Reducing Underage Drinking through Coalitions Alcohol Policy Tracking Report: 1997-2000
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Principal Investigator
S ubm i tte d to : Th e R ob e rt Wo od Jo hn son F o un d ati on
May, 2002 Prepared by: Alcohol Epidemiology Program Division of Epidemiology School of Public Health University of Minnesota Eileen M. Harwood, PhD Co-Investigator Project Director Kathleen Lenk, MPH Jean Witson, MS Coordinators
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This evaluation was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey (RWJF #030732 for 02/01/97-01/31/99 and RWJF #031582 for 02/01/99-01/31/00, Alexander C. Wagenaar, Principal Investigator). The views expressed here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency. The authors wish to thank staff at the University of Minnesota’s Alcohol Epidemiology Program, the American Medical Society’s Office of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. We acknowledge the following individuals in particular: Elizabeth Justiniano, Margaret Krieser, Rebecca Mitchell, Traci Toomey, Charles Good, Cindy Silianoff and Linda Fletcher. Special thanks to the directors, staff, and members of the 12 RUD coalitions for their participation in this evaluation.
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
2
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
PROJECT REPORTS AND PAPERS AS OF JUNE 1, 2002
Previous Reports Alcohol Epidemiology Program. Process Evaluation for Year 1: Reducing Underage Drinking through Coalitions Project. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1998. Alcohol Epidemiology Program. Reducing Underage Drinking through Coalitions Project: Year 2 Process Evaluation Report. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1999. Alcohol Epidemiology Program. Reducing Underage Drinking through Coalitions Project: Year 3 Process Evaluation Report. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2000. Alcohol Epidemiology Program. Reducing Underage Drinking through Coalitions Project: Evaluation Report 1997-2000. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2001. Project Papers Wagenaar, A.C., Harwood, E.M., Toomey T.L., Denk C.E., and Zander K.M. Public opinion on alcohol policies in the United States: Results from a national survey. Journal of Public Health Policy. 21(3):303-327, 2000. Latimer, W.W., Harwood, E.M., Newcomb, M., and Wagenaar, A.C. Sociodemographic and individual predictors of alcohol policy attitudes: Results from a U.S. probability sample. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 25(4):549-556, 2001. Wagenaar, A.C., Denk, C.E., Hannan, P.J., Chen, H., and Harwood E.M. Liability of commercial and social hosts for alcohol-related injuries: A national survey of accountability norms and judgments. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(3):344-368, 2001. Latimer, W.W., Harwood, E.M., Newcomb, M., and Wagenaar, A.C. Measuring public opinion on alcohol policy: A factor analytic study of a U.S. probability sample. Addictive Behaviors, in press. Ehrlich, L.C., Harwood, E.M., Toomey, T.L., and Wagenaar, A.C. Development of statewide coalitions: The Reducing Underage Drinking through Coalitions (RUD) project. Under review. Abstracts and Presentations Harwood, E.M., Lenk, K., Ehrlich, L., and Wagenaar, A.C. Assessing coalition outcomes using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Presented at the 129th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association, Atlanta, GA. October, 2001. Brenner, S.M., Harwood, E., Toomey, T., and Wagenaar, A. Effective coalitions: perceptions of coalition members. Poster presented at the 129th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association, Atlanta, GA. October, 2001. Wagenaar, A.C., Denk, C.E., Hannan, P.J., Chen, H., and Harwood, E.M. Liability of commercial and social hosts for alcohol-related injuries: A national survey of accountability norms and judgments. Paper presented at the Kettil Bruun Society Alcohol Epidemiology Symposium in Toronto, Canada. May, 2001. Harwood, E.M. and Wagenaar, A.C. Examining the role of formative feedback in a coalition evaluation. Paper presented at the 128th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association, Boston, MA. November, 2000. Wagenaar, A.C., Harwood, E.M., Toomey, T.L., Denk, C.E., and Zander, K. Public opinion on alcohol policies in the United States: Results from a national survey. Paper presented at the 127th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association, Chicago, IL. November, 1999. Wagenaar, A.C., Harwood, E.M., Toomey, T.L., Denk, C.E., and Zander, K. Public opinion on alcohol policies in the United States: Results from a national survey. Poster presented at the 94th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, IL. August, 1999. Wagenaar, A.C., Harwood, E.M., Toomey, T.L., Denk, C.E., and Zander, K. Public opinion on alcohol policies in the United States: Results from a national survey. Poster presented at Minnesota Consortium for Addiction Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. June, 1999.
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
3
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 2 Project Reports and Papers ..................................................................................................................... 3 Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 4 List of Tables and Figures........................................................................................................................ 5 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 RUD Evaluation Framework ...................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Report Overview ....................................................................................................................... 7 2.0 Data Sources .................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Independent Legal Data ............................................................................................................ 8 2.2 Coalition Data ........................................................................................................................... 8 3.0 Findings............................................................................................................................................ 9 3.1 Independent Legal Data ............................................................................................................ 9 3.2 Coalition Data ......................................................................................................................... 12 3.2.1 Coalition Activities ......................................................................................................... 12 3.2.2 State-Level Legislation ................................................................................................. 13 4.0 Factors Affecting Change................................................................................................................ 15 4.1 Social Factors ......................................................................................................................... 15 4.2 Political Factors ...................................................................................................................... 16 4.3 Economic Factors ................................................................................................................... 17 4.4 Demographic Factors .............................................................................................................. 17 4.5 Legal Complexities as Factors ................................................................................................ 17 5.0 Case Studies .................................................................................................................................. 18 5.1 Puerto Rico Coalition to Reduce Underage Drinking: MLDA .................................................... 18 5.2 Minnesota Join Together: Social Host Responsibility .............................................................. 21 6.0 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 23 6.1 Limitations and Caveats .......................................................................................................... 24 7.0 The Future ...................................................................................................................................... 26 References ............................................................................................................................................ 28 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................ 29 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................ 30 Appendix C............................................................................................................................................ 31
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
4
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1: RUD Project Evaluation Model ................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2: Model of Policy Change ........................................................................................................... 9
Table 1: Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Legislative Data Sources.......................................................................................................... 8 Table 3: Classification of Enacted Alcohol Bills with Examples: 5-Class System ................................... 10 Table 4: Alcohol Legislation over Time: 1997-2000 .............................................................................. 10 Table 5. Policy-Related Phase I RUD Coalition Activities by Policy Classification 1: 8-Class System ..... 13 Table 6: Phase I RUD Coalition-Reported Enacted Bills and Top Coalition Activities by Policy Classification ......................................................................................................................... 14 Table 7: Comparison of Phase I Accomplishments with Phase II Criteria ............................................. 27
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
5
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
1.0 INTRODUCTION The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s (RWJF) initiative, Reducing Underage Drinking through Coalitions (RUD), completed its first four-year phase (hereafter referred to as Phase I) in December, 2000. Twelve agencies in the United States and its territories were funded to develop statewide coalitions to change public attitudes, institutional policies and laws regarding youth and alcohol with the ultimate goal of reducing drinking by teens. The 12 coalition sites were Connecticut (CT), the District of Columbia (DC), Georgia (GA), Indiana (IN), Louisiana (LA), Minnesota (MN), Missouri (MS), North Carolina (NC), Oregon (OR), Pennsylvania (PA), Puerto Rico (PR), and Texas (TX). RWJF contracted with the University of Minnesota Alcohol Epidemiology Program (AEP) to evaluate the RUD program. This report presents the findings from the policy-tracking component of the AEP evaluation. To begin we present a brief overview of the evaluation framework. 1.1 RUD EVALUATION FRAMEWORK We theorize that effective RUD coalitions mobilize constituencies on issues of youth and alcohol following the logic model in Figure 1. We hypothesize that coalitions organize within existing norms and social attitudes with the intent of changing those norms, attitudes and awareness, as well as influence legislation, policy implementation and enforcement. These efforts, in turn, result in changes in more distal outcomes of ultimate interest — youth access to alcohol, youth drinking and alcohol-related problems. Due to the short duration of Phase I, little change was expected in these distal outcomes. This report focuses on the relationship between Coalition Mobilization and Policy Change (the highlighted section of our model, Figure 1). Our findings regarding changes in public attitudes and opinions and the evolution of coalition processes are covered in separate reports — 1997 RWJF Alcohol Policy Survey Report and RUD Evaluation Report: 1997-2000 Project Summary, respectively.
Figure 1: RUD Project Evaluation Model
Public Awareness & Attitudes Reduce Youth Drinking
Existing Norms & Attitudes
Coalition Mobilization
Policy Change
Reduce Youth Access to Alcohol
Reduce AlcoholPolicy Implementation & Enforcement Related Problems
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
6
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
To assess the RUD coalitions’ influence on alcohol policy, we collected and analyzed data on state-level alcohol legislation in the 50 states during Phase I. We designed analyses to detect differences from 1997 to 2000 in states with RUD coalitions (hereinafter referred to as RUD states) compared to the rest of the nation’s states (referred to here as comparison states) in numbers or types of alcohol bills introduced or enacted by state legislatures. We also analyzed policy-related coalition activities to find connections between a coalition’s activities and alcohol bills enacted in their state. We consider some effects from the external environment that may influence changes in public health policies in the Section 4.0 of this report. And, finally, we analyzed our notes from in-depth interviews with coalition members and staff to examine in greater detail the effect of social, political and economic factors on coalition and legislative activity. 1.2 REPORT OVERVIEW In this report, we first describe the sources we used to obtain information on state legislation. We then present our evaluation findings, organized into two sections: 1) data on state-level legislation obtained from legal data sources, 2) data obtained directly from the coalitions, including legislative data and policy-related activity reports. Next, we describe several factors in the external environment (e.g., social, political, economic and demographic factors) that influence coalition work and legislative change. Included are a few highlights from an analysis of one kind of alcohol policy — server training — to demonstrate the complexities found in public health laws relevant to policy change. Two case studies presented in the next section illustrate the influence of these factors on particular coalition activities and legislative change. Finally, we offer conclusions and recommendations based on our findings. From here forward, we use several terms as defined in Table 1.
