|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
Northeast > Resources > Prevention Materials > Prevention Strategies > Enforcement > Enforcement Paper |
|||||||||||||||
|
Enforcement: A Strategy for Prevention Practitioners Developed by
We are pleased to welcome you to CSAP’s Northeast Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT). Since 1997 we have been working with six New England and five mid-Atlantic States, to effectively transfer knowledge to the local level and strengthen their capacity to prevent and reduce alcohol and other drug use in youth ages 12–17. The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration is the nation’s lead agency for substance abuse prevention. In addition to funding studies to test research-based models, CSAP spreads the word about proven program interventions that will enhance the efforts of prevention practitioners, policymakers, and evaluators. We hope you will visit the CSAP website at http://prevention.samhsa.gov. CSAP’s Decision Support System (DSS) promotes scientific methods and programs for substance abuse prevention for use within communities and state prevention systems. To learn more about CSAP’s DSS, visit their website at http://preventionplatform.samhsa.gov. This series includes documents on Policy, Enforcement, Collaboration, Communications, Education, Early Intervention, and Alternatives. Special thanks to Stephanie Malloy at CSAP’s Northeast CAPT for her assistance in creating this module. Funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Grant #UD1-SPO8999-01. © Copyright 2001 Education Development Center, Inc. All rights reserved. Enforcement: One of Seven Science-Based Prevention Strategies WHAT WORKS IN PREVENTION? Researchers at the national level are making great strides toward answering this important question. In recent years, they have distilled effective strategies and principles from the many programs that seek to prevent and reduce substance abuse. Now, across the country, more and more practitioners are coming to understand how critical it is to identify and use science-based strategies that are likely to be effective in meeting the needs of the people they serve. For the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Gardner and Brounstein have identified principles of effective substance abuse prevention.1 From these, CSAP’s Northeast CAPT has specified seven effective prevention approaches. (See chart before endnotes.) They are:
Asked to define enforcement, people are likely to describe actions that police officers take to back up laws on the books. Yet there is a broader meaning. Enforcement ensures that laws and policies regarding underage drug and alcohol use are taken seriously by communities. Various groups may be involved in creating sanctions and incentives designed to have a deterrent effect and highlight the need for prevention. Enforcement strategies are most likely to be effective if they:
As communities around the country are learning, the key to effective prevention is to use multiple strategies, in multiple settings, toward one common goal. Communities should examine their local situations, identify their specific needs, and look for ways to combine seven strategies that have proven effective: policy, enforcement, collaboration, communications, education, early intervention, and alternatives.
Multiple strategies, in multiple settings, toward one common goal. WHAT IS ENFORCEMENT? If laws and regulations are actually going to deter people and businesses from illegal behaviors, they must be accompanied by significant penalties and they must be enforced, through surveillance, community policing, and arrests. Many more people would speed if speeding tickets cost only $5 or if police didn’t use radar guns. Instead, drivers who might otherwise speed are deterred by the possibility of being pulled over and receiving a big fine and insurance penalties. It is the application of penalties that makes the difference. Penalties alone mean very little if they are not administered. Many laws exist to reduce alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use: minimum purchase ages for alcohol and tobacco, DUI and zero-tolerance laws, advertising bans and restrictions, and laws against possession and sales of illicit drugs. However, these laws are often enforced sporadically or not all. In some States, weak penalties for breaking these laws fail to act as deterrents. If a liquor store makes $400 a month from sales to minors but gets caught only once a year and fined $1000, those sales are still profitable. On the other hand, if the fines were increased to $5000 or the likelihood of being caught increased to once a month, the store would probably change its practice. Enforcement and policy are closely connected; nevertheless, there are reasons to draw a distinction between them. Enforcement needs to be accounted for as a strategy in its own right: in the absence of enforcement, policies can be merely abstract ideas, without action to back them up. Enforcement, moreover, may depend on a different set of community systems than policy does. The players who develop and articulate policies are not always the same players who are in a position to enforce them. The dictionary defines enforcement as "compelling observance of or obedience to" a regulation. This idea is implicit in the concept of enforcement as a universal prevention strategy. But the strategy encompasses a wider meaning; enforcement does not merely target the individual caught breaking the law, it targets the wider population that might consider breaking the law. One of its goals is to convince people that there are consequences to their actions, that laws are taken seriously, and that there is a significant enough likelihood of being caught to make it unwise to engage in a given risky behavior. Another goal is to change social norms, by making a public statement that the community stands behind its laws, and that those laws are important for the health and safety of the community and its citizens. In turn, a norm supportive of enforcement makes effective enforcement more likely. To reduce alcohol and tobacco consumption, the most effective strategies target retail sales and service to underage purchasers. Enforcing minimum purchase age laws is effective because it reduces the commercial availability of substances to young people, creates voluntary compliance among merchants and restaurants, and reinforces community norms that underage selling or purchasing are unacceptable behaviors. However, enforcement or minimum drinking age laws diminishes but does not eliminate underage drinking.2 Thus, enforcement must also attempt to reduce the adverse effects that result from drinking and other drug use, a strategy consistently found to be effective.3 For example, the substantial public health efforts against impaired driving have had a marked impact, significantly reducing fatalities and injuries in our country. While these strategies have not yet been shown to reduce drinking and drug use per se, they have proven particularly effective in reducing the harm associated with drinking and driving, particularly among young people. Reducing juvenile drug use is an entirely separate matter. In contrast to alcohol and tobacco products, which remain legal for adult consumption but not for youth under 21 and 18, respectively, illicit drug use remains illegal, regardless of age. Law enforcement strategies in this domain tend to revolve around prosecution of drug dealers, arrest of individuals in possession of illegal drugs, reduction of the supply of drugs, and court involvement, including drug courts, treatment programs, and juvenile detention or criminal prosecution. Since this publication focuses primarily on community-based enforcement options, discussion of preventing juvenile drug use emphasizes strategies that community members can use to assist with enforcement efforts, such as surveillance and nuisance abatement.
