OJJDP National EUDL Leadership Conference

1. ‘From field research to city ordinance: Experiences of a Princeton review party school’ OJJDP National EUDL Leadership Conference Virginia J. Dodd, PhD, MPH Associate Professor Department of Health Education & Behavior University of Florida Maureen Miller, MPH, CHES Coordinator, AOD Prevention GatorWell Health Promotion Services University of Florida

2. Grant Funding • This work was partially funded by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools: • Prevent High-Risk Drinking or Violent Behavior Among College Students (Awarded 2006-2008) • Models of Exemplary, Effective, and Promising Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse Prevention Programs on College Campuses Grant Program (Awarded Promising Grant 2009-2010)

3. Objectives At the end of the session, participants will be able to: • Discuss the value of field research in policy development; • Describe effective data collection techniques; • Discuss the role of innovation and creativity when crafting alcohol policy.

4. High-Risk Drinking Rate

5. Princeton Party School Rankings • 2003 - #5 • 2004 - #11 • 2005 - #18 • 2006 - #11 • 2007 - #4 • 2008 - #1 • 2009 - #2 • 2010 - #7

6. Background • Each year, alcohol use can be linked to: • 97,000 reported incidents of sexual assault • 400,000 incidents of unprotected sex • 600,000 injuries • 700,000 assaults • 1,800 student deaths Hingson et al., 2009

7. Negative Consequences • Unintentional injury (falls, pedestrian injuries, DUI) • Sexually transmitted infections and other risky sexual behaviors • Unintended pregnancy • Sexual assault • Violence • Poor academic performance • Some students die, some drop out, some leave college with alcohol dependency issues that will follow them throughout their adult lives.

8. Why Do We Care? • Nearly 1/3 of binge drinkers meet the criteria for a formal diagnosis of alcohol abuse. • Nearly 1 in 17 are alcohol dependent. • The legal drinking age of 21 doesn’t deter underage drinkers. • They arrive at UF as alcohol consumers. • They believe drinking is a normal and EXPECTED part of the college experience. • Among UF students, drinking is a central part of their social lives • 92% of males and 82% of females • 67% say the social atmosphere on this campus promotes alcohol use.

9. Additional Factor

10. The College Bar Environment • Alcohol consumption occurs most frequently at on-premise alcohol establishments where patrons can obtain and consume alcoholic beverages such as bars, clubs, and restaurants. Stokwell, et al. (1993)

11. College Bar Drink Specials • Despite the problems associated with college drinking, on-premise alcohol establishments in campus communities overwhelm students with special discounts and promotions.

12. Early Study • To determine whether taking advantage of a drink special is independently associated with an increased risk of exiting a college bars in a highly intoxicated state (i.e., BrAC ≥ .08)?Will they do it?

13. Local Laws • Although state law prohibits people under 21 from purchasing and consuming alcohol, no state or local ordinances forbid minors from patronizing drinking establishments. • Local law prohibits open alcohol containers outside of drinking establishments.

14. Methods • 15 drinking establishments in Gainesville, Florida were observed during six nights of December, 2006 and May, 2007. Thombs et al., 2008

15. Establishment Visits • Each establishment visit consisted of: • (1) Observational assessment inside establishment • (2) Sidewalk interviews outsideestablishment

16. Findings • Soda was generally more expensive than beer. • Free soda was given at ¼ of the establishments. Thombs et al., 2008

17. Findings • Food was available at less than ½ of the establishments. • Free food was limited to peanuts and nachos. Thombs et al., 2008

18. Findings • At less than half of the establishments, signage was observed that encouraged patrons to drink in a responsible manner. “Drink Responsibly” Thombs et al., 2008

19. Sidewalk Interviews • Each sidewalk interview consisted of a 3-5 minute interview and breath alcohol test. Thombs et al., 2008

20. Sample • Of approximately 600 exiting patrons, 291 agreed to participate. • 61% were men • 86% were college students • 84% were >21 years of age • Average BrAC =.091 (range .000 - .281) • 58% above the legal limit to drive (BrAC≥ .08) • No BrAC sex difference

21. Sex Differences • Although men drank more and spent more money, there was no significant sex differences in BrAC: Thombs et al., 2008

22. Conclusion • Taking advantage of a drink special was associated with a 4-fold increase in the risk of exiting a bar in a highly intoxicated state (i.e., BrAC> .08). • This is the first study to document that the drink discounting practices of college bars can be linked to greater alcohol consumption and higher levels of intoxication among exiting patrons. Thombs et al., 2008

23. Expanded Study • To enhance the methodology of our previous study and to determine the feasibility of collecting biological samples (including DNA) from patrons exiting bars.

24. Student Engagement • Over 50 undergraduate students participated in planning and conducting this field study. • This participatory research approach deliberately engages students in issue related to alcohol misuse and its consequences.

25. The Interview • After being recruited and giving verbal informed consent, participants completed a 10-15 minute interview and anonymous survey about their behaviors that night. • Participants also provided three biological samples.

26. Saliva Sample • Participants provided a saliva sample to be examined for genetic markers linked to excessive drinking and alcohol dependence.

27. Oral Fluid Sample • Participants provided an oral fluid sample to detect recent use (i.e., tobacco, marijuana, other illicit and prescription drugs).

28. Breath Sample • Participants provided a breath sample to estimate blood alcohol concentration.

29. Incentives • Participants were offered free pizza and soda. • They were also given general feedback about their breath alcohol concentration to discourage drinking and driving.

30. The Crowd • About 125 exiting patrons participated in the study during each night of data collection.

31. Sample • Of approximately 1,000 total exiting patrons, 477 agreed to participate. • 65% were men • 77% were white • 91% were college students • 76% were 21 years of age or older • Average BrAC =.091 (range .000 - .262) • 58% above the legal limit to drive (BrAC ≥ .08)

32. Intoxicated Patrons Of those over the legal limit to drive (n=277), • Average BrAC =.125 • 25% were under 21 years of age • 21% planned to drive home in less than an hour • 20% experienced unwanted sexual touching • 15% used drugs to get high that night (in addition to alcohol or tobacco)

33. BrAC by Time of Night

34. Sex Differences • Although men drank more and spent more money, there was no significant sex differences in BrAC:

35. Underage Patrons (n=114) • 59% were men • 100% were college students • 91% admitted drinking at a bar • On average, underage patrons consumed 4 drinks at the bar they just exited. • Average BrAC =.087 (range .000 - .262) • 63% above the legal limit to drive (BrAC ≥ .08)

36. Age by Time of Night

37. Data Analyses Revealed • Taking advantage of ad libitum drink specials (i.e., “all-you-can-drink”) are particularly harmful. • When these types of drink specials are geared toward women (i.e., “ladies drink free”), women have significantly elevated BrACs upon exiting bars. • When these types of drink specials are geared toward men (i.e., beer pitcher specials), men have significantly elevated BrACs upon exiting bars.

38. Drink Specials • Those who took advantage of drink specials consumed more alcohol and had higher BrACs, although they spent the same amount of money as those who did not take advantage of drink specials.

39. Conclusions – Underage Drinking • These results suggest that drink specials should be a priority focus of policy development and regulation aimed at improving the serving practices of drinking establishments.

40. Findings • Findings suggest that virtually all underage patrons not only consume alcohol at drinking establishments, but have higher levels of intoxication when exiting establishments than do legal-age patrons.

41. Conclusions • “All-you-can-drink” promotions, particularly those geared toward women, may significantly increase alcohol consumption and intoxication. • These findings may be most relevant to collegiate hospitality zones where patrons are more sensitive to price discounting practices because they generally have less disposable income. • Drink specials do not appear to save patrons money, which challenges common claims from customers and retailers that bar-sponsored drink specials help provide beverage service at a competitive cost. Thombs et al., in press

42. Policy Development • Primary target areas: 1. Underage service in drinking establishments 2. Ladies Drink Free Specials

43. Underage Prohibition in Alcoholic Beverage Establishments Ordinance • Goal: Reduce or eliminate the unlawful consumption of alcoholic beverages by underage patrons at alcoholic beverage establishments, and therefore protect the safety and health of our youth and community.

44. Underage Prohibition in Alcoholic Beverage Establishments Ordinance • Alcoholic beverage establishments are prohibited from admitting patrons under the age of 21 during specified times if an “Underage Prohibition Order” is issued to an establishment.

45. Judge upholds city drinking ordinance; requires ‘innocent owner’ clause • Fake ID argument

46. Underage Prohibition Ordinance • Underage Prohibition Order is issued if an alcoholic beverage establishment is the site of a certain number of “Underage Drinking Incidents” • Aggregate Occupancy Load less than 201: five or more/quarter • Aggregate Occupancy Load more than 201: ten or more/quarter • If Underage Prohibition Order is issued • Establishment prohibited from admitting patrons under the age of 21 from 9:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. • Sign posted at each public entrance

47. Underage Prohibition Ordinance • Gainesville residents under 21 will need to start eating dinner a little earlier at some Gainesville hot spots. • Restaurants like the Swamp and 1-0-1 Cantina will not be allowed to permit anyone under 21 inside after 9 p-m. • Gainesville Police placed the limit for the next 90 days due to a combined total of nearly 42 underage drinking violations. • Gainesville Police Department Spokesman Steve Weaver says even though restaurants have complained about the ordinance put in place this year, they can’t get around the law. Posted: Friday, Jul 09, 2010, 11:40 AM

48. Comparative Review of Underage Drinking Incidents at Alcoholic Beverage Establishments For Period of April 1-September 30 For 2008 and 2009

49. Statistical Review • Reviewed Number of Underage Drinking Arrests • Reviewed Open House Party Arrests • Reviewed Issued Noise Warnings and Citations

50. Underage Drinking Arrests • In 2008 there were a total of 406 arrests (charges filed) for underage drinking in the City of Gainesville. • In 2009, the data reflects there were a total of 137 arrests for underage drinking in the City of Gainesville. • This reflects a decrease of 66.26% within Hospitality Districts.