Table 1: Definition of Terms
Term
Policy Alcohol policy Legislation Introduced bill Enacted bill Bill format: full text Bill format: summary Alcohol policy classification Coalition activity Legislative session Lawmaker State
Definition
A general term to describe formal and informal rules, regulations or practices created to support societal goals or principles. A broad term to describe policies that pertain to the manufacture, distribution, sale, possession or consumption of alcohol. A broad term referring to governmental bills or laws introduced or passed by state legislative bodies. A legislative proposal brought before the state legislature. A legislative proposal that has been introduced, passed through all required stages of the legislative process and signed into law by the governor or enacted over a governor’s veto. Complete written form of a bill. Short text that highlights the main points of a bill. (Some summaries are created by state legislatures; others are created by legal data research companies such as StateNet). A term used to describe any group of alcohol policies, bills, laws or activities that pertain to a certain topic (e.g., social host liability). Any organized policy-related effort taken and reported by the RUD coalitions. The period of time that a state legislature is officially convened during a given year. Legislator, aide, governor or other person involved in legislative decisions. A term used loosely to include all 50 United States, plus the RUD jurisdictions of PR and DC.
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
7
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
2.0 DATA SOURCES We utilized two data sources for our analyses: 1) independent, web-based, legal resources for current and historical information on state-level legislation; and 2) direct communication with coalitions. 2.1 INDEPENDENT LEGAL DATA Initially, at the direction of RWJF, we hired an external vendor, Health Policy Tracking Services (HPTS), to track introduced and enacted state-level bills. Beginning in the second year of Phase I (1998), we assumed the tracking tasks internally, contracting directly with the nation’s leading legal data resource companies — Westlaw, StateNet, and Lexis-Nexis. For consistency in our analysis, we do not include data from HPTS in this report. However, from StateNet and Westlaw, we obtained counts of bills introduced and enacted in 1997. Table 2 summarizes sources of legislative data. Note that legislative data for PR were not available except from information directly obtained from the coalition. Also, introduced and enacted bills from DC were not available from StateNet, so we obtained enacted bills (for the most part) through Westlaw. Therefore, DC and PR legislative action is not included in most analyses presented in this section.
Table 2: Legislative Data Sources
Data
Introduced bills Enacted bills Detailed information on specific bills
State/Jurisdiction
50 states DC and PR 50 states DC 10 RUD states 10 RUD states DC
Years
1997-2000 Not available 1997-2000 1997-2000 1998 1997-2000 1997-2000
Source
StateNet StateNet Westlaw Lexis-Nexis Westlaw Westlaw
Type of Data Used for Analysis
Counts only Summaries Full text Full text Full text Full text
With StateNet staff, we set up automated searches to retrieve introduced and enacted alcoholrelated legislation based on existing StateNet topic categories. We downloaded search results to our internal database for management and analysis purposes. Through a special contract agreement, we made it possible throughout Phase I for RUD coalitions to directly access the StateNet databases. We posted to our public AEP website summaries and full text of all relevant enacted alcohol bills (www.epi.umn.edu/alcohol) and used Westlaw services to obtain more detailed legislative information on specific states and/or bills (Westlaw’s data contain the codified version of what StateNet lists as passed bills). 2.2 COALITION DATA Additional legislative data and information on coalition policy activities were obtained via evaluation data collection forms and regularly scheduled, in-depth interviews with coalition directors and members. The forms and interviews provided more detail on how coalitions influenced public and political debates in their states and jurisdictions. Interview formats and forms are described in detail in our previous report on the process evaluation (Alcohol Epidemiology Program, 2001).
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
8
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
3.0 FINDINGS In this section, we summarize findings from tracking and analyzing state legislation and coalition activities related to alcohol policies. We present them in two sections that represent findings from the analysis of: 1) state legislative data obtained from independent sources, including introduced and enacted bills and enacted bills classified as relating to youth access to alcohol, and 2) policy-related data obtained directly from the coalitions’ reports of their work, including analyses of additional legislative data and coalition-reported policy activities. 3.1 INDEPENDENT LEGAL DATA Legislative bills are grouped here into three types related to alcohol — introduced, enacted, and enacted youth access. For each year of RUD Phase I, we counted all bills introduced to the legislature of each state (except DC and PR) regardless of content or intent. A second count of introduced bills included only those classified by StateNet as meeting the broad criteria for alcohol focus (in some part or all of the bill) and represents a subset of the universe of introduced bills. While bill introductions are affected by many factors, we assumed that most of them remain fairly constant over time. Thus, a change over time in introductions is a good indicator of increased alcohol policy activity in a state. Additionally, we know many bills are introduced without the sponsoring legislator expecting passage. Nevertheless, bill introduction is a critical early step along the path of progress in achieving improved public health policies on alcohol. Thus, coalitions that achieve bill introductions are further along than those that do not. Coalitions that succeed in getting bills to committee hearings make more progress than those that are unable to move a bill to that stage. In essence, the policy change box in Figure 1 can be further specified to illustrate this process as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Model of Policy Change
Coalition Mobilization More Laws Implemented & Enforced
More Hearings More Public Support
More Bills to Floor
More Policymaker Support
More Introductions
More Bills Passed
More Bills Enacted
The first count of enacted bills includes only those classified as related to alcohol in a general way. We examined the summaries of all these enacted alcohol bills to determine codes for classifying each one into one or more of five types of topics. The five topic classes are shown with examples below in Table 3 (see Appendix A for more detailed descriptions and examples).
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota 9 Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
The second type of enacted alcohol bill created for this study is, conceptually, a combination of classes 1-4 of this system and represents bills related to youth access to alcohol.
Table 3: Classification of Enacted Alcohol Bills with Examples: 5-Class System
Classification/Type
1 2 3 4 5 Underage possession & consumption of alcohol Retail sales of alcohol Liability Taxation and fees All other
Policy Examples
Youth BAC/zero-tolerance; false identification for purchase of alcohol; open container laws; minimum legal drinking age. Keg registration; server training; minimum age of seller; compliance checks; sales at community events; outlet density; confiscation of false IDs; home delivery/internet sales. Commercial and non-commercial liability for provision of alcohol to minors. Change in taxation on specific alcoholic beverages; licensee fees. Adult or general BAC; treatment and insurance for alcohol abuse; distribution of alcohol taxes and revenues; proclamations for alcohol awareness; etc.
Introduced, enacted and enacted youth-access alcohol bills for 10 RUD sites, as a group, were judged against the comparison group of 40 states without RUD coalitions. Group averages (means) are presented in Table 4 for each of the four years of Phase I. In addition, the first two years are grouped to represent the start-up period (A) of the RUD project compared to years three and four combined to represent the implementation period (B) of RUD. Combining years
Table 4: Alcohol Legislation over Time: 1997-2000
Alcohol 1 Bills Group (4-yr mean, SD)
RUD4
Statistic (Annual)
A RUD Start-Up 1997 - 1998
B RUD Implementation 1999 - 2000
Change Over Time (B - A)
A, B Mean3 82.6 86.7 4.1 Mean 94.4 70.7 98.6 74.8 41.9 67.8 39.9 75.7 SD (5%) (=85, sd=56) 13.3 21.4 12.6 24.0 SE 3 A, B Mean 85.9 83.2 Comparison4 -2.7 Mean 75.5 96.3 66.4 99.9 96.2 124.7 59.6 121.2 SD (-3%) (=85, sd=100) 15.2 19.7 9.4 19.2 SE A, B Mean3 4.1 7.8 RUD 3.7 Mean 3.3 4.8 11.6 3.9 5.0 3.7 7.3 2.8 SD (90%) (=6, sd=4.7) 1.6 1.2 2.3 0.9 SE 3 A, B Mean 7.1 9.1 Comparison 2.0 Mean 4.6 9.5 9.2 8.9 6.4 10.8 7.6 8.8 SD (28%) (=8, sd=8.4) 1.0 1.7 1.2 1.4 SE 3 A, B Mean 0.8 1.2 RUD 0.4 Mean 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.3 SD (50%) (=0.98, sd=1.2) 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 SE 3 A, B Mean 1.0 1.2 Comparison 0.2 Mean 0.6 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.5 SD (20%) (=1.15, sd=1.2) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 SE 1 Standardized topic and keyword searches used for StateNet-generated searches of legal database includes: some bills related to alcohol and public health in a very marginal way or not at all, some that might be considered counter to public health. Introduced and simple enacted rows do not distinguish between these and ―relevant‖ alcohol bills (see footnote 2 below). 2 We examined all enacted alcohol bills (summaries at minimum) to determine classification code. We include only those coded to classes relating to the reduction of underage drinking in these rows. 3 A, B Mean = annual mean after combining the two years for the two periods A and B. This adjusts for irregular sessions that occur in some states and evens out bi-annual peaks and valleys within a state and in the aggregate. 4 We include only 10 of the 12 RUD sites here due to incomparable data for DC and PR. All 40 remaining U.S. states are included in the comparison group. Enacted Youth Access2 Enacted Introduced
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
10
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
in this way adjusts for states that hold legislative sessions every other year and logically corresponds to the way RUD coalitions devoted their energies in Phase I. The final column in the table shows differences between start-up and implementation phases as change over time for each group (RUD versus comparison group) and for each type of bill (introduced alcohol, enacted alcohol, and enacted youth access to alcohol). Appendix B presents more bill details for each RUD coalition site.
