations

  • Middle or junior high school students
  • High school students
  • Parents or guardians
  • Community members

Outcomes

After Phase I:

Compared to control group participants, Project Northland participants have reported (Perry et al., 1996):

  • Reductions in intention to use alcohol   
  • Reductions in alcohol use during the past week
  • Reductions in alcohol use during the past month
  • Reductions in peer influence to use alcohol
  • Increases in ability to resist alcohol at a party/dance or when offered by a boyfriend/girlfriend

After Phase II:

  • ​Compared to control group participants, Project Northland participants have reported reductions in (Perry et al., 2002):
    • Growth rate in alcohol use
    • Binge drinking
  • A study that examined the effects of individual components of the Project Northland program on self-reported adolescent alcohol use found that the (Stigler et al., 2006):
    • Extracurricular activities (for planners only) and parent component were associated with the strongest effects.
    • Classroom curriculum component was associated with moderate effects.
    • Community activism component had no measurable effect.
  • Compared to control group participants, participants in a Project Northland adaptation for urban, low-income, and multi-ethnic settings reported no difference in alcohol use (Komro et al., 2008).

Guidelines

Project Northland and Class Action

Recognition

Annie E. Casey Foundation: Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development  

RAND Corporation: Promising Practices Network

References

Hazelden. (2013). Alcohol Prevention Works! Center City, MN: Hazelden. Retrieved from http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/document/northlandscopesequence052013.pdf

Komro, K. A., Perry, C. L., Veblen‐Mortenson, S., Farbakhsh, K., Toomey, T. L., Stigler, M. H., . . .  & Williams, C. L. (2008). Outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of a multi‐component alcohol use preventive intervention for urban youth: Project Northland Chicago. Addiction, 103(4), 606–618.

Perry, C. L., Williams, C. L., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Toomey, T. L., Komro, K. A., Anstine, P. S., . . . & Wolfson, M. (1996). Project Northland: Outcomes of a communitywide alcohol use prevention program during early adolescence. American Journal of Public Health, 86(7), 956–965.

Perry, C. L., Williams, C. L., Komro, K. A., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Forster, J. L., Bernstein-Lachter, R., . . . & McGovern, P. (2000). Project Northland high school interventions: Community action to reduce adolescent alcohol use. Health Education & Behavior, 27(1), 29–49.

Perry, C. L., Williams, C. L., Komro, K. A., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Stigler, M. H., Munson, K. A., . . . Forster, J. L. (2002). Project Northland: Long-term outcomes of community action to reduce adolescent alcohol use. Health Education Research, 17(1), 117–132.

Stigler, M. H., Perry, C. L., Komro, K. A., Cudeck, R., & Williams, C. L. (2006). Teasing apart a multiple component approach to adolescent alcohol prevention: What worked in Project Northland? Preventive Science, 7(3), 269–280.

Williams, C. L., & Perry, C. L. (1998). Lessons from Project Northland: Preventing alcohol problems during adolescence. Alcohol Health & Research World, 22(2), 107–116.

 

Reducing Underage Drinking Through Coalitions (RUD)

Reducing Underage Drinking Through Coalitions (RUD) Peggy Kelley Fri, 10/26/2018 - 12:25 PM EDT

Description

The Reducing Underage Drinking Through Coalitions (RUD) program combines coalition enhancement with youth leadership development, prevention planning, and environmental prevention activities.

Objective(s)

  • To prepare community members to change local practices and policies that promote youth alcohol use
  • To raise public awareness of the problem of underage drinking and the benefits of prevention
  • To reduce youth access to alcohol

Typical Elements

  • An effective coalition. Key components can include (AMA, 2006):
    • Involving representatives from multiple community sectors (e.g., advocacy groups, health care, law enforcement, schools, liquor control board).
    • Forming an advisory board composed of members who support the coalition’s goals and can drive the change process.
    • Selecting a coalition director who has a background in community organizing and understands the legislative process.
    • Choosing a host agency and determining whether the coalition will operate separately from or as part of that agency.
  • The involvement of young people by providing them with training and real opportunities to participate (e.g., offering insights on youth needs and culture, speaking to the media) in the coalition’s ongoing work (AMA, 2006; RWJF, 2007).
  • An assessment of prevention needs using existing national, local, and state data on underage drinking.
  • An assessment of prevention resources, including existing programs, services, laws/regulations, and enforcement efforts related to underage drinking (AMA, 2006; RWJF, 2007).
  • A strategic prevention plan based on the assessment of prevention needs and resources that includes (AMA, 2006):
    • Overarching goals
    • Objectives that are specific, achievable, and measurable
    • A set of action steps designed to meet stated goals and objectives
  • Collaboration with local media to raise public awareness of underage drinking and to promote effective practices and policies to address this problem (AMA, 2006; see Media Advocacy). Media advocacy strategies can include:
    • Training all coalition members on how to interact with the media.
    • Designating a media contact (e.g., coalition director).
    • Building relationships with media contacts to situate the coalition as a source of expert information on underage drinking and to identify appropriate channels for prevention messages.
    • Creating data-driven prevention messages and ensure that everyone in the coalition stays on message.
  • Collaboration with community leaders who are interested in  policy changes that impact underage drinking. For example (RWJF, 2007; Wagenaar, Erikson, Harwood, & O’Malley, 2006):