ENFORCEMENT AIMED AT RETAILERS Alcohol is the drug of choice for young people, in part because it is available in convenience and grocery stores, restaurants, and bars, not to mention family homes. Although prohibiting underage purchases of alcohol does not preclude all minors from drinking, evidence does show that vigorous enforcement of minimum purchase age laws is highly effective in reducing alcohol consumption and consequences.4 In general, the most effective enforcement strategies are aimed at retailers, who are licensed and therefore charged with responsible distribution of alcohol.5 A 1994 study indicated that for every 1,000 arrests of 16- to 20-year-olds for underage possession of alcohol, only 130 licensees have any action taken against them, and only 88 adults over age 21 are charged with furnishing alcohol to youth.6 Enforcement that directly targets alcohol retailers, on the other hand, includes such strategies as:
Tobacco use also begins in youth; studies show that nearly all smokers aged 35 or younger began using nicotine between the ages of 11 and 15, despite laws in every State that forbid the sale of tobacco products to minors.7 Tobacco products are even easier to obtain than alcohol, which is particularly dangerous given the highly addictive nature of nicotine and the lethal long-term effects of smoking. Reducing youth access to tobacco by enforcing laws and regulations must be a public health priority. "You can’t do prevention work around alcohol,
tobacco and drugs and not look at the alcohol retail industry. It is a
big component of what goes on in this city." Compliance Checks While the occasional, lucky 32-year-old finds herself "carded" in a bar or liquor store, elsewhere a 17-year-old walks away with a six-pack. As many as 50 percent of alcohol-selling or -serving establishments sell alcohol to young people, according to studies of businesses subject to undercover compliance checks, also known as "sting" operations.8 Compliance checks are, in fact, one of the most effective enforcement strategies for preventing youth drinking and smoking—if they are conducted regularly, randomly, and with publicity.9 They are even more effective when accompanied by advanced training of merchants and servers about the relevant laws, penalties for violation, and the best techniques for refusing sales or service. Compliance checks are most effective when servers and managers know that the law will be enforced or realize they assume significant liability if they serve underage individuals. Undercover buying operations are usually coordinated and conducted by law enforcement agencies. Various State and local ordinances across the country allow for compliance checks, and some provide guidelines or limitations on how they may be conducted. Once organized, compliance checks are relatively easy and inexpensive procedures, making them ultimately cost-effective in reducing underage consumption.
How Compliance Checks Are Conducted In a typical operation, a youthful-appearing buyer attempts to purchase a six-pack of beer in a convenience or liquor store, or a single drink in a bar or restaurant, while an undercover police officer stands nearby to witness the transaction. Because single purchase operations only test the behavior of one employee, compliance checks often consist of two separate buyers attempting to purchase on two separate occasions, especially in establishments where more than one employee sells or serves alcohol. Often, before conducting compliance checks, law enforcement has already notified all the retailers in an area that checks will be conducted, sent educational packets in advance, and offered server training to businesses. Sometimes, though, the stings come without warning, especially when the police are looking to gather data about the extent of the problem. In a growing number of jurisdictions, community groups such as local Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) affiliates conduct their own undercover buying operations. Although they lack the authority to penalize the licensee, such operations help educate businesses about compliance and identify weak links in retailers’ procedures. Such programs have also been shown to be effective in increasing retailer compliance with sales and service laws.10 The Resources section at the end of this publication lists several practical guides on conducting compliance checks, with advice on training businesses, hiring buyers, implementing investigations, and notifying the public. Using Local Ordinances: An Illustration Minnesota’s Action on Alcohol and Teens (AAT) initiative successfully demonstrates the power of local ordinances in enforcing prevention policy.11 Founded by a small group of public health professionals, the initiative seeks to change public policies on underage drinking. Within two years of its inauguration in 1996, AAT enacted two local ordinances in St. Paul and Minneapolis that mandated compliance checks for all outlets licenses to sell or serve alcohol. Immediately the compliance checks revealed a pervasive problem in the twin cities. In addition, AAT convinced the State legislature to allow community groups to use real youth—not just youthful appearing buyers—to participate in compliance checks. Previously, only law enforcement agencies were allowed to use underage youths in their investigations. This has enabled authorized groups to conduct a greater number of investigations, which led to increased publicity of the problem and greater public outcry against sales to young people. (It is also a controversial strategy; many prevention leaders prefer using young looking legal buyers in these checks, rather than underage youth.) Finally, in 1999, the State legislature earmarked funds of $150,000 a year for local authorities to conduct compliance checks. The legislature also passed a bill allowing felony charges to be filed against adults guilty of providing alcohol to youth in cases of death or great bodily harm.