Highlights
Fi n di n g s fr o m In tr o du c e d Al c oh o l Bi l ls
(all bills related to alcohol in any way) During the 1997-2000 Phase I of RUD, the average number of alcohol-related legislative bills introduced in both RUD and comparison states was 85 per year. The spread around the mean of alcohol bills introduced per year was narrower for RUD states compared to the comparison group: average standard deviation (SD) for four years: RUD = 56, Comparison = 100. On average, RUD states saw an increase in the number of alcohol bills introduced annually from period A to period B (5% or 4.1 more bills per year) while the comparison group, on average, saw a decrease (-3% or 2.7 fewer bills per year).
Fi n di n g s fr o m En a c te d Al co h ol Bil l s
(all types related to alcohol in any way) The average number of alcohol-related bills enacted in RUD states was six (6) per year for the four years of Phase I while the average for the comparison states was (8) per year. The spread around the mean of enacted alcohol bills per year was narrower for RUD states compared to the comparison group: average SD for four years: RUD = 4.7, Comparison = 8.4. On average, RUD states saw a larger increase in the number of alcohol bills enacted annually from period A to period B (90% or 3.7 more bills per state) while the comparison group, on average, saw an increase of only 28% (2 more bills per state).
Fi n di n g s fr o m En a c te d Y o ut h A cc e s s Al co h ol Bil l s
The average number of enacted alcohol bills specifically related to youth access in RUD states was slightly less than one per year (0.98) for the four years of Phase I, while the average for the comparison states was slightly more than one per year (1.15). The spread around the mean of enacted youth access-related alcohol bills per year was virtually the same for RUD states and the comparison group: average SD for four years: RUD = 1.2, Comparison = 1.3. On average, RUD sites saw a larger increase in the number of youth access alcohol bills enacted annually from period A to period B (50% or 0.4 more bills per state) while the comparison group, on average, saw an increase of only 20% (0.2 bills per state).
Overall, these simple counts of alcohol bills introduced and enacted show significant differences between RUD states and the comparison group only when viewed as change over time from the RUD start-up to implementation periods. Furthermore, RUD states as a group were only slightly less active in enacting alcohol legislation compared to the rest of the nation. Between 1997 and 2000, states across the entire nation enacted relatively few bills related to youth access to alcohol, averaging around one per year.
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
11
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
3.2 COALITION DATA Not all alcohol legislation introduced and passed in state legislatures was of interest to the RUD coalitions and their mission. In fact, each coalition developed very specific alcohol-policy goals on which they mobilized their members based on their unique situations within their state. For process evaluation purposes, each coalition submitted their goals to the evaluation team on a quarterly basis. Additionally, they submitted forms describing activities aimed at achieving their goals. For instance, RUD coalitions reported on meetings designed to inform members and the public about particular policy strategies to reduce underage drinking. Forms for reporting these activities allow the recorder to report on general policy types that were the focus of the meeting. Coalitions often told us about specific bills that were introduced or enacted and were of particular interest to their coalition. In this section, we first present data on coalition activities targeting changes in state alcohol laws. Next, we look at the relationship of these activities to enacted alcohol bills, both those that were captured in the independent tracking of alcohol legislation and those missed in that process but picked up from interviews with coalition staff. 3.2.1 Coalition Activities To evaluate RUD coalition influence on alcohol laws passed between 1997 and 2000, we examined coalition-reported activities during Phase I. Because coalitions often worked on broad policy areas rather than on specific bills, these data were coded into eight policy classes: Commercial Access; Messages; Social Access; Youth Consumption; Issues; General Access; Pricing; and Other. While slightly different than the five-class system used to code bills collected via the independent method discussed above, this eight-class system was more familiar to RUD staff. Table 5 explains the types of laws in seven of these eight conceptual categories or classes of policies (excluding Other) and displays the total number of activities reported by each coalition in Phase I for each classification (see Wagenaar et al., 2001 for further details).
Highlights
R UD Po li cy Act iv i ti e s Dat a
On average over the four years of Phase I, RUD coalitions focused most of their policy work (34% of all reported activities) on Commercial Access-type policies (average per site = 234 activities) where there was also the widest variation across the sites (SD = 156). LA skews the average with 658 activities in this class. On average over the four years of Phase I, RUD coalitions gave least attention to policies fitting the Pricing category (average per site = 40 activities), and there was the narrowest variation across sites (SD = 54). Again, LA skews the average with 190 activities in this class. At the high end of all policy-focused activities by class was LA for Commercial Access policies (658), and PR at 422 activities in the General Access class. At the low end of all policy-focused activities by class was GA for Pricing with one reported activity in that policy classification. Next lowest with a count of three (3) reported activities in a single class for a single coalition were three sites that put minimal effort into General Access (CT), Pricing (CT), and Issues (IN and MO). Across each of the 12 coalitions, four (4) of the seven policy classes (Commercial Access, Social Access, Issues and Messages) received the most attention (highest or second highest counts). Eleven (11) coalitions reported the highest number of activities for Commercial Access (all but MO). Social Access had the highest number of activities for one coalition (MO) and second highest for another six coalitions (CT, GA, IN, MN, NC, PA).
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
12
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
Table 5. Policy-Related Phase I RUD Coalition Activities by Policy Classification : 8-Class System (excluding “Other” classification)
Policy Classification Total (Mean, SD)
Commercial Access 2,802 (=234, sd=56)
1
RUD Site CT DC GA IN LA MN MO NC OR PA PR TX
1
Messages 1,292 (=108, sd=99) Social Access 1,221 88 27 77 66 172 224 169 69 75 135 56 63 (=102, sd=59) Youth Consumption Youth zero tolerance BAC, general/adult 0.08 BAC, ban minors in possession, penalties for minors in 869 possession, restriction on consumption in public. (=72, sd=80) 38 32 21 17 141 8 55 18 98 32 282 127 Issues State and national border issues, liquor code issues, pre-emption, extended enforcement. 840 56 39 13 3 55 33 3 39 151 34 344 70 (=70, sd=95) General Access MLDA, alcohol hotlines, 18-to-20 year old loopholes. 765 3 12 9 8 94 5 5 48 23 89 422 47 (=64, sd=117) Pricing Excise taxes, licensing fees, price discounting. 481 3 6 1 8 190 46 38 21 93 6 18 51 (=40, sd=54) Total Activities 8,270 405 295 269 311 1527 568 434 363 853 576 1736 933 (=689, sd=490) RUD activities often targeted more than one policy class at a time and are counted here under all that apply; therefore, counts are inflated to some degree.
Access at community events, administrative penalties, commercial liability, compliance checks, cops in shops, false ID, home delivery, minimum seller age, minors not allowed in bars, outlet density, server training. 159 126 92 196 658 245 97 112 292 204 320 301 Advertising targeting children, billboard restrictions, bans on commercial gifts/sales to minors, industry sponsorship at community events, warning signs and labels. 58 53 56 13 217 7 67 56 121 76 294 274 Keg registration, lighting, social host, noisy assembly restrictions, teen parties, shoulder tap.
These counts of RUD activities, overall, reflect a concentration on the mission of the project to work on environmental solutions to reduce underage drinking. As directed by the project goals, there is more focus on access and less on punishment of youth. We next look at the outcomes of this work in terms of enacted alcohol legislation. 3.2.2 State-Level Legislation Analyzing legislation identified through legal database searches did not provide a full picture of coalition legislative achievements. Although we used a fairly comprehensive list of alcoholrelated StateNet topics to identify bills in these databases, some pertinent bills were missed. In some cases, bills were missed because alcohol was not the primary focus of the bill and its summary did not contain any of the search terms. In other cases, the bill did not specifically relate to alcohol but its passage had the potential to restrict access to alcohol by minors. For instance, laws requiring graduated drivers licenses often do not directly outline the relationship to alcohol and youth access, yet such licenses and laws are effective in discouraging young people from using drivers licenses as identification to purchase alcohol. (See Appendix C for details on the nature of all alcohol bills enacted in RUD sites with indicators of the source of information on the bill and whether or not the coalition paid attention to the specific bill as a goal of their coalition work.) In Table 6 we list 25 enacted alcohol bills as reported by RUD coalitions during Phase I. We assigned each of these bills to an appropriate broad policy classification in both the 5- and 8class systems outlined above. For comparison, and to demonstrate the relationship of coalition work to the passage of alcohol legislation, the right side of the table shows the two policy classes
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
13
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
(8-class system) to which the specific coalitions reported devoting the highest number of their activities.