Populations

  • Youth under 21
  • Different segments of the general population (e.g., alcohol outlets, law enforcement) depending on prevention needs and goals

Outcomes

Relative to non-RUD states, RUD states have demonstrated significant (Wagenaar et al, 2006):

  • Increases in media coverage related to underage drinking, alcohol pricing and taxes, and social host liability, but not related to keg registration or compliance checks
  • Increases in alcohol policies involving social access, but not those involving commercial access, youth consumption, or alcohol marketing
  • Decreases in drinking in the past 12 months among 12th graders, but not among 8th and 10th graders
  • Decreases in drinking five or more consecutive drinks in the past two weeks among 12th graders, but not among 8th and 10th graders
  • Decreases in getting drunk in the past 30 days among both 8th graders and 12th graders, but not among 10th graders
  • Decreases in driving a car after drinking in the past two weeks among 12th graders

Guidelines

Building Successful Coalitions to Address Underage Drinking: A Step-By-Step Guide  

Reducing Underage Drinking Through Coalitions – An RWJF National Program: Program Results Report

Recognition

No recognition found for the role of the RUD program in preventing underage drinking and/or its consequences. 

References

American Medical Association (AMA). (2006). Building successful coalitions to address underage drinking: A step-by-step guide. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Retrieved from: www.clearthinkingcommunications.com/case_studies_for_clear_thinking_communications/ReducingUnderageDrinking.pdf

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). (2007). Reducing Underage Drinking Through Coalitions: An RWJF national program. Program results report. Princeton, NJ: Parker. Retrieved from: https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2007/07/reducing-underage-drinking-through-coalitions.html

Wagenaar, A. C., Erickson, D. J., Harwood, E. M., & O’Malley, P. M. (2006). Effects of state coalitions to reduce underage drinking: A national evaluation. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31, 307–315.

 

Reducing Youth Access to Alcohol (RYAA)

Reducing Youth Access to Alcohol (RYAA) Peggy Kelley Fri, 10/26/2018 - 12:26 PM EDT

Description

Reducing Youth Access to Alcohol (RYAA) combines multiple environmental prevention strategies, such as community organization, compliance surveys, compliance checks, party patrols, and media advocacy.

Objective(s)

  • To increase community support for policy and program changes to address underage drinking
  • To reduce commercial and social availability of alcohol to underage youth
  • To increase visibility of enforcement efforts to curb underage drinking and its consequences

Typical Elements

The RYAA program involves the following typical elements (Flewelling et al., 2013):

  • A communication strategy to raise public awareness about underage drinking and related consequences and build support for the intervention. Activities can include:         
    • Presenting local underage drinking data, risks associated with underage alcohol consumption, and an overview of project activities to community stakeholders (e.g., city councils, chambers of commerce, school boards, community coalitions, business owners, and residents).     
    • Inviting community stakeholders to sign a community proclamation supporting laws targeting underage drinking.   
    • Using local media (e.g., school/community newsletters, newspapers, radio, TV, social network sites) to disseminate prevention messages and build support for prevention activities (see Media Advocacy). For example, submitting educational articles with information about local statistics on underage drinking, the dangers of allowing drinking in the home, social host liability, and prevention/intervention efforts.
       
  • Reward and Reminder visits. This involves:
    • Selecting a random sample of 20 off-premise outlets (or all outlets in communities with less than 20). 
    • Conducting a compliance survey. Provide sales clerks and management staff who ask for proof of legal age with congratulatory letters and gift certificates (i.e., the “Reward”), and provide notices to the sales clerks (not management) who  fail to ask for ID (i.e., the “Reminder”).
       
  • Strong law enforcement activities. Activities can include:         
  • Ongoing community outreach and coordination. Activities can include:         
    • Collaborating with prevention coordinators and coalition members to support specific intervention efforts (e.g., conduct community presentations, provide law enforcement training, coordinate Reward and Reminder visits) 
    • Holding community networking meetings that include prevention coordinators and law enforcement (e.g., to discuss key prevention topics, plan intervention efforts, pursue additional funding opportunities)

Populations

  • Youth under age 21
  • Alcohol retailers

Outcomes

Relative to comparison communities, communities that completed the RYAA program demonstrated a (Flewelling et al., 2013):

  • Reduction in off-premise underage alcohol sales
  • Marginal reduction in the perception that people over 21 years old would not buy alcohol for a minor

Guidelines

Reducing Youth Access to Alcohol: Findings from a Community-Based Randomized Trial

Using Statewide Youth Surveys to Evaluate Local Drug Use Policies and Interventions

Recognition

No recognition found for the role of the RYAA program in preventing underage drinking and/or its consequences.

References

Flewelling, R. L., Grube, J. W., Paschall, M. J., Biglan, A., Kraft, A., Black, C., . . . Ruscoe, J. (2013). Reducing youth access to alcohol: Findings for a community-based randomized trial. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(0), 264–277. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790581/

Paschall, M. J., Flewelling, R. L., & Grube, J. W. (2009). Using statewide youth surveys to evaluate local drug use policies and interventions. Contemporary Drug Problems, 36(3/4), 427–446. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819722/

 

Study to Prevent Alcohol-Related Consequences (SPARC)

Study to Prevent Alcohol-Related Consequences (SPARC) Peggy Kelley Fri, 10/26/2018 - 11:45 AM EDT

Description

The Study to Prevent Alcohol-Related Consequences (SPARC) combines community organizing and environmental prevention strategies to address alcohol-related problems on college campuses and in surrounding communities.

Objective(s)

  • To prepare campus and community members to change local practices and policies that promote high-risk drinking
  • To promote positive social norms around alcohol use on campuses and in surrounding communities
  • To reduce social and commercial access to alcohol among college students 

Typical Elements

  • A campus/community organizer who will be responsible for day-to-day coordination of prevention activities (Martin et al, 2012).
  • An on-campus accountability group to collaborate with the organizer and oversee the initiative. Activities can include providing funding, training, and technical assistance and monitoring prevention activities (Martin et al., 2012).
  • A campus/community coalition to collaborate with the organizer to assess prevention needs and develop and implement a strategic plan to address those needs. This coordinator (Martin et al., 2012): 
    • Conducts relational meetings (also known as “one-on-ones”) with local stakeholders based on their interest in the problem and the resources and skills they can contribute to the coalition.
      • Note: In the original implementation of SPARC, the median number of relational meetings per college site was 107 (Wolfson et al., 2012).
    • Recruits 10 to 30 members for the coalition, ensuring representation by faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders from the surrounding community.
  • An assessment of training needs of the on-campus accountability group and the campus/community coalition using methods such as focus groups or key informant interviews. Training should be available as needed, on general topics, such as community organizing and strategic planning, or on topics specific to selected prevention programs and strategies (Martin et al., 2012).
  • The collection and analysis of college-level data regarding risk factors related to high-risk drinking among students to identify one or more priority problem(s) (Wolfson et al., 2012). Consider using the College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide. 
  • A strategic plan that includes environmental prevention strategies with demonstrated evidence of effectiveness in reducing high-risk drinking and its consequences among college students (Martin et al., 2012; Wolfson et al., 2012). Ideally, the plan should mandate the use of communication, enforcement, and policy strategies that address three out of four of the following:
  • The implementation of selected programs and strategies to reduce high-risk drinking and related consequences. Common strategies from the original study included (Wolfson et al., 2012):
    • Restricting provision of alcohol to underage or intoxicated students
    • Increasing and/or improving coordination between campus and community police
    • Restricting alcohol possession
    • Restricting alcohol use at campus events
    • Establishing consistent disciplinary actions associated with policy violations
    • Creating campaigns to correct misperceptions about alcohol use
    • Enhancing awareness of personal liability
    • Monitoring parties through, for example, party patrols
  • A sustainable coalition that continues leading effective prevention practices. For example (Wolfson et al., 2012):
    • Meeting with influential university officials to secure their support and additional funding.
    • Collaborating with local agencies to implement SPARC programs and strategies.

Populations

  • College students
  • Other community groups depending on selected programs and strategies

Outcomes

Compared to non-SPARC colleges/communities, those that participated in SPARC demonstrated  decreases in (Wolfson et al., 2012):

  • Severe consequences due to students’ own drinking
  • Students causing alcohol-related injuries to others

These decreases were larger in colleges/communities with higher doses (e.g., more thorough implementation) of the intervention (Wolfson et al., 2012).

Guidelines

College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide: Environmental Approaches to Prevention (CARA), 2nd edition

Study to Prevent Alcohol-Related Consequences: Using a Community Organizing Approach to Implement Environmental Strategies In and Around the College Campus—An Intervention Manual

Recognition

No recognition found for role of SPARC in preventing underage drinking and/or its consequences.

References

Martin, B. A., Sparks, M., Wagoner, K. G., Sutfin, E. L., Egan, K. L., Sparks, A., . . . & Wolfson, M. (2012). Study to prevent alcohol-related consequences: Using a community organizing approach to implement environmental strategies in and around the college campus—An intervention manual. Winston Salem, NC: Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.nccpsafety.org/assets/files/library/SPARC_Manual.pdf

Wolfson, M., Champion, H., McCoy, T. P., Rhodes, S. D., Ip, E. H., Blocker, J. N., . . . & DuRant, R. H. (2012). Impact of a randomized campus/community trial to prevent high-risk drinking among college students. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 36(10), 1767–1778.