Environmental-level strategies aim to reduce underage and excessive drinking at the population level by changing the context (i.e., places, settings, occasions, and circumstances) in which alcohol use occurs, thereby reducing consequences.
Campus or community-based
Under this strategy, a campus or local or state government prohibits or restricts drink specials, such as the sale of two alcoholic beverages for the price of one, that encourage customers to drink more than they might otherwise.
Effectiveness ratings are based on estimated success in achieving targeted outcomes. Cost ratings are based on a consensus among research team members of the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number and design of studies.
Babor TF, Mendelson JH, Greenberg I, & Kuehnle J. Experimental analysis of the “happy hour”: Effects of purchase price on alcohol consumption. Psychopharmacology, 58:35–41, 1978.
Babor TF, Mendelson JH, Uhly B, & Souza E. Drinking patterns in experimental and barroom settings. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 41(7):635–51, 1980.
Christie J, Fisher D, Kozup JC, Smith S, Burton S, & Creyer EH. The effects of bar-sponsored alcohol beverage promotions across binge and nonbinge drinkers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20(2):240–53, 2001.
Kuo MC, Wechsler H, Greenberg P, & Lee H. The marketing of alcohol to college students: The role of low prices and special promotions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 25(3):204–11, 2003.
Nelson TF, Naimi TS, Brewer RD, & Wechsler H. The state sets the rate: The relationship among state-specific college binge drinking, state binge drinking rates, and selected state alcohol control policies. American Journal of Public Health, 95(3):441–46, 2005.
Smart RG & Adlaf EM. Banning happy hours: The impact on drinking and impaired-driving charges in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 47(3):256–58, 1986.
Thombs DL, O'Mara R, Dodd VJ, Hou W, Merves ML, Weiler RM, et al. A field study of bar-sponsored drink specials and their associations with patron intoxication. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70(2):206–14, 2009.
Van Hoof J, Van Noordenburg M, & De Jong M. Happy hours and other alcohol discounts in cafes: Prevalence and effects on underage adolescents. Journal of Public Health Policy, 29(3):340–52, 2008.
Williams J, Chaloupka FJ, Wechsler H. Are there differential effects of price and policy on college students’ drinking intensity? Contemporary Economic Policy, 23(1):78–90, 2005.
Williams J, Pacula R, Chaloupka F, & Wechsler H. Alcohol and marijuana use among college students: Economic complements or substitutes? Health Economics, 13(9):825–43, 2004.
For more information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.
Under this strategy, campuses and local and state governments support existing bans on Sunday sales of alcohol for offsite consumption. (No state bans such sales for onsite consumption.)
Middleton JC, Hahn RA, Kuzara JL, Elder R, Brewer R, Chattopadhyay S, et al. Effectiveness of policies maintaining or restricting days of alcohol sales on excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 39(6):575–89, 2010.
Popova S, Giesbrecht N, Bekmuradov D, & Patra J. Hours and days of sale and density of alcohol outlets: Impacts on alcohol consumption and damage: A systematic review. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 44(5):500–16, 2009.
Heaton P. Sunday liquor laws and crime. Journal of Public Economics, 96(1–2):42–52, 2012.
NIAAA, Alcohol Policy Information System: Sunday Sales
All states, the District of Columbia, and Guam currently prohibit anyone under age 21 from possessing alcoholic beverages; most states also prohibit those under age 21 from purchasing and consuming alcoholic beverages. Under this strategy, campuses and local and state governments support continuation of the age-21 minimum legal drinking age due to its effectiveness in reducing underage drinking consequences.
DeJong W & Blanchette J. Case closed: Research evidence on the positive public health impact of the age 21 minimum legal drinking age in the United States. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 75(Suppl. 17):108–15, 2014.
Shults RA, Elder RW, Sleet DA, Nichols JL, Alao MO, Carande-Kulis VG, et al. Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21(Suppl. 4):66–88, 2001.
Wagenaar AC & Toomey TL. Effects of minimum drinking age laws: Review and analyses of the literature from 1960 to 2000. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Suppl. 14):206–25, 2002.