Table 6: Phase I RUD Coalition-Reported Enacted Bills and Top Coalition Activities by Policy Classification
RUD Site
CT DC GA IN LA H1157 H166 S12 H1289 S1733 S2221 S634 H1022 H1135 S120 S812
Classification by System Type Bill #
H5225 H5444 12-212 13-165 H1273
5-Class (Table 3)
Retail sales Retail sales Other Youth Consumption Retail sales None Youth Consumption Youth Consumption Retail sales Liability Liability Liability Youth Consumption Youth Consumption Youth Consumption Liability Retail sales None
8-Class (Table 5)
Commerc’l/Social Access Commercial Access Youth Consumption Commercial Access Commercial Access
Top Two Coalition Activity Categories (8-Class System) One Two
Commercial Access Commercial Access Commercial Access Commercial Access Social Access Messages Social Access Social Access Messages
Commercial Access Youth Consumption Commercial Access Social Access Social Access Commercial Access Youth Consumption Commercial Access Youth Consumption Social Access Commercial Access
Commercial Access
MN MO
Commercial Access Social Access
Social Access Commercial Access
NC
Commercial Access
Social Access
OR PA H1675 S255 S1531 367 265 22 363 35 114
Commercial Access Commercial Access Youth Consumption Commercial Access Commercial Access Commercial Access Youth Consumption Other Youth Consumption Youth Consumption Commercial Access
Issues Social Access
Retail sales Youth Consumption Retail sales Retail sales Retail sales Other Other Youth Consumption Other
PR
Issues
Commercial Access
TX
Commercial Access
Messages
Highlights
Ph a s e I R UD - R ep or te d E n a ct e d Al c o ho l Bi l l s a nd C o a li ti o n W or k
Coalition-reported bills covered a variety of topic areas, including Retail Sales/Commercial Access (e.g., density of alcohol outlets) and Youth Consumption (e.g., open container in vehicles). See also Appendix C. Eight coalitions (CT, DC, GA, LA, MN, NC, PA, and PR) devoted the largest proportion of their work to policies in the Commercial Access class and their respective states enacted laws pertaining to that policy classification. Three coalitions (CT, MN, NC) devoted the next highest proportion of their work to policies in the Social Access class and their respective states enacted laws pertaining to that policy classification. Three sites (DC, LA, NC) worked on policies fitting the Commercial Access classification (8-class system) but the bill was classified as Youth Consumption in the alternative system (5-class) for classifying bills. These bills, in more detail, were youth DWI penalties (DC) and penalties for use of false ID/implementation of graduated drivers’ licenses (both LA and NC). See Appendix C for details.
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
14
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
Three RUD sites (DC, PR, TX) worked on policies fitting the Youth Consumption classification in the 8-class system that were classified as Other in the 5-class system. All three bills dealt with a change in the general BAC limit to 0.08, a policy not directly related to youth access to alcohol. Two coalitions (NC and PR) obtained the average of one enacted youth-access bill per year for RUD and non-RUD states, while three sites (LA, MN, PA) fell just shy of that average with three youthaccess bills enacted over the four-year period of Phase I (see Table 4). Two coalitions (IN and OR) devoted the highest proportion of their work to Commercial Access but were unable to affect changes in any state-level, youth-access alcohol laws during Phase I RUD. Of the 25 enacted bills that RUD coalitions reported as their focus, 76% (or 19) were passed during the 3rd and 4th years of Phase I RUD. See Appendix C for year of enactment. Of the 25 enacted bills, 36% were related to Youth Consumption or Other alcohol issues not related to underage drinking (using the 5-class system).
Overall, these findings show that the RUD coalitions’ focus on commercial and social access policy arenas generally may have influenced the enactment of laws that should be effective in changing the drinking environment for youth. 4.0 FACTORS AFFECTING CHANGE To better understand the context in which the coalitions worked, we describe below several environmental factors that can influence both legislative and coalition activities. We describe social, political, economic and demographic factors that can affect priorities and/or the number and type of bills considered in a state during a given year. We also discuss how the complexities of laws can affect the drinking environment for minors in unexpected ways. 4.1 SOCIAL FACTORS Social factors within a state, such as public attitudes and behaviors concerning alcohol, drinkingrelated tragic events or strong religious influences may affect a state’s willingness to pass alcohol legislation. Conducted in 1997 as part of our evaluation of RUD (Wagenaar et al., 1998), a national public opinion survey of adults indicated a range of behaviors and attitudes in the RUD states compared to non-RUD states. Here are some of the highlights of that survey:
The percent of respondents who were “very concerned about teenage drinking” in RUD states ranged from a low of 62% (MN) to a high of 78% (LA) (overall, 70%). In comparison states as a group, 69% were “very concerned” about teenage drinking. When asked “Do you think it’s ever OK for a person who is 17 years old to drink alcohol,” the percent of people in RUD states who responded “Yes” ranged from a low of 19% (GA) to a high of 38% (OR) (overall, 29%). In comparison states as a whole, an average of 29% responded “Yes.” The percent of survey respondents that reported being non- or infrequent drinkers (fewer than 3 drinks per month in the past year) in RUD states ranged from 63% (DC) to 79% (TX) (overall, 71%). In comparison states as a whole, 73% were non- or infrequent drinkers.
Overall, RUD sites were similar to the rest of the U.S. in social attitudes about and concerns for underage drinking. In sum, the large majority are concerned about youth drinking but nearly a third believe it is ―ok‖ for young people to drink alcohol. Slightly less than three-quarters of the adults surveyed said they abstained from drinking or were infrequent drinkers of alcohol, a finding that matches most other national survey findings on drinking behavior (Wagenaaer et al., 2000). Two other important social factors must be considered when evaluating the achievements of RUD coalitions. One is the increased media attention at the national level to underage and binge
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota 15 Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
drinking. It is difficult to determine the exact impetus for increased media attention and tempting to give credit to projects such as RWJF’s Reducing Underage Drinking through Coalitions. It may, in fact, be true. But, increased media coverage may also reflect cyclical shifts in attitudes toward drinking that move, historically, from more or less permissiveness and tolerance (Single et al., 1981). Much of the media attention during Phase I RUD focused on individual-level solutions such as tighter controls on and penalties for youth. During Phase I RUD, no data were systematically collected to evaluate the media at either the state or national levels. The evaluation of Phase II (2001-2004), however, will examine media coverage over the eight years. A second social factor made it difficult to measure the extent to which all states and communities respond to the social problems associated with youth drinking. From 1997 to 2000, the time period during which RWJF funded the RUD project, other states and communities were also awarded funds from various sources, including the federal government, to address the problems of underage drinking. Noteworthy is the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP) Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program. During Phase I of RUD, OJJDP awarded funds (approximately $400,000 each) to 17 states for this program. Seven of the these states were also RUD sites (CT, GA, LA, MN, NC, PA, and PR) and, for a few, the OJJDP funds supplemented the RUD grant awarded to that state. Perhaps inspired by the RUD project, other underage drinking coalitions were established in comparison states across the nation. Some that we are aware of were in California, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Utah. There are likely other coalitions at the state and local levels that influenced alcohol policy changes to a greater or lesser degree in their states. Finally, RWJF funded an alcohol use prevention project at the college level at the same time as Phase I RUD. Called A Matter of Degree (AMOD), the project’s mission was to reduce binge drinking on 12 college campuses by changing the environment in the community as well as at the college. Three of the AMOD campuses were in RUD states (GA, LA, and PA). 4.2 POLITICAL FACTORS Legislative activity and the willingness of policymakers to engage in debates on social policy issues are influenced by many factors, some of which are structural. The make-up of state legislatures, the nature of employment of elected officials, and the length and schedule of legislative sessions are some of these structural factors. From one session to the next, partisan control can change in any given state. At an even more basic level, state legislatures also vary from part-time bodies with minimal salaries for legislators to full-time bodies with generous compensation packages. This may affect the amount and type of legislation that moves through a legislature. Full-time legislators with higher pay may have more time and incentive to promote bills than do legislators who hold other jobs outside the legislature. States also vary in their schedule of legislative sessions from yearly to every other year and from a few months a year to most months of the year. These scheduling factors may also affect the ability of a legislative body to consider bills. Other political factors that can influence legislative activity and the ability of coalitions to influence change in alcohol and public health policies include: budgetary crises; environmental
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
16
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
disasters requiring governmental response; and the strength of lobbying efforts by law enforcement, the alcohol or hospitality industry and other stakeholders. Specific political factors most relevant to RUD coalition activities include:
OR and TX were among seven state legislatures across the U.S. that meet every other year (biennial sessions). All other states met annually. Regular session lengths in RUD states varied from 30 legislative days (even years in LA) to almost 11 months (every year in PA). The diversity of session lengths in RUD states is mirrored in the rest of the U.S. where sessions ranged from 1 to 12 months a year. In 2000, annual legislative salaries in RUD states ranged from a low of $7,200 (TX) to a high of $80,605 (DC). Similarly, in comparison states, salaries ranged from $200 per two-year term to $99,000 per year. Six states in the U.S. impose structural limits on the type of bills that can be considered during some legislative sessions. Three RUD states (CT, LA, NC) and three non-RUD states (Maine, New Hampshire and Wyoming) limit regular sessions in even years to fiscal matters. Alcohol industry lobbyists are particularly strong political influences in at least three RUD sites (LA, MO, PR) and present barriers to a somewhat lesser degree in all the others. Two RUD states (NC and PR) received extensive damage from hurricanes during Phase I that diverted legislative attention from alcohol policies and other social issues.
4.3 ECONOMIC FACTORS Some studies have shown that drinking and problems related to drinking are associated with economic factors (Flewelling et al., 1992). Therefore, it is logical to assume that income and poverty rates might also predict the degree to which a legislature can appropriate resources to reduce underage drinking. With this in mind, we looked at economic factors across the nation and found that states vary considerably in per capita personal income and poverty levels:
In RUD states, per capita personal income in 2000 ranged from among the nation’s lowest ($23,334 in LA) to the nation’s highest ($40,640 in CT). Non-RUD states’ per capita incomes ranged from $20,993 to $37,992. The percent of citizens living below the poverty level in RUD states in 2000 varied from a low of about 7% in MN to over 17% in DC. Similarly, national rates ranged from 6% to over 20%.
4.4 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS Population and population density also may affect the number or type of bills considered by a state legislature. More populated states have more legislators that can theoretically process a greater number of bills per session. Densely populated states with large urban areas may have a broader range of social problems requiring different types of legislative intervention. Data from the 2000 census reveal the following statistics relevant to the RUD Project:
The population in RUD states ranged from a low of 572,059 (DC) to almost 21 million (TX). Similarly, the population in rest of the U.S. varied from less than 500,000 to close to 34 million per state. Population density in the RUD states varied from 35.6 people per square mile (OR) to 1,112.1 people per square mile in DC. Similar variation in density is found in the rest of the nation.
4.5 LEGAL COMPLEXITIES AS FACTORS Underlying the issue of change in alcohol policies is the fact that laws are complex and a simple label often does not describe the intent. A good illustration of this comes from our recent evaluation of one type of alcohol policy — responsible beverage server training laws (Mosher et
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota 17 Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
al., 2002). We examined the existing state laws on server training in 23 states (as of mid-2001) and found that, in general, the legislation is weak in this area. Server training in these 23 states was either mandated or incentive based (nearly evenly split). To assess the strength of each state’s legislation, we identified five necessary or ―best practices‖ components: 1) high quality content of training, 2) administrative requirements relating to certification, 3) administrative penalties for program trainers and trainees (for mandated training), 4) incentives for participation (especially for states with voluntary training), and 5) systematic checks for compliance. The study and our findings from evaluating this one policy type identified a need for caution when counting public health laws related to reducing underage drinking. Even among policies that are seemingly as well-defined as server training, the individual legislation may not benefit public health interests. In fact, some laws are so weak as to undermine those interests because of inadequate quality control standards. It was not the intention of the policy-tracking component of the evaluation of RUD Phase I to systematically evaluate each individual bill for all types of alcohol legislation that might reduce underage drinking. Other research projects (some funded by RWJF, e.g., Bridging the Gap/ImpacTeen) focus on such evaluations. These in-depth policy evaluations are labor intensive, yet their findings are valuable and instructive to RUD coalitions and others intent on changing policies to reduce underage drinking. 5.0 CASE STUDIES Without question the RUD coalitions were affected by the kinds of factors outlined above. With that in mind it is important to remember that analysis of the volume of RUD policy-related activities and alcohol-related legislation, while indicative of coalition effectiveness, does not tell the whole story. As noted earlier, all coalitions did not begin their policy work from the same starting point. Each group worked within a unique environment with its own set of barriers to policy change. A coalition can make great progress that does not lead quickly to the introduction of a bill and thus will not be detected in bill counts. The case studies below illustrate the difficulty in defining a coalition’s success. We describe two coalitions that employed different strategies to advance a policy priority, responding to different social and political environments. Both coalitions claimed some success in the process; however, only one resulted in legislative change. 5.1 PUERTO RICO COALITION TO REDUCE UNDERAGE DRINKING: MLDA The Puerto Rican coalition (COPRAM) faced a unique set of circumstances when it began its work in 1997. The minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) was 18 (compared to age 21 in the U.S.) and underage drinking was rarely part of public discussion. In 1997, the only significant alcohol control legislation on the books was a local San Juan ordinance restricting street sales or open containers in the tourist area of Old San Juan. Raising the island’s MLDA to 21 was a coalition priority from the beginning. However, COPRAM had to overcome social, political and economic barriers before they could expect to see legislative change. Alcohol is highly integrated into Puerto Rican social life. As one COPRAM staff member said, ―Drinking in Puerto Rico is the national sport.‖ Alcohol is routinely served at celebrations and fiestas including children’s birthday parties and high school proms. In a 1997-98 survey by the
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
18
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
Puerto Rican Administration of Mental Health and Prevention, 70% of youth between the ages of 10 and 17 reported drinking at some time in their life. For many young Puerto Ricans, heavy drinking is associated with machismo in boys and sociability in girls. According to several COPRAM youth members: Drinking is perceived as cool and kids do it to be accepted. The kids don’t just like to drink, they like to get drunk. There is plenty of peer pressure to drink and get drunk. (from interviews with COPRAM youth members) The alcohol industry commonly sponsors festivals and beach parties targeted at youth, and their advertising helps to perpetuate the social acceptance of youth drinking through overt portrayals of young drinkers. Alcohol commercials also blatantly encourage excessive alcohol consumption. The following examples are illustrative: A baby cries in a radio commercial and the voice-over says, “He will soon be asking for (the sponsor’s) beer.” A commercial describes a “Budweiser School” where “kids won’t cut classes.” The mainland (English) version of an advertisement promotes drinking as cool while the island version (Spanish) promotes being drunk as cool. (from field notes of interviews with coalition director) The Puerto Rican economy is strongly tied to the alcohol industry and alcohol plays a prominent role in the general economy. COPRAM staff members report 22,000 alcohol outlets on the island, providing significant profit and jobs. In addition, alcohol excise taxes generate $500 million per year, constituting 8% of all island revenue. Thus, the alcohol industry wields considerable political power and puts pressure on the government to keep the drinking age at 18. (From interviews with coalition director, staff and members). During RUD Years 1 and 2 (1997 & 1998), there was little public outcry to counteract the industry influence on MLDA policy. Several factors give the Puerto Rican public less of an incentive than the rest of the U.S. to raise the drinking age. These include:
$500 million in annual alcohol excise tax revenue greatly overshadows the loss of $18 million in federal highway safety revenue for failure to raise the MLDA to 21. Much of the excise tax money is earmarked for health and education, hence there is little pressure from the education community to reduce sales. In fact, in 1998 the president of Puerto Rico University, San Juan campus tried to change school policy to sell liquor on campus. Because Puerto Rico is an island there is no incentive for uniform drinking laws to prevent drivers from crossing state lines to drink.
(from phone interviews with coalition director and members) An increase in the Puerto Rican MLDA also lacked support among the island’s government officials and politicians. With strong industry pressure, little public opposition and a large block of young voters, the governor, a pediatrician, publicly said there was no youth alcohol problem and opposed raising the drinking age. Given the social and political environment, the coalition’s early activities focused on changing the public discourse rather than immediately trying to change public policy. COPRAM
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
19
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
implemented several strategies to gain visibility for youth and alcohol issues, including effectively utilizing youth members and the media. Students were recruited into the coalition by forming COPRAM clubs in schools throughout the island. Intermediate and high school club members photographed youth drinking in streets, documented density and placement of alcohol billboards and gathered compliance data. Youth and their parents signed contracts agreeing not to serve alcohol at youth parties and successfully pressured school officials to have alcohol-free proms. These activities raised awareness of youth alcohol issues and provided important data for lobbying efforts. Media played a significant role in COPRAM’s strategy. In Year 2, Puerto Rico declared a ―Week of Prevention of Consumption of Alcohol by Minors.‖ COPRAM members and youth clubs planned many activities around the event that raised the coalition’s credibility and focused media attention on problems associated with youth and alcohol. When a local teenage boy tragically died from binge drinking in 1998, the coalition recruited the boy’s mother to join COPRAM and to help publicize the dangers of youth drinking. She appeared in a coalition sponsored public service announcement (PSA) to tell her son’s story and 90 of the island’s radio stations aired the PSA. COPRAM also hosted a popular weekly prevention radio program. By Year 3, there were signs of significant change in public awareness and attitudes in Puerto Rico. COPRAM identified over 450 local news articles and 100 letters to the editor or op-ed pieces about youth and alcohol. The PSA and a coalition-produced documentary were used in all Puerto Rican public schools and shown as part of freshmen orientation at the universities. The PSA was also shown in movie theaters around the island. According to an interview with the coalition director, ―Every week now the paper has an article on alcohol and they mention us.‖ Institutional policies and enforcement of existing alcohol laws also changed across the island during Phase I of RUD. The largest supermarket chain in Puerto Rico began hiring only people over 18 to sell alcohol and required IDs for alcohol purchases. By Year 3, 90% of alcohol establishments posted ―We ID‖ signs in response to a coalition initiative. Several schools held their first alcohol-free proms after pressure from youth in COPRAM Clubs. In addition, the coalition convinced island television stations to restrict alcohol ads and successfully obtained an injunction against the ―Budweiser School‖ advertisement. By the end of RUD Phase I, changes in Puerto Rico’s alcohol legislation were apparent. The first new island-wide alcohol control bills in 35 years were passed, including restrictions on alcohol outlets near schools, a 0.08 BAC law and an act officially proclaiming an annual ―Week of Prevention of Consumption of Alcohol by Minors.‖ With the earned respect and successes COPRAM was encouraged to work more directly on MLDA policy during Years 3 and 4. The coalition used its weekly radio show to highlight the MLDA issue. Youth members organized a march and presented legislators with petitions signed by thousands of supporters of a bill to increase the drinking age to 21. Youth also wrote supporting letters they presented to the legislature. By the end of Year 3, the political tides were turning. All three major candidates for governor in 2000 supported the work of COPRAM and endorsed an increase in the MLDA. Three bills were introduced in the legislature during Years 3 and 4 to increase the drinking age to 21. Although
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
20
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
the bills did not pass, the coalition identified a senator who agreed to sponsor the bill in the next session and it appears to have a reasonable chance of success. Throughout Phase I, social, economic and political factors hindered COPRAM’s ability to affect legislation and necessitated initial strategies aimed at increasing public and legislative awareness about basic youth and alcohol issues. In contrast, the Minnesota coalition encountered a strong public health community and a state history of legislative responses to substance abuse problems. The next case study illustrates how this contextual difference significantly influenced the Minnesota coalition’s ability to affect change. 5.2 MINNESOTA JOIN TOGETHER: SOCIAL HOST RESPONSIBILITY The Minnesota coalition evolved in 1997, from a preexisting local organization to a statewide RUD coalition with support from RWJF. Thus, Minnesota Join Together (MJT) started Phase I with a rudimentary organizational structure and working partnerships in the community. This allowed the coalition to plan a strategic, multi-pronged approach to policy change early in the project. Initial governing board meetings were devoted to educating board members on specific policy areas and on overall benefits of changing the environment rather than targeting the individual. The board held a special strategic planning meeting early in the first year to develop a mission statement and discuss objectives. Social host responsibility was consistently among the governing board’s top policy priorities during Phase I. Minnesota statute provided for felony prosecution for the sale of alcoholic beverages to underage purchasers who, as a result of intoxication, caused or suffered death or great bodily harm. However, the law was directed at commercial establishments and did not extend to social hosts who gave (rather than sold) alcohol to youth. A civil law also existed allowing lawsuits against commercial establishments for damages caused by intoxicated youths whom they served. The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that the civil law also could not be applied to social hosts. MJT members filed a ―Friend of the Court‖ brief in opposition to the Appellate Court decision and worked to promote the passage of criminal and civil laws aimed at social hosts. In contrast to Puerto Rico, the external environment in Minnesota aided the coalition in its policy efforts. Previous public health initiatives led to laws and regulations to ban smoking in government buildings, allow vehicle confiscation for repeated drunk driving convictions, establish dram shop liability and prohibit open containers in vehicles. Thus, the public and the legislature were receptive to legislative responses to substance abuse issues and the coalition was not confined to strategies designed to raise awareness of the problem. MJT took a multi-strategy approach to its social host work that included partnerships with other organizations, a concerted media plan and the use of youth volunteers as policy advocates. Continued strategic planning helped the coalition undertake these activities with their policy goals in mind. For example, MJT developed press and media advocacy kits and a communication plan directed specifically at the adult provider issue. Our media efforts focused on our policy objectives and efforts to change the way underage drinking is reported by local media by asking, “Where did these youth get their alcohol?” – 1999 MJT report to RJWF
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
21
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
Legal restrictions on lobbying by 501(c)(3) organizations and an explicit prohibition on the use of RWJF funds for lobbying, presented serious hindrances to the policy work of many RUD coalitions. MJT was able to advocate for changes in social provider policies through collaborations with other organizations and by seeking alternative funding sources for lobbying. The coalition partnered with Action on Alcohol and Teens (AAT) — a citizen’s group devoted to improving the health of the community by reducing alcohol-related problems — to do legislative lobbying. Additional collaborations arose through a mini grant program funded by RWJF and the OJJDP. Among them were a youth advocacy partnership between MJT and Mothers against Drunk Driving, named Youth in Action. Youth in Action members received advocacy training, held press events and testified at bill hearings. In addition, MJT received funds from its host agency for direct lobbying purposes after Year 1. On New Year’s Eve 1997, Kevin Brockway, a 16-year-old Minnesotan, died in a car crash after attending a friend’s party where he drank alcohol provided by the host’s father. MJT effectively used this tragedy as an opportunity to increase public and legislative awareness of the need for greater criminal and civil penalties for social providers. The coalition used funds from a state incentive grant for a media advocacy campaign around the social host issue. Youth in Action also held several events related to the issue including: 1) a ―Chip in Your Support‖ campaign at which youth gave bags of chips to legislators and talked to them about youth and alcohol policies; 2) an ―It’s No Joke‖ campaign that included youth meetings with legislators and a rally at which Kevin Brockway’s father spoke and the crashed car was on display; and 3) a street theater event near the fishing opener, in which youth dressed up as fish and passed out fliers saying, ―Don’t give alcohol to youth. You care about the environment for fishing, what about the environment for us?‖ All of these efforts paid off. On May 24, 1999 the governor of Minnesota signed into law the ―Brockway bill‖ that extended felony prosecution beyond sellers to include anyone who barters, furnishes or gives alcoholic beverages to a person under 21 years of age who becomes intoxicated and as a result causes or suffers death or great bodily harm. MJT and Youth in Action held several media events to publicize the law. MJT used the media attention around the Brockway bill to keep legislative and public attention on the social host problem. For the next year they continued to work for increased civil penalties for social providers. On April 19, 2000 the governor signed a bill into law extending civil liability to adult social providers for damages caused as a result of intoxication by underage youth. A coalition must accurately assess the external political, social and economic environment to develop an effective strategic plan. Both COPRAM and MJT based their initial policy strategies on prevailing social norms and political realities. MJT had the advantage of a general recognition of youth and alcohol problems and could quickly select priorities and begin working on solutions. The external environment contributed to the passage of both civil and criminal social host laws in Minnesota during Phase I. In contrast, COPRAM determined that legislative advocacy would be ineffective without first laying the groundwork for change. They spent several years raising awareness about the problems related to youth and drinking before they
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
22
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
worked on island-wide policy responses to the issues. Bills to increase the MLDA were finally introduced (but not passed) in 1999 and 2000. By then, many legislators and the governor were in support of the effort and the coalition was optimistic of passage early in Phase II. The lack of a new MLDA law during Phase I is not a sign of failure but an indication of the obstacles COPRAM faced in the first few years of RUD. Effectively building public and lawmaker support for an age-21 policy in PR is clearly an index of success of the PR coalition. These cases illustrate the complexity and multi-dimensionality of coalition work and illustrate the inherent difficulties in relying solely on bill counts or any other single indicator to evaluate coalition work. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Through an elaborate system of tracking and classifying alcohol policies introduced and enacted in state legislatures across the country and through our collection of process data from 12 RUD coalitions, we come to few definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of coalitions to change alcohol policies that ultimately reduce underage drinking and related public health problems. However, as this report demonstrates, there are some points we might make about possible relationships between RUD coalition activism and changes in state-level laws regulating access to alcohol. Over time, number of introduced and enacted bills increased on average. From RUD start-up to implementation stage higher rates of improvement for RUD sites versus comparison states. First, when looking at counts of alcohol bills introduced and enacted at the state level, RUD states differed little from the rest of the nation over the four-year period of Phase I (19972000). Yet, in some respects, RUD states as a group appeared to have started out at a slight disadvantage compared to the comparison group. This corresponds to criteria used to select states for RUD awards — namely, states that showed need for organized action and readiness to do so. The data show that, over time, the group of selected RUD states saw increases in alcohol bills introduced and passed at a rate that exceeded the rate of increases in non-RUD or comparison states as a group. This finding might be interpreted to mean that the RUD coalitions, more so than in non-RUD states, were effective in increasing the debates in state legislatures on alcohol control. Few youth-access type alcohol bills enacted in any state in the U.S. and jurisdictions; average = approximately one per year per state. Across the U.S., including the RUD states, very few alcohol bills were enacted that related more specifically to youth access to alcohol. On average, one such bill per year, per state was passed into law. We found that legislation related to alcohol in any way makes up approximately 4% of all bills introduced into state legislatures across the U.S. (see Appendix B). It stands to reason that an even smaller number of introduced alcohol bills are finally enacted and a very small fraction of those enacted bills are related to underage drinking and access to alcohol. Therefore, enacting as few as two youth-access-to-alcohol bills in one year, doubles the number of average bills of this type. While RUD coalitions found it a challenge to raise interest among policymakers in the issues of underage drinking during Phase I, the fact that most (76%) of the 25 enacted bills of this type were passed in RUD states during the 3rd and 4th years of Phase I should be considered a RUD accomplishment.