Server Training Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) training is an integral part of the enforcement of underage drinking laws. As part of most alcohol licensing programs, retail clerks, waiters, and bartenders are trained in the relevant laws and penalties and on techniques to refuse sales to underage purchasers or intoxicated patrons. Generally, most underage alcohol purchases take place because the buyers are not carded. In a recent study in 28 Minnesota communities, youthful-appearing buyers were able to purchase beer without proof of age in 47 percent of purchase attempts.12 Another study in New York and Washington, DC obtained underage buying rates of 44 to 95 percent.13 Even when teens use false identification, retailers tend to fail to recognize that the IDs don’t match the faces, especially when purchasers are using valid identification cards belonging to someone else. One Illinois study examining clerk responses to false identification uncovered some interesting findings.14 In this study, a series of young looking 21-year-old women attempted to purchase alcohol in over 150 bars and liquor stores, using borrowed ids of people who looked markedly different. Amazingly, the females were able to purchase alcohol in 80 to 95 percent of cases. In fact, a blond, white female using an ID of a black female was able to buy alcohol 53 percent of the time. RBS training is particularly important in reducing impaired driving. Most individuals who drink and drive consume their last drink at a licensed establishment.15 In many States, liquor-serving establishments can be held financially liable if they serve alcohol to an intoxicated or underage person who later causes injury to a third party.16 Oregon’s RBS program has effected positive changes: three years after the State passed a mandatory server training law, the State saw a 23 percent decrease in single-vehicle nighttime crashes.17 However, most research still shows that RBS programs alone are generally not effective in producing compliance with alcohol sales and service laws. They are effective, however, when combined with other enforcement strategies such as compliance checks.18 Participants in RSB programs may also need refresher courses. A recent study of the long-term effects of a server training intervention in Rhode Island found that while the program did have positive effects on serving practices, these effects decreased over time (but remained higher than pre-training levels).19 Booster courses might serve to mitigate this decrease.
How Server Training is Conducted In a typical RBS program, servers are generally trained in:
In addition, managers and licensees are usually educated about their liability risks for selling to underage patrons. For some States, server training is mandatory. A number of States and localities have passed legislation either mandating or encouraging the use of RBS to reduce youth drinking and other alcohol-related problems. Server training also provides a defense in dram shop liability cases or reduces an establishment's liability insurance. Interventions Against Retail Tobacco Sales Research has also demonstrated the effectiveness of combining enforcement with merchant education in preventing tobacco sales to minors. The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, in a review of research and best practices, found that while neither merchant education nor the enactment of laws alone have substantially reduced youth access to tobacco products, combining these strategies can markedly reduce sales to minors.20 The Dover Youth Access to Tobacco Reduction Program, run by the Dover Police Department in Dover, New Hampshire, used a combination of compliance checks and retailer training to reduce adolescent tobacco use. The program first organized educational seminars for merchants on adolescent tobacco use and relevant youth access laws. These trainings were followed by random compliance checks in which adolescents attempted to purchase tobacco products. Officials issued warnings to violating retailers and revisited the merchants one year later, serving court summons to any establishments that continued to sell tobacco products to minors. As a result, adolescent tobacco-sales rates were reduced from 73 percent before program implementation to 24 percent after the implementation.21 Similar results have been obtained in other programs across the country. Penalties Localities, through administrative agencies and courts, can penalize alcohol license holders who fail to comply with laws or ordinances governing the sale of alcohol products.24 This penalty can be a fine, a suspension of the alcohol license, or a complete revocation of the alcohol license. Penalties are generally enforced by a local governing body, such as a city council or county board, and not by the court system. Such policies can deter outlets from selling to minors, while encouraging them to create internal policies and practices that prevent sales to underage customers.25 Creative use of penalties, like that described below, can both serve as a deterrent and create a mechanism for putting prevention measures in place. "The truth of the matter is that when the license
commissions and the police departments and the city clerks’ office
in some cities and towns work together with the licensees, the other community
members, community groups, and prevention coalitions, it gives a more
positive light to the license commissions and the people who regulate
these restaurants." Innovative Use of Penalties: An Illustration Despite ongoing efforts to train liquor licensees, a series of sting operations in Cambridge, Massachusetts uncovered significant alcohol sale violations in the city’s restaurants and bars. The Cambridge License Commission decided to reexamine its enforcement strategy, wanting to move beyond merely assessing fines to creating "constructive" penalties that would involve merchants more explicitly in prevention. The commissioner created a body known as the Cambridge Licensee Advisory Board (CLAB), consisting of liquor licensees whose establishments had violated minimum purchase age laws.26 The first CLAB, composed of five violators, was told to come back in six months with a plan demonstrating a commitment to preventing underage drinking. Many licensees initially resisted the new idea, preferring to pay fines and wanting nothing to do with the idea of serving on an advisory board. In time, however, as the CLAB meetings continued, licensees grew more and more involved, eventually generating a manual describing policies and enforcement sanctions for alcohol distribution and sales. Mandatory educational sessions were held for every licensee in the city, using the CLAB manual, and businesses were encouraged to conduct similar training seminars for their staffs. These and other initiatives contributed to creating significantly lower rates of alcohol use among Cambridge youth than in similar communities.
ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES AIMED AT YOUTH Although strategies that target retailers are generally more effective than strategies that target youth, it is important to hold young people accountable for violating the law. Doing so establishes the importance of safe and responsible behavior, and instills in youth a sense of the serious health risks of substance use and abuse. As with all forms of deterrence, enforcement among youth must be reliable to be effective. Penalties and sanctions must be swift, relatively easy to apply, and certain. Speeding drivers will be ticketed; cars parked in handicapped spots will be towed; people anticipate these potential consequences and alter their behavior accordingly. Unfortunately, however, establishing effective deterrence against adolescent alcohol and drug use is difficult. Arrests for alcohol and drug possession are relatively rare compared with the prevalence of use. Also, the behaviors generally take place in private, making them harder to identify and yet potentially more insidious. Nevertheless, certain enforcement strategies are proving effective. Research generally shows that administrative penalties, particularly drivers’ license suspensions, are more effective than criminal penalties at deterring underage alcohol and tobacco use. Young people cherish their driving privileges; thus, any measures that threaten to restrict those privileges are particularly effective in deterring impaired driving. Zero tolerance laws and "use or lose" laws set high standards for youth compliance by banning underage drinking, using revocation of driving privileges as a powerful deterrent. Zero Tolerance Reducing the legal Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) level to 0.08 percent has significantly reduced impaired driving and alcohol-related crashes among adults. For young people, however, allowing any BAC level would be hypocritical, given the ban against alcohol use among those under the age of 21. In accord with the law, States and communities nationwide have set a standard of "zero tolerance" for underage drinking and driving. Zero tolerance laws were prompted in part by the Federal government, who in 1997 threatened to withhold highway construction money from any State that failed to enact zero tolerance laws. Zero tolerance laws now exist in every State and the District of Columbia. These laws make it illegal for young people under the age of 21 to drive after consuming any alcohol at all, usually measured as a BAC of 0.00 to 0.02 percent. Under zero tolerance, police officers may legally require a breath test from any driver under 21 who they suspect may have been drinking; the law does not require that the officer have probable cause to suspect actual impairment. Drivers who are found to have consumed alcohol may have their drivers’ licenses revoked or suspended. While zero tolerance laws have not yet been proven to reduce drinking per se, they are highly effective in reducing the harm associated with drinking. Zero tolerance laws have been effective in reducing alcohol-related traffic crashes and fatalities among young people.27 In particular, zero tolerance laws that set BAC levels at 0.00 to 0.02 percent have been shown to reduce nighttime single-vehicle crashes among young drivers.28
Promoting Zero Tolerance: An Illustration The Connecticut Coalition to Stop Underage Drinking joined forces with the State Department of Transportation to increase public awareness about two sets of laws: the zero tolerance laws passed in Connecticut in 1995, and related laws against providing minors with alcohol, for which parents or other adults can be fined up to $1500 or go to jail for up to 18 months.29 While these laws have been on the books for several years, they have never been strictly enforced. The Coalition’s campaign focused much of its attention on outreach to local police departments, encouraging them to ambitiously enforce zero tolerance laws and laws that make it illegal to provide alcohol to minors.30 The Coalition has also produced a series of print ads for newspapers, posters for community organizations, an outdoor billboard message, and two public service messages to be played on the radio. It has submitted many articles about the campaign to local Connecticut newspapers. The ads and articles describe the laws and their penalties as well as the dangers of underage drinking and driving. The intention of this media barrage is to dramatically increase awareness of the laws. Studies show that zero tolerance laws are particularly effective in reducing underage drinking and driving when the laws have been amply publicized.31 The campaign is looking to achieve several outcomes. The most obvious is to increase compliance by raising awareness of the State’s underage drinking laws. By calling attention to the dangers of drinking and driving, furthermore, the campaign hopes to increase public support for enforcement of those laws. Police and other law enforcement officials are more likely to arrest, convict, or revoke licenses if there is a clear public mandate to enforce youth drinking and driving laws. Advocacy groups such as MADD point out that zero tolerance laws are not as effective as they could be. MADD cites inadequate enforcement, failure of courts to treat these offenses seriously, lack of public awareness of the law, and ignorance of zero tolerance's potential benefits.32 Use and Lose Laws "Use and lose" laws also reinforce the social imperative against underage drinking, taking advantage of the importance driving plays in young people’s lives. By placing driving at odds with drinking and drug use, such laws hope to create responsible behavior among young people. Use and lose laws allow for drivers’ license suspension of anyone under age 21 found guilty of any alcohol or drug violation, including use, possession, or attempting to purchase with or without false identification. Although research on the use and lose strategy is still emerging, at least one study found that it can increase youth compliance with drinking and drug laws.33 Fines and "Tickets" In an innovative new trend, some communities have begun to fine young people caught possessing alcohol or tobacco products. In November 2000, the town of Attleboro, Massachusetts, joining several other municipalities in the State, created a new statute to restrict teenage smoking.34 Under the Attleboro Youth Possession of Tobacco regulation, police are allowed to confiscate cigarettes, chewing tobacco, or cigars, fine children $25, and notify parents of first-time offenders. Second-time offenses increase to $50, with third and subsequent offenses resulting in $100 fines and disciplinary action under the school administration’s no-smoking policy. City health agents and school administrators are also allowed to write tickets to minors caught with tobacco products. Cops in Shops The "Cops in Shops" program, developed by the alcohol industry in the early 1990s, places police officers, posing as clerks, behind the counters of liquor and convenience stores, with the goal of catching young people attempting illegal purchases. The program, designed as a partnership between law enforcement and retailers, uses local media coverage and prominent warning signs to dissuade young people from using false identification and to discourage adults from buying for minors. The Cops in Shops program has not yet been evaluated to determine whether it has a significant deterrent effect.35 It is a time- and cost-intensive program, especially when compared with compliance checks; officers can typically only monitor one or two stores in an evening.36 The program has also been criticized for shifting enforcement tactics from apprehending retailers to apprehending young people. However, it may have a valuable short-term effect on young people, especially with the initial publicity blitz. Combined with compliance checks, it could help reduce illegal sales to underage purchasers. It may also facilitate good working relationships between police officers and retailers, and serve as an educational tool and a stepping stone for further law enforcement interventions, such as compliance checks and responsible beverage service training. False Identification Young people can easily obtain false identification by altering valid cards or purchasing near-perfect facsimiles; they also can easily get away with using a valid card of a legal purchaser. In a survey of more than 4,000 underage college and high school students, 36 percent reported having used some type of false identification.37 As discussed above, retailers often sell alcohol and tobacco to minors without requesting identification, or fail to notice false identification when it is presented. Many States authorize retailers to confiscate false identification for 24 hours until it can be inspected by law enforcement. Rather than focusing on youth, however, some believe that enforcement efforts would be better directed at eliminating the supply of false identification. This could be achieved by finding and apprehending manufacturers, and by using environmental strategies such as identification cards with magnetic strips that can be scanned by retailers.
COMMUNITY ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES No enforcement effort can have full impact without the support of the community. A 1995 study of law enforcement officers in four States found that many officers perceive a tacit acceptance of underage drinking and do not receive reinforcement from the community to increase enforcement in this area.38 Community Advocacy Acting as advocates, citizens can inform law enforcement professionals about the need for intervention in troubled areas and make prevention of youth alcohol and drug use a public health and safety priority. Activists can help institutionalize enforcement strategies such as compliance checks, sobriety checkpoints, zero tolerance laws, and impaired driving penalties, using science-based evidence that enforcement serves as an important deterrent to underage drinking and drug use. In essence, community groups are instrumental in changing the way law enforcement, government agencies, and public officials implement and enforce public policy. Community advocacy is often bolstered by community action, in which residents assume surveillance roles to prevent drug-related crime from taking hold of their neighborhoods. In particular, private citizens may form their own neighborhood crime watches and make use of nuisance abatement strategies to dislocate drug dealers, and reduce the number and density of drug markets and underage drinking sites within a neighborhood.39 Nuisance Abatement Nuisance abatement programs give citizens enforcement power, enabling them to sue for the right to close down neighborhood drug houses and, in some cases, take action themselves to secure abandoned property. Many municipalities have enacted nuisance abatement ordinances; these enable residents to document suspicious activity, report it to authorities, request investigations, and sue for damages in court. Where nuisance abatement ordinances exist, properties deemed "public nuisances" can be closed for a given period of time until the owner takes substantial action to eliminate crime on the property. In some communities, residents have successfully used a common-law approach to clean up drug-infested lots and buildings and sue for damages after the fact. Strategies such as these enable community members to intervene in the difficult and complex area of drug enforcement, which has primarily come under the jurisdiction of police and the criminal justice system. Community members are empowered as they become allies with law enforcement and serve as a "first watch" for troubled areas. Using Nuisance Abatement: An Illustration Residents of a Baltimore neighborhood used a nuisance abatement strategy to reduce youth access to illegal drugs by closing down a drug house.40 A vacant and abandoned house in the Butcher Hill neighborhood had become a base of criminal drug operations, drawing a steady stream of dealers and users from around the community. With the support of a local community law center, community members took matters into their own hands, relying on an ancient "common law" of citizens’ rights to eliminate public "nuisances." First, members of the community notified the owner of the vacant drug house that they would board up the property, giving adequate notice for him to take action himself. When he did not, they boarded up the property, using plywood anchored to frames of 2 x 4s, careful not to cause any permanent damage to the property. They sealed the basement entrance, boarded all doors and windows, and cleaned the backyard of drug paraphernalia and trash. The community residents then took the owner to court to recover their costs in labor and materials, and were awarded $340.15 from the District Court. The drug house remained secure for months, eliminating most of the drug dealing from the property and surrounding street corners. The Butcher Hill residents plan to continue to use this strategy to deal with other vacant drug houses in their neighborhood.
ORGANIZATIONAL ENFORCEMENT Police and the courts are not the only ones who can carry out enforcement. Community involvement is essential, and community institutions such as schools, universities, and workplaces can target populations of young people with appropriate prevention messages and strategies. Such institutions can be instrumental in creating a positive climate that discourages substance abuse and levels serious consequences against violators. Also, organizational enforcement has the unique advantage that it can readily couple consequences or punishments with viable services to help young people—health education, life skills training, mental health interventions, and so forth. Schools and workplaces essentially create microcosms of communities that can promote positive social norms. Enforcement in any of these domains, therefore, serves as one component of a comprehensive approach reaching a specific population, giving it more prevention power. Thus far, there is limited research on the effectiveness of school disciplinary policies against drinking and drug use, especially as to whether the policies actually deter such behavior. Nevertheless, schools must set strict standards, not only to reduce youth use of illegal substances but also to protect themselves from liability. Although a number of schools are using drug testing and drug sniffing dogs to enforce drug and alcohol policies, the deterrent effects of these search methods have not yet been adequately researched.41 In addition, random locker search policies instituted by some school boards and districts can be deemed unconstitutional if officials cannot clearly establish reasonable cause. College and university alcohol and drug abuse is so prevalent that it requires its own forum for discussion. The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, funded by the U.S. Department of Education, works with college and universities nationwide to change campus culture and reduce substance abuse among students.42 One enforcement trend worth noting is an increased number of criminal prosecutions in cases of alcohol-related deaths on college campuses. In the past, it was very rare for fraternities and especially rare for other students and peers to be held accountable for alcohol-related deaths, even in cases where fraternity "rush" parties or other forms of coerced drinking led to the fatalities of underage drinkers. In February 2001, a 21-year-old student at Bucks County Community College in Pennsylvania faced manslaughter charges for giving an 18-year-old college freshman a second bottle of vodka after the student drank a first one by himself. The student died of alcohol poisoning, with a blood-alcohol level of 0.40 percent. In Big Rapids, Michigan, six students at Ferris State University were charged in the alcohol-related death of a 19-year-old freshman, who died in a fraternity hazing initiation. Videos showed two men pouring alcohol down the freshman’s throat. These recent cases suggest that the approach to prevention may be expanding, although the long-term deterrent effect of this type of enforcement has not yet been studied.
PERCEIVED RISK: THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLICIZING ENFORCEMENT The deterrent power of law enforcement comes from convincing the public that there is a substantial risk of being caught—and punished—for violating the law. In part this is accomplished by visible and consistent enforcement: Conducting compliance checks of retail establishments; arresting intoxicated drivers; breaking up underage drinking parties; and so forth. And, just as the likelihood of being caught influences people’s decisions to obey the law, so does their perception of the chances of being caught. For example, it has been estimated that the probability of a driver with a BAC of over 0.10 percent being arrested is between 1/1000 and 1/2000; in other words, extremely low. Some people refrain from driving under the influence only for fear of being caught; if they actually knew the low probability, they might be even more inclined to go ahead and drive. However, surveys show that driver perceptions of the likelihood of being caught are closer to 1/10.43 Laws alone do not create a sufficient deterrent. To create a widespread perception of risk, the laws—and their corresponding punishments—must be publicized. Increasingly, with pressure from public health agencies and advocacy groups, retail establishments are brandishing posters, flyers, and other warnings stating that they will not sell alcohol or tobacco to underage customers. Such posters, prominently displayed, typically contain strong language warning potential buyers of penalties for underage drinking or smoking, the health risks of substance abuse and impaired driving, and the consequences of providing alcohol to young people. They serve as reminders to both retailers and potential buyers. They also reinforce social norms suggesting that underage alcohol, tobacco, and drug use are dangerous and illegal, thereby attempting to change the broader social environment. The threat of enforcement can also be made visible in other ways: placing patrol cars on highways; stationing police officers in bars and restaurants; designating and publicizing "Neighborhood Watch" areas; and incorporating community policing throughout high-risk neighborhoods and especially in locales frequented by young people. COMBINING ENFORCEMENT WITH OTHER STRATEGIES: A NECESSITY FOR PREVENTION The deterrent power of the "perception of risk" shows how important it is to combine enforcement with other prevention tools. Effective enforcement programs do not operate in isolation, but rather involve a combination of prevention strategies that reinforce the deterrent effect, including communications and education. For example, compliance checks are most effective when combined with responsible sales and service training and warning posters (education), and publicized through media campaigns and news coverage of any violations that may occur (communications). Without public policy efforts to establish laws and regulations, enforcement is impossible; without enforcement, policy is meaningless. Using a combination of proven strategies, professionals and activists can play a significant role in using enforcement as a powerful prevention tool. They can:
ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES Print Materials The Alcohol Epidemiology Program (AEP), directed by Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD, is a research program within the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. The mission of the AEP is to conduct advanced research to discover effective community and policy interventions to reduce alcohol-related social and health problems. AEP’s website is: http://www.epi.umn.edu/alcohol/ CSAP’s Decision Support System (DSS) at http://preventionplatform.samhsa.gov promotes scientific methods and programs for substance abuse prevention for use within communities and State prevention systems. You can use this site to learn how to assess your needs, gain insight into how to further develop your agency capacity, and choose among effective prevention programs. Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. (1999). Strategies to Reduce Underage Alcohol Use: Typology and Brief Overview. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Prevention Enhancement Protocols System (PEPS). (1999). Preventing Problems Related to Alcohol Availability: Environmental Approaches. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Available online at: http://www.health.org:80/govpubs/PHD822/. Prevention Enhancement Protocols System (PEPS). (1999). Reducing Tobacco Use Among Youth: Community-Based Approaches. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Available online at: http://www.health.org:80/govpubs/PHD745/ Toomey, T. and Wagenaar, A. (1999). Policy options for prevention: The case of alcohol. Journal of Public Health Policy, 20(2):193-212. Training CSAP’s Northeast CAPT is developing a series of trainings, with videos, that will buildpractitioners' capacity to incorporate each of the seven prevention strategies into their efforts. Compliance Checks Alcohol Epidemiology Program. (2000). Alcohol compliance checks: A procedure manual for enforcing alcohol age-of-sale laws. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. http://www.epi.umn.edu/alcohol. This manual is designed for public officials, law enforcement officers, and alcohol-regulation agents as a practical guide for developing and implementing a compliance check system for establishments that sell or serve alcohol. The guidelines were drawn from the experiences of many communities around the nation that already conduct compliance checks, as well as from the experience of knowledgeable leaders in the law enforcement community. Included in the appendices are a number of practical resources including checklists, model ordinances, sample letters to retailers, sample print ads, posters, and PSAs, consent forms, and other tools. Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. (1998). Reducing Alcohol Sales to Underage Purchasers: A Practical Guide to Compliance Investigations. Rockville, MD: This concise guide provides guidelines and operational information on reducing sales of alcohol to underage purchasers through compliance investigations of alcohol retailers. It is designed to provide guidance for carrying out retail compliance checks at liquor and convenience stores, but is also applicable for investigations of restaurants and bars. Higher Education Enforcement The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention works with colleges and universities throughout the country to change campus culture, foster environments that promote healthy lifestyles, and prevent illegal alcohol and other drug use among students. The Center is located at Education Development Center, Inc., 55 Chapel Street, Newton, Massachusetts 02458-1060; Phone: (800) 676-1730; Fax: (617) 928-1537; website: http://www.higheredcenter.org. Wechsler, H., Moeykens, B.A. and DeJong, W. (1995). Enforcing the Minimum Drinking Age Law: A Survey of College Administrators and Security Chiefs. Harvard School of Public Health. A detailed examination of how rules against underage drinking are currently enforced reveals that school administrators and security officials are missing key opportunities for more effective action to enforce the minimum drinking age. This bulletin looks at the implications for college administrators and offers recommendations for creating a safe environment in which all students can prepare for their futures.
ENDNOTES 1Gardner, S. E., and Brounstein, P. J. (2001). Science-Based Prevention Practices. Principles of Substance Abuse Prevention. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Division of Knowledge Development and Evaluation. Available online: http://captus.samhsa.gov/northeast/PDF/gardner/gardner-cover2.cfm 2Hingson, R., Heeren, T., and Winter, M. (1994). Lower legal blood alcohol limits for young drivers. Public Health Reports, 109, 738-744; Blomberg, R. D. (1992). Lower BAC limits for Youth: Evaluation of the Maryland .02 Law. DOT Pub. No. HS 807-860. Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, NHTSA; Mooney, L. and Gramling, R., (1993). The differential effects of the minimum drinking age law. Sociological Inquiry, 63, 330-338. 3Hingson, R., McGovern, T., Howland, J., Heeren, T., Winter, M., & Zakocs, R. (1996). Reducing alcohol-impaired driving in Massachusetts: The Saving Lives Program. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 791-797; Hingson, R., Heeren, T., and Winter, M. (1994). Lower legal blood alcohol limits for young drivers; Blomberg, R. D. (1992). Lower BAC limits for Youth: Evaluation of the Maryland .02 Law. 4Wagenaar, A. C., and Wolfson, M. (1994). Enforcement of the legal minimum drinking age in the United States. Journal of Public Health Policy, 15(1):37-53. 5Stewart, K. (1999). Strategies to Reduce Underage Alcohol Use: Typology and Brief Overview. Rockville, MD: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. 6Wagenaar, A. C., and Wolfson, M. (1994). Enforcement of the legal minimum drinking age in the United States.; Alcohol Epidemiology Program. Alcohol compliance checks: (2000). A procedures manual for enforcing alcohol age-of-sale laws. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. 7Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (1997). Reducing Tobacco Use Among Youth: Community-Based Approaches. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 97-3146. 8Forster, J. L., Murray, D. M., Wolfson, M. and Wagenaar, A. C. (1995). Commercial availability of alcohol to young people: Results of alcohol purchase attempts. Preventive Medicine, 24:342-347. 9Preusser, D. F., Williams, A. F. and Weinstein, H. B. (1994). Policing underage alcohol sales. Journal of Safety Research, 25(3): 127-133; Radecki, T. (1993). Compliance checks and other enforcement methods to deter underage drinking. Rockville, MD: CSAP. 10Biglan, A., Henderson, J., Humphrey, D., Yasui, M., Whisman, R., Black, C., and James, L. (1995). Mobilizing positive reinforcement to reduce youth access to tobacco. Tobacco Control, 4, 42-48; Lewis, R. J., Huebner, W. W., and Yarborough, C. M. (1996). Characteristics of participants and non participants in worksite health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11, 99-106. 11Adapted from: Streicker, J. (Ed.) (2000). Case Histories in Alcohol Policy. San Francisco: The Trauma Foundation. 12Forster, J. L., McGovern, P. G., Wagenaar, A. C., Wolfson, M., Perry, C. L., Anstine, P. S. (1994). The ability of young people to purchase alcohol without age identification in northeastern Minnesota, USA. Addiction, 89:699-705. 13Preusser, D. F. and Williams, A. F. (1992). Sales of alcohol to underage purchasers in three New York counties and Washington, D.C. Journal of Public Health Policy, 13: 306-317. 14Radecki, T. E. (1993). Compliance checks and other enforcement methods to deter underage drinking. Rockville, MD: CSAP. 15O’Donnell, M. (1985). Research on drinking locations of alcohol-impaired drivers: Implications for prevention policies. Journal of Public Health Policy, 6(4):510-525. 16http://www.epi.umn.edu/alcohol/policy 17Holder, H. D. and Wagenaar, A. C. (1994). Mandated server training and reduced alcohol-involved traffic crashes: a time series analysis of the Oregon experience. Accident Analysis and Prevention (26)1:89-97. 18Cummings, K. M., & Coogan, K. (1992). Organizing communities to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors. International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 13, 77-86; Feighery, E., Altman, D., and Saffer, G. (1991). The effects of combining education and enforcement to reduce tobacco sales to minors: A study of four northern California communities. Journal of the American Medical Association, 266, 3168-3171; McKnight, J. and Streff, F. (February 1999). The effect of enforcement upon service of alcohol to intoxicated patrons of bars and restaurants. Accident analysis and prevention, 26 (1): 79-88. 19Buka, S. L. and Birdthistle, I. J. (1999). Long-term effects of a community-wide alcohol server training intervention. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60:27-36. 20Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (1997). Reducing Tobacco Use Among Youth: Community-Based Approaches. 21Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (1997). Reducing Tobacco Use Among Youth: Community-Based Approaches. 22Toomey, T., Wagenaar, A. (1999). Policy options for prevention: The case of alcohol. Journal of Public Health Policy, 20(2):193-212. 23Willingham, M. Reducing alcohol sales to underage purchasers: A practical guide to compliance investigations. Rockville, MD: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. 24Alcohol Epidemiology Program, the School of Public Health, University of Minnesota in Minneapolis (1997) 25Alcohol Epidemiology Program, the School of Public Health, University of Minnesota in Minneapolis (1997). 26Adapted from "Enforcement," a training video developed by CSAP’s Northeast CAPT. 27Blomberg, R. D. (1993). Lower BAC limits for youth: Evaluation of the Maryland 0.2 law. 28Hingston, R., Heeren, T. and Winter, M. (1994). Reduced BAC limits for young people (impact on night fatal crashes). Alcohol Drugs and Driving, 7, 117-27. 29Sciarretta, J. (Dec. 1, 1998). Zero tolerance public awareness campaign launched. Press release. Connecticut Coalition to Stop Underage Drinking. 30Straw, J. (Dec. 8, 1998). Drive aims to halt booze-wheels mix. New Haven Register, C1. 31Hingson, R., Heeren, T. and Winter, M. (1994). Lower legal blood alcohol limits for young drivers. 32Shearouse, R. (Fall 1998). Zero tolerance: It’s the law, but is it being enforced? Driven. 33Preusser, D. F., Ulmer, R. G., & Preusser, C. W. (1992). Obstacles to enforcement of youthful (under 21) impaired driving. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 34Join Together, 2000, Mass. Teens face fines for tobacco possession, http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2000/mass-teens-face-fine-for.html, 11/14/00. 35Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (July, 1999). Regulatory Strategies for Preventing Youth Access to Alcohol. OJJDP National Leadership Conference, Reston, VA. 36Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (1999). Regulatory Strategies for Preventing Youth Access to Alcohol. 37Preusser, D., Ferguson, S., Williams, A. and Farmer, C. (1997). Underage access to alcohol: Sources of alcohol and use of false identification. In C. Mercier-Guyon, (Ed.), Alcohol, drugs, and traffic safety—T’97: Volume 3. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety Agency, France, September 21–26, 1997; Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (July 1999). Regulatory Strategies for Preventing Youth Access to Alcohol. OJJDP National Leadership Conference, Reston, VA. 38Wolfson, M., Wagenaar, A. C. and Hornseth, G. W. (1995). Law officers’ views on enforcement of the minimum drinking age: A four-state study. Public Health Reports, 110(4), 428-438. 39Davis, R. C., Smith, B. E., Lurigio, A. J., & Skogan, W. G. (1991). Community responses to crack: Grassroots antidrug programs. Report of the Victim Services Agency, New York, to the National Institute of Justice. New York: Victim Services; Eck, J., & Wartell, J. (1998). Improving the management of rental properties with drug problems: A randomized experiment. In L. Green-Mazarolle & J. Roehl (Eds.), (1998). Civil remedies (pp. 161–185). New Brunswick, NJ: Criminal Justice Press; Green-Mazerolle, L., Roehl, J., & Kadleck, C. (1997). Controlling social disorder using civil remedies: Results from a randomized field experiment in Oakland, California. In L. Green-Mazerolle & J. Roehl (Eds.). (1998). Civil remedies. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press; Lurigio, A., Davis, R., Regulus, T., Gwisada, V., Popkin, S., Dantzker, M., Smith, B., & Ouellet, A. (1993). An evaluation of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office Narcotics Nuisance Abatement Program. Chicago: Loyola University, Department of Criminal Justice; Rosenbaum, D. P., & Lavrakas, P. J. (1993). The impact of voluntary community organizations on communities: A test of the implant hypothesis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Phoenix, AZ, November; Smith, B. E., Davis, R. C., Hillenbrand, S. W., & Goretsky, S. R. (1992). Ridding neighborhoods of drug houses in the private sector. Washington, DC: American Bar Association. 40http://www.baltimoremd.com/community/claw/selfhelp.html, 2/1/2001. 41Paglia, A. and Room, R. (1998). Preventing substance use problems among youth: A literature review and recommendations. ARF Document No. 142. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Addiction Research Foundation, as cited in: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (2001). Guide to Science-Based Practices: Principles of Substance Abuse Prevention. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 01-3507. 42See the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention website at: http://www.higheredcenter.org 43Ross, H. L. (1992). Confronting drunk driving. New Haven: Yale University Press |
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|