Grucza RA, Hipp PR, Norberg KE, Rundell L, Evanoff A, Cavazos-Rehg P, et al. The legacy of minimum legal drinking age law changes: long-term effects on suicide and homicide deaths among women. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 36(2):377–84, 2012.
Plunk AD, Cavazaos-Rehg P, Bierut LJ, & Grucza RA. The persistent effects of minimum legal drinking age laws on drinking patterns later in life. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 37(3):463–69, 2013.
Subbaraman MS & Kerr WC. State panel estimates of the effects of the minimum legal drinking age on alcohol consumption for 1950 to 2002. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 37(Suppl. 1):E291–96, 2013.
See related studies in References, which summarize reductions in alcohol use consequences due to the age 21 minimum legal drinking age.
Under this strategy, campuses and local and state government support and implement strong enforcement of the existing age-21 minimum legal drinking age. (Compliance checks are an approach regulated at the local or state level whereby undercover youth, supervised by law enforcement or licensing authorities, attempt to purchase alcohol. When a violation occurs, a penalty is applied to the server and/or the license holder, depending on local or state law.)
Barry R, Edwards E, Pelletier A, Brewer R, Naimi T, Redmond A, et al. Enhanced enforcement of laws to prevent alcohol sales to underage persons — New Hampshire, 1999–2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53(21):452–4, 2004.
Flewelling RL, Grube JW, Paschall MJ, Biglan A, Kraft A, Black C, et al. Reducing youth access to alcohol: Findings from a community-based randomized trial. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(1–2):264–77, 2013.
Grube JW. Preventing sales of alcohol to minors: Results from a community trial. Addiction, 92(Suppl. 2):S251–60, 1997.
Holmila M, Karlsson T, & Warpenius K. Controlling teenagers’ drinking: effects of a community-based prevention project. Journal of Substance Use, 15(3):201–14, 2010.
Preusser DF, Williams AF, & Weinstein HB. Policing underage alcohol sales. Journal of Safety Research, 25(3):127–33, 1994.
Scribner R & Cohen D. The effect of enforcement on merchant compliance with the minimum legal drinking age law. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(4):857–66, 2001.
Treno AJ, Gruenewald PJ, Lee JP, & Remer LG. The Sacramento Neighborhood Alcohol Prevention Project: Outcomes from a community prevention trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 68(2):197–207, 2007.
Wagenaar AC, Toomey TL, & Erickson DJ. Preventing youth access to alcohol: Outcomes from a multi-community time-series trial. Addiction, 100(3):335–45, 2005.
Elder R, Lawrence B, Janes G, Brewer R, Toomey T, Hingson R, et al. Enhanced enforcement of laws prohibiting sale of alcohol to minors: Systematic review of effectiveness for reducing sales and underage drinking. Transportation Research E-Circular, (E-C123):181–8, 2007.
Under this strategy, a state or local government increases the tax on the sale of alcohol, thereby raising the cost of alcohol consumption and the affordability of excessive drinking.
Elder RW, Lawrence B, Ferguson A, Naimi TS, Brewer RD, Chattopadhyay SK, et al. The effectiveness of tax policy interventions for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38(2):217–29, 2010.
Wagenaar AC, Tobler AL, & Komro KA. Effects of alcohol tax and price policies on morbidity and mortality: A systematic review. American Journal of Public Health, 100(11):2270–78, 2010.
Wagenaar AC, Salois MJ, & Komro KA. Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: A meta-analysis of 1003 estimates from 112 studies. Addiction, 104(2):179–90, 2009.
Daley JI, Stahre MA, Chaloupka FJ, & Naimi TS. The impact of a 25-cent-per-drink alcohol tax increase. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42(4):382–9, 2012.
Markowitz S, Poe-Yamagata E, Andrews T, Deb P, Nesson E, Florence C, et al. Estimating the relationship between alcohol policies and criminal violence and victimization. German Economic Review, 13(4):416–35, 2012.
NIAAA, Alcohol Policy Information System:
Under this strategy, campuses or local and state governments retain or enact policies limiting the hours during which alcohol may be sold legally.
Hahn RA, Kuzara JL, Elder R, Brewer R, Chattopadhyay S, Fielding J, et al. Effectiveness of policies restricting hours of alcohol sales in preventing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 39(6):590–604, 2010.