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
23
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
RUD coalitions stayed focused on “supply side” versus “demand side;” achieved several policy victories in commercial access and retail sales arena. The second important set of findings from this analysis of alcohol bills introduced and enacted comes from an examination of the data collected directly from the coalitions on their work to change alcohol policies in their states. From their reports of activities, the largest share (34%) of all RUD coalition policy-related work fits the definition of commercial access to alcohol. While RUD coalitions labored early on to convince coalition members of the advantages of an environmental policy approach, these findings show that they succeeded in motivating activists toward this end. The data also show that RUD coalitions tended to avoid the politically harder but potentially most effective policy choices, such as increasing taxes and licensing fees and restricting discount pricing of alcohol (6% of all activities). For the most part, the commercial access target of coalition activities proved effective since nearly half (40%) of the 25 youth-access bills passed in RUD states were classified as retail sales or commercial access bills. Another 36% of these enacted bills were related to youth consumption, an indication of the struggle to thoroughly convince coalition members to focus on providers rather than penalize youth. External environment creates challenges and support. Several factors affected the ability of RUD coalitions to achieve their goals of changing alcohol policies. Entrenched community norms and attitudes about youth drinking, structures of state legislative institutions, strong lobby groups, budgetary crises, economic and demographic factors all presented varying degrees of impediments to and support for RUD coalition work. These factors also came into play in all other U.S. states. Additionally, media attention to underage and binge drinking increased during this period, further confusing the issue of RUD coalition influences. Finally, several other (maybe all) states in the nation without RUD coalitions had coalitions (or similar organizations) addressing the problems of youth and/or adult drinking. Funds from various sources were provided to support these efforts. Therefore, it was not only difficult to achieve goals for the RUD coalitions, but these coalitions were also not alone in their public health work. 6.1 LIMITATIONS AND CAVEATS Our independent system of tracking alcohol bills gave us an acceptable mechanism for comparing RUD sites with the rest of the nation in terms of the number of bills introduced and enacted. In addition, data collected in the process evaluation component provided a check on the independent system of tracking bills, adding bills identified by coalitions that were not picked up in the automated, independent system. There were, however, limitations to this study of alcohol policies that must be considered when interpreting and drawing conclusions from the findings. We list the most important ones here. Tracking systems for alcohol policies are fallible and incomplete. We assumed that our selected data sources for bills (StateNet and Westlaw) contained the universe of bills introduced and enacted in every state and jurisdiction in the United States. However, as noted in this report, these state-of-the-art services have no legislative data for Puerto Rico and limited data for Washington, D.C. — two of the RUD coalition sites. In
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
24
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
addition, even with careful planning and identification of keywords and categories of bills, some relevant alcohol bills were missed in our independent tracking system. Our assessment of bills missed in this system, as identified by coalition staff, revealed that bills would be missed in any system because text searches rely on choosing a list of all the right words. Yet, wording for particular types of alcohol bills is not standardized or is too general, resulting in identification of extraneous bills. Some bills are conceptually related to the RUD work on alcohol, but contain no alcohol-related terms, and are therefore difficult to identify. No comparable system for identifying missed bills for comparison states. An additional limitation was the identification of extra or missed bills through the RUD process evaluation component, e.g., interviews with staff, evaluation forms, and other collected materials on RUD processes. While this worked well to pick up information on other relevant alcohol bills for the coalition sites, no comparable source of data exists for non-RUD states — the comparison group. Systems for classifying and coding alcohol bills are imperfect. There are many ways to classify bills of any kind and that also applies to alcohol-related bills. There is no agreement even on what types of bills and policies might be the ―best‖ to affect change in ways that would reduce underage drinking. We used two classification systems, both reported here, for a number of reasons mentioned in the text. Yet, both were inadequate to capture the full variety of alcohol bills that states and jurisdictions debate and enact and that may have consequences on underage drinking. In part, this is due to interpretation issues — the next limitation. The language of legislation is subject to multiple interpretations. What may seem like a straightforward process, the interpretation of bills, statutes, and laws is as varied as the people reading them. Furthermore, most bills introduced and enacted are amendments to existing laws. Many states merely reference the statute being amended rather than include the original text and changes that occurred prior to the amendment under current consideration. Other states include the text with amendments but changes are not necessarily apparent. Under these circumstances, interpreting legislative text can result in classifying something that already existed rather than a change in the law, which was the intent of the policy tracking system. Multiple interpretation problems apply to the determination of good versus bad bills in public health terms. Amendments to laws will always require a reading of all related laws to determine whether the amendment results in a good or bad public health consequence. Also, laws have unintended consequences that turn a good bill into a bad decision under certain circumstances and may not be discovered until years after enactment. Even with staff attorneys and years of experience in policy analysis, interpretations of the law are never definitive.
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
25
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
Counting bills and activities does not tell the whole story. Counting bills for comparison and evidence of change over time is a seductive method. It seems to provide the kernel of truth in a few summary numbers. In fact, such summary numbers can be very informative in evaluation research, but rarely by themselves. Bill counts do not reveal the extent to which policymakers in different states and at different time periods play the game of introducing bills to gain favor with political groups and powerful constituents. Also, introduced bills are often versions of other bills. In our tracking system, each new version (e.g., with unique bill ID number) was counted as a single bill introduction. Only one from that collection of ―like‖ bills introduced usually ends up being enacted into law. Counting coalition activities and comparing numerical change over time to determine the relationship of activities to enacted legislation, also, does not reveal the complexities of the task assigned to the RUD coalitions. Quantity does not always equal quality. Most RUD coalitions got better over time in planning and carrying out strategic activities. Logically, this might translate to fewer, very targeted — thus more effective — activities. As the two case studies show in this report, there were many factors that determined success or failure in changing policies to reduce underage drinking. Counting bills and coalition activities did not reveal all such nuances of coalition work. For instance, Puerto Rico’s failure to pass a lower minimum legal drinking age in Phase I was not the result of the coalition’s lack of commitment and dedication to the task. Only through qualitative data and analysis of interviews do we have a better understanding of what went on. 7.0 THE FUTURE The original 12 RUD coalitions are, at this writing, in their sixth year of the project. We continue to track alcohol legislation and information on coalition work. Unlike Phase I, coalitions were asked to focus on a set of ―best practices‖ policies as the goal of their work. Therefore, for Phase II of RUD we developed a policy classification system that considers the best practices policies. Eventually, all bills tracked from 1997 to the end of Phase II will be classified or re-classified to fit this more refined system. In 2005, using this classification system for all eight years, we will again analyze legislative activity around alcohol bill introductions and enactments to help determine the success of RUD coalitions to significantly affect alcohol policies. As a trial, it is interesting to apply a classification of best practices alcohol policies to the bills enacted in RUD sites to see how many of these bills actually meet the criteria of ―best practices.‖ Table 7 shows the list of best practices policies, the number of bills that fit in each class that coalitions identified as their coalition goal, and, in the third column, all bills enacted in RUD states regardless of coalition agenda. The table shows that most of the enacted bills on which coalitions placed their priority work indeed fit the best practices classification. Only six were policies not likely to affect underage drinking or are not identified as best practices (e.g., 0.08 BAC, testing or screening for BAC, and restrictions on alcohol sales at drive-up windows). Policies not bolded on the list are those that are best practices if combined with policies in bold type or if they are used as mechanisms to keep pressure on policymakers to debate policy
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
26
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
approaches to underage drinking. Two RUD agenda bills fell into that category. Five bills were enacted that dealt with tax increases and were not listed on the priority agenda for RUD coalitions. However, closer inspection of these bills reveals that they are specialty taxes on wines from local vineyards, on alcohol sales on cruise ships, and illicit alcoholic beverages.
Table 7: Comparison of Phase I Accomplishments with Phase II Criteria
Alcohol Policies: “Best Practices”
1
# Enacted Bills in 2 Phase I RUD
0 3 3 2 1 1 0 1 0
All Enacted in 3 RUD Sites
5 5 6 2 1 2 1 2 0
Commercial Availability Tax/Fee Increases Outlet Density/Licenses Enforcement and Administrative Penalties Compliance Checks Minimum Age of Server/Seller Server Training (RBST) ID Scanners & Checks of IDs Home Delivery/Internet Sales Community Events Restrictions Non-Commercial Social/Public Availability Social Host Liability Public Drinking/Open Container Beer Keg Registration Youth Restrictions and Penalties MLDA & Related Loopholes False IDs & Graduated Driver’s License Penalties for Possession, Consumption, Purchase, DUI/DWI Youth BAC – Zero Tolerance 3 2 1 4 3 1
1 3 2 2
1 4 14 3
Not listed as best practices policies, e.g., General BAC 0.08, 6 13 testing/screening for BAC, drive-up window sales, etc. 1 Bold policies are those thought to be most effective in reducing underage drinking. Non-bold policies may be effective if paired with others, or as mechanisms to keep pressure on policymakers (see OJJDP, 1999). 2 Counts are only of policies identified by RUD coalitions as fitting in their policy agenda priorities for Phase I. Each enacted bill may be counted in more than one category, inflating the total number in this column (see Appendix C, last column, Ys). 3 Counts are of enacted bills identified as youth access in RUD sites, regardless of RUD coalition focus. Each enacted bill may be counted in more than one category, inflating the total number in this column (see Appendix C).
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
27
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
REFERENCES Alcohol Epidemiology Program. Reducing Underage Drinking through Coalitions project: Evaluation report 1997-2000. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2001. Flewelling, R.L., Rachal, J.V., Marsden, M.E. Socioeconomic and demographic correlates of drug and alcohol use. Findings from the 1988 and 1990 National Household Surveys on Drug Abuse. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Report No.: DHHS Publication No. (ADM) 92-1906, 1992. Mosher, J.F., Toomey, T.L., Good, C., Harwood, E.H., Wagenaar, A.C. State laws mandating or promoting training programs for alcohol servers and establishment managers: An assessment of statutory and administrative procedures. Journal of Public Health Policy, 23(1):90-113, 2002. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Regulatory strategies for preventing youth access to alcohol: Best practices. Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation: Rockville, MD, 1999. Single, E., Morgan, P., de Lint, J. Alcohol, society, and the state 2: The social history of control policy in seven countries. Toronto, Canada: Addiction Research Foundation, 1981. Wagenaar, A.C., Harwood, E.H., Toomey, T.L., Denk, C.E., Zander, K.M. Public opinion on alcohol policies in the United States: Results from a national survey. Journal of Public Health Policy, 21(3):303-327, 2000.
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
28
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
APPENDIX A Classifications for enacted bills: RUD Phase I
Classification Underage possession and consumption Description Pertaining directly to youth possession and consumption. Does not include sales or provision of alcohol to youth (covered under separate categories). Pertaining directly to the sales interaction between a licensee and a final consumer, in this case, including only those that potentially affect the availability of alcohol to youth. Pertaining to third parties who serve, sell, or provide alcohol to minors and may or may not result in injury or death. Also includes liability for injury to individuals by someone who is intoxicated. Pertaining to taxation on the sale (retail or wholesale) of alcoholic beverages by quantity sold, quantity ethanol in beverage, percent of sales, etc. May include definitions of what type of alcoholic beverage qualifies for taxation. Does not include fees and liquor licenses and other fees based on licensure. Pertaining to alcohol but not easily identifiable as relating to youth access to alcohol or availability of alcohol to youth. Not counted as those of most interest to RUD coalitions or reducing underage drinking. All bills collected but found to be unrelated to alcohol, or, if related, only marginally. Example PA S 824, 1999. “Amends the Crimes and Offenses Code. Further provides for purchase, consumption, possession or transportation of liquor or malt or brewed beverages by minors.” CT H 5225, 1998. “Concerns the retail sale of beer in kegs; establishes requirements for the registration of kegs containing beer at the time of sale in order to facilitate the tracing of such kegs if the contents are used in violation of State liquor laws; prohibits sale of alcoholic beverages from drive-up windows.” GA H 908, 1997. “Relates to furnishing alcoholic beverages to and purchase and possession of alcoholic beverage by, a person under 21 years of age; provides for different and stronger penalties for a person convicted of knowingly acting as agent to purchase or acquire alcoholic beverages for or on behalf of a person under 21 years of age.” [Also qualifies as a law relating to Underage Possession and Consumption.] PA H 134, 1997. “Amends the Tax Reform Code of 1971. Makes amendments relating to sales and use tax, personal and corporate income tax, capital stock franchise tax, and malt beverage tax. Further provides for realty transfer tax definitions, exclusions, neighborhood assistance tax credits and for inheritance tax. Adds provisions relating to a research and development tax credit. Prescribes crimes and offenses.” MN S 277, 1997. “Requires brewers or malt liquor manufacturers to have a manufacturer's warehouse permit to import malt liquor for storage at a central warehouse or distribution center. Sets permit fee at $1000 and restricts permits to manufacturers or brewers located outside the state that hold a valid importer's license. Requires that only licensed malt liquor wholesalers may accept delivery or pick up malt liquor from the distribution center or warehouse.” NC H 524, 1997. “Makes an appropriation to defray the expenses of the Department of Mental Health and certain programs of the Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse for fiscal year 2000.”
Retail sales
Liability and responsibility provision to minors
Taxation
Other alcoholrelated
Not alcoholrelated
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
29
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
APPENDIX B Alcohol bills introduced or enacted: RUD Phase I (1997-2000)
Site
CT GA IN LA MN MO NC OR PA 1 TX RUD Total Non-RUD
1 2
All Bills #
11,006 9,794 6,095 11,710 15,753 6,686 6,870 6,749 10,762 –
2
INTRODUCED Alcohol Bills # % all bills
327 224 236 244 747 215 271 196 574 351 3,034
2
ENACTED Alcohol Bills Youth Alcohol Bills # % all bills # % all bills
30 30 19 30 20 11 28 22 24 22 236 1286 0.27% 0.31% 0.31% 0.26% 0.13% 0.16% 0.41% 0.33% 0.22% – 0.28% 0.40% 4 6 4 3 5 2 5 3 3 4 35
2
2.97% 2.29% 3.87% 2.08% 4.74% 3.22% 3.94% 2.90% 5.33% – 3.55%
2
0.04% 0.06% 0.07% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.07% 0.04% 0.03% – 0.04%
2
85,425 320,218
13,523
4.22%
181
0.06%
Data not available for “All Bills” introduced in 2000. Calculations do not include TX (data not available for “All Bills” introduced in 2000).
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
30
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
Appendix C Details on Enacted Youth-Related Bills in RUD Sites Only, Sorted by Class1
Class Site CT CT DC DC DC Underage Possession and Consumption of Alcohol GA GA IN LA LA LA MN MN MN MO NC NC NC NC NC PA PA TX TX TX * * * * * * * * Year 1998 1999 1998 2000 2000 1999 2000 2000 1999 1999 2000 1997 1999 1999 1998 1997 1998 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 1997 1999 1999 Bill # S355 S178 12-206 13-165 13-238 H304 H1273 H1051 HR60 HR1157 HR166 H2654 H1289 S2845 S634 H448 S1336 S57 H1022 H1135 S824 S255 35 S528 S185 Description Specifies alcohol use be considered a factor for student suspensions and expulsions. Prevents minors from purchasing alcoholic beverages through use of the internet or other communications, and having the alcohol shipped to them. Bans open containers in parks and public places. False ID – graduated driver’s license Penalties for DWI (including youth >0.0 BAC) Provides for concurrent magistrate and criminal jurisdiction over certain misdemeanor alcohol violations relating to minors; provides for penalties. Home delivery/internet sales. Immediate suspension of driving privileges for minors operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Citations and undercover operations to charge minors for purchasing or possessing alcohol. Penalties for using false ID; implementation of graduate driver’s licenses. Open containers not permitted in vehicles. Clarifies age as it relates to juvenile DWI license revocation. Minimum fine for purchase of alcohol by a person under 21. Penalties to minors for use of false ID to purchase or attempt to purchase alcohol. Youth zero tolerance BAC. Youth DWI breath screening. Zero tolerance BAC, immediate license revocation for minors. Driver’s license revocation for youth under age 18 found in possession of alcohol on school grounds. Penalties for using false ID; implementation of graduate driver’s licenses. Close 18- to 20-year-old loophole for entering bars. Amends criminal code relating to purchase, consumption, possession or transportation of alcohol by minors. Pertains to open containers of alcohol in vehicles. Youth zero tolerance BAC. Youth possession, purchase, consumption of alcohol; penalties. BAC screening for offenses involving alcohol. RUD 2 Goal
*
Y
Y
Y Y
Y
Y Y
Y Y
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
31
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director
Alcohol Policy Tracking: 1997-2000
APPENDIX C continued
Class Site CT CT GA GA IN Retail Sales of Alcohol LA MN MN NC NC OR OR PA PA PR PR TX GA Liability for AlcoholRelated Injuries GA IN MN MN NC OR Taxation and Fees GA IN LA MN MO NC PA DC PR PR TX * * * * * * * Year 1998 1998 1997 1997 2000 2000 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 1997 1998 1999 1997 1997 2000 1999 2000 1999 1999 1999 2000 1998 1997 1998 1997 1997 1999 1999 1999 1999 Bill # H5225 H5444 H250 H682 S40 S12 S2221 H1289 S812 S120 H2140 S1107 H1675 S1531 367 265 H2450 H572 H908 S73 H1289 S1733 S120 H2417 H1383 S216 HR254 S378 H1240 H754 H134 12-212 22 363 S114 Description Keg registration; prohibits drive-up window sales. Penalties for sales of alcohol to minors; compliance checks. Penalties for sales of alcohol to minors; sellers authorized to confiscate false ID. Restrictions on sales of alcohol in public facilities. Allows minors in golf and recreational facilities where alcohol is sold and served. Prohibits sales of alcohol in a specific recreation center when the center is being used by youth. Compliance checks. Civil penalties for sales of alcohol to minors. Outlet density restrictions. Penalties for sales of alcohol to minors. Penalties for sales of alcohol to minors; server training for violations. Relates to identification for purchase of alcohol. Restricts youth workers from handling alcohol in recreation facilities where alcohol is sold or served. Server training. Outlet density. Outlet density. Relates to the discipline of certain individuals who sell certain alcoholic beverages. Increases limits on punitive damages for tort cases. Increases penalties for non-commercial provision of alcohol to minors. Relates to charges for causing the death of individuals while driving while intoxicated. Increases penalties for providing alcohol to minors. Social host, non-commercial provision of alcohol to minors; penalties. Social host, non-commercial provision of alcohol to minors; penalties. Relates to recovery of damages in civil action cases related to drunk driving. Amends law to allow sale of alcohol on cruise ships and sets fees and sales tax on those sales. Allows Allen County to impose a supplemental food and beverage tax. Imposes tax on wines. Recodification of liquor tax. Imposes tax on certain wines. Imposes excise tax on illicit alcoholic beverages. Amends malt beverage tax. Adult 0.08 BAC. Adult 0.08 BAC. Institutes a Drinking Prevention Week. Adult 0.08 BAC. RUD 2 Goal Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y
Other Alcohol
* * * *
Y Y Y Y
* Identified through means other than the automated policy tracking, e.g., RUD coalition, special searches through Westlaw, etc. 1 Each bill may appear in more than one classification since bills may cover more than one topic. 2 Indicates whether RUD coalition identified this bill as a policy agenda item for coalition work.
Alcohol Epidemiology Program University of Minnesota
32
Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD Professor and Director