Rossow I & Norstrom T. The impact of small changes in bar closing hours on violence. The Norwegian experience from 18 cities. Addiction, 107(3):530–37, 2012.
Schofield TP & Denson TF. Alcohol outlet business hours and violent crime in New York state. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 48(3):363–69, 2013.
See related studies in References, which describe the detrimental consequences associated with extended hours of alcohol sales.
Social host provision laws are enacted by local or state governments to hold accountable adults who supply alcohol to those under age 21.
Dills AK. Social host liability for minors and underage drunk-driving accidents. Journal of Health Economics, 29(2):241–49, 2010.
Paschall MJ, Grube JW, Thomas S, Cannon C, & Treffers R. Relationships between local enforcement, alcohol availability, drinking norms, and adolescent alcohol use in 50 California cities. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73(4):657–65, 2012.
Stout EM, Sloan FA, Liang L, & Davies HH. Reducing harmful alcohol-related behaviors: Effective regulatory methods. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61(3):402–12, 2000.
Wagoner KG, Sparks M, Francisco VT, Wyrick D, Nichols T, & Wolfson M. Social host policies and underage drinking parties. Substance Use and Misuse, 48(1–2):41–53, 2013.
Whetten-Goldstein K, Sloan FA, Stout E, & Liang L. Civil liability, criminal law, and other policies and alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities in the United States: 1984–1995. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32(6):723–33, 2000.
Wagoner KG, Francisco VT, Sparks M, Wyrick D, Nichols T, & Wolfson M. A review of social host policies focused on underage drinking parties: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Drug Education, 42(1):99–117, 2012.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Social Host Laws From Theory to Practice (2014 webinar—click “view event archive”)
Ventura County Behavioral Health Department, Model Social Host Liability Ordinance (2005)
Under this strategy, a campus bans the sale and consumption of alcohol at sporting events.
Bormann CA & Stone MH. The effects of eliminating alcohol in a college stadium: The Folsom Field beer ban. Journal of American College Health, 50(2):81–8, 2001.
Boyes WJ & Faith RL. Temporal regulation and intertemporal substitution—The effect of banning alcohol at college football games. Public Choice, 77(3):595–609, 1993.
Johannessen K, Glider P, Collins C, Hueston H, & DeJong W. Preventing alcohol-related problems at the University of Arizona’s homecoming: An environmental management case study. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 27(3):587—97, 2001.
Nelson TF, Lenk KM, Xuan ZM, & Wechsler H. Student drinking at us college sports events. Substance Use and Misuse, 45(12):1861–73, 2010.
Oster-Aaland LK & Neighbors C. The impact of a tailgating policy on students’ drinking behavior and perceptions. Journal of American College Health, 56(3):281–4, 2007.
Spaite DW, Meislin HW, Valenzuela T, Criss EA, Smith R, & Nelson A. Banning alcohol in a major college stadium: Impact on the incidence and patterns of injury and illness. Journal of American College Health, 39(3):125–8, 1990.
For information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.
This type of dram shop liability law is enacted at the state level to hold the owner or server(s) at a bar, restaurant, or other location responsible for damages caused by an intoxicated person who was overserved alcohol at that location. Liability can be established by case law or statute.
Rammohan V, Hahn RA, Elder R, Brewer R, Fielding J, Naimi TS, et al. Effects of dram shop liability and enhanced overservice law enforcement initiatives on excessive alcohol consumption and related harms: Two Community Guide systematic reviews. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41(3):334–43, 2011.
National Conference of State Legislatures (examples of legislation, by state), Dram Shop Civil Liability and Criminal Penalty State Statutes
This type of dram shop liability law is enacted at the state level to hold the owner or server(s) at a bar, restaurant, or other location responsible for damages caused by an underage drinker who was sold alcohol at that location.
National Conference of State Legislatures (examples of legislation, by state, Dram Shop Civil Liability and Criminal Penalty State Statutes
Under this strategy, local or state governments enact regulations that reduce the number of alcohol establishments or limit the number that may be established in a community or area, often through licensing or zoning laws.
Campbell CA, Hahn RA, Elder R, Brewer R, Chattopadhyay S, Fielding P, et al. The effectiveness of limiting alcohol outlet density as a means of reducing excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(6):556–69, 2009.
Mair C, Gruenewald PJ, Ponicki WR, & Remer L. Varying impacts of alcohol outlet densities on violent assaults: Explaining differences across neighborhoods. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 74(1):50–8, 2013.
Pridemore WA & Grubesic TH. Alcohol outlets and community levels of interpersonal violence: spatial density, outlet type, and seriousness of assault. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(1):132–59, 2013.
Scribner RA, Mason KE, Simonsen NR, Theall K, Chotalia J, Johnson S, et al. An ecological analysis of alcohol-outlet density and campus-reported violence at 32 US colleges. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71(2):184–91, 2010.
SAMHSA, Environmental Protection of Underage Drinking: Controls on Alcohol Outlet Location and Density
Under this strategy, campuses and local and state governments support existing state control systems for wholesale and off-premises retail distribution whereby a state sets the prices of alcohol and gains profit/revenue directly rather than solely from taxation. Retention of the state system may reduce alcohol outlet density and pricing competition among commercial distributors.
Hahn RA, Middleton JC, Elder R, Brewer R, Fielding J, Naimi TS, et al. Effects of alcohol retail privatization on excessive alcohol consumption and related harms: A Community Guide systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42(4):418–27, 2012.
Seim K & Waldfogel J. Public monopoly and economic efficiency: Evidence from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board’s entry decisions. American Economic Review, 103(2):831–62, 2013.
See related studies in References, which concluded that privatization of retail alcohol sales leads to increases in excessive alcohol consumption.
Responsible beverage service training laws, enacted at the local or state level, mandate that all or some servers, managers, and/or license holders at alcohol establishments receive formal training on how to responsibly serve alcohol. Training includes ways to recognize signs of intoxication, methods for checking age identification, and intervention techniques.
Bolier L, Voorham L, Monshouwer K, Hasselt Nv, & Bellis M. Alcohol and drug prevention in nightlife settings: A review of experimental studies. Substance Use and Misuse;46(13):1569–91, 2011.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Responsible Beverage Service From Theory to Practice (2014 webinar—click “view event archive”)
Under this strategy, a campus bans the sale, distribution, or consumption of alcohol on campus property.
Knight JR, Wechsler H, Kuo MC, Seibring M, Weitzman ER, & Schuckit MA. Alcohol abuse and dependence among U.S. college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(3):263–70, 2002.
Paek HJ & Hove T. Determinants of underage college student drinking: Implications for four major alcohol reduction strategies. Journal of Health Communication, 17(6):659–76, 2012.
Voas RB, Johnson M, Turrisi RJ, Taylor D, Honts CR, & Nelsen L. Bringing alcohol on campus to raise money: Impact on student drinking and drinking problems. Addiction, 103(6):940–50, 2008.
Walter G & Kowalczyk J. The effectiveness of alcohol policies in 4-year public universities. Journal of Community Health, 37(2):520–28, 2012.
Wechsler H, Lee JE, Gledhill-Hoyt J, & Nelson TF. Alcohol use and problems at colleges banning alcohol: Results of a national survey. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62(2):133–41, 2001.
Williams J, Chaloupka FJ, & Wechsler H. Are there differential effects of price and policy on college students’ drinking intensity? Contemporary Economic Policy, 23(1):78–90, 2005.
Under this strategy, a campus conducts a campus-wide awareness campaign that informs students about actual quantity and frequency of alcohol use among their fellow students, with the intent of changing their perception of what is normal or acceptable.
Strategy does not seek to reduce alcohol availability, one of the most effective ways to decrease alcohol use and its consequences.
Campo S, Brossard D, Frazer MS, Marchell T, Lewis D, & Talbot J. Are social norms campaigns really magic bullets? Assessing the effects of students’ misperceptions on drinking behavior. Health Communication, 15(4):481–97, 2003.
Clapp JD, Lange JE, Russell C, Shillington A, & Voas RB. A failed norms social marketing campaign. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(3):409–14, 2003.
Dejong W, Schneider SK, Towvim LG, Murphy MJ, Doerr EE, Simonsen NR, et al. A multisite randomized trial of social norms marketing campaigns to reduce college student drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67(6):868–79, 2006.
DeJong W, Schneider SK, Towvim LG, Murphy MJ, Doerr EE, Simonsen NR, et al. A multisite randomized trial of social norms marketing campaigns to reduce college student drinking: A replication failure. Substance Abuse, 30(2):127–40, 2009.
Glider P, Midyett SJ, Mills-Novoa B, Johannessen K, & Collins C. Challenging the collegiate rite of passage: A campus-wide social marketing media campaign to reduce binge drinking. Journal of Drug Education, 31(2):207–20, 2001.
Gomberg L, Schneider SK, & DeJong W. Evaluation of a social norms marketing campaign to reduce high-risk drinking at the University of Mississippi. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 27(2):375–89, 2001.
Granfield R. Alcohol use in college: Limitations on the transformation of social norms. Addiction Research & Theory, 13(3):281–92, 2005.
Mattern J & Neighbors C. Social norms campaigns: Examining the relationship between changes in perceived norms and changes in drinking levels. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65(4):489–93, 2004.
Polonec LD, Major AM, & Atwood LE. Evaluating the believability and effectiveness of the social norms message “Most students drink 0 to 4 drinks when they party.” Health Communication, 20(1):23–34, 2006.
Smith SW, Atkin CK, Martel D, Allen R, & Hembroff L. A social judgment theory approach to conducting formative research in a social norms campaign. Communication Theory, 16(1):141–52, 2006.
Swanson DJ, Zegers KM, & Zwaska AA. Implementing a social norms approach to reduce alcohol abuse on campus: Lessons learned in the shadow of 'the world's largest six-pack'. Social Science Journal, 41(4):621–35, 2004.
Thombs DL, Dotterer S, Olds RS, Sharp KE, & Raub CG. A close look at why one social norms campaign did not reduce student drinking. Journal of American College Health, 53(2):61–8, 2004.
Thombs DL & Hamilton MJ. Effects of a social norm feedback campaign on the drinking norms and behavior of Division I student-athletes. Journal of Drug Education, 32(3):227–44, 2002.
Wechsler H, Nelson TF, Lee JE, Seibring M, Lewis C, & Keeling RP. Perception and reality: A national evaluation of social norms marketing interventions to reduce college students' heavy alcohol use. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(4):484–94, 2003.
Werch C, Pappas D, Carlson J, DiClemente C, Chally P, & Sinder J. Results of a social norm intervention to prevent binge drinking among first-year residential college students. Journal of American College Health, 49(2):85–92, 2000.
National Social Norms Institute at the University of Virginia
Under this strategy, a campus or local or state government establishes policies that restrict or prohibit alcohol sponsorship and/or advertising of alcoholic beverages, particularly where such sponsorship or advertising exposes young people to alcohol messages, such as on college campuses, at rock concerts, or at athletic events.
ReviewSaffer H. Alcohol advertising and youth. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (Suppl. 14):173–81, 2002.
For information about intervention designs and implementation, check the articles in the References tab.
This type of program can be implemented at the campus, community, or state level to require training of those who sell or serve alcohol to recognize signs of intoxication, slow the service of alcohol, and cut off individuals who are obviously intoxicated. Note: Rating based on studies of programs in a few establishments.
Bolier L, Voorham L, Monshouwer K, Hasselt Nv, & Bellis M. Alcohol and drug prevention in nightlife settings: A review of experimental studies. Substance Use and Misuse, 46(13):1569–91, 2011.
NIAAA, Alcohol Policy Information System, Beverage Service Training
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Responsible Beverage Service Training From Theory to Practice (2014 webinar–click “view event archive”)
This type of program can be implemented at the campus, community, or state level to require training of those who sell or serve alcohol to verify the age of young customers, recognize false identification documents, and refuse sales to those under the legal drinking age. Note: Rating based on studies of programs in a few establishments.
Bolier L, Voorham L, Monshouwer K, Hasselt NV, & Bellis M. Alcohol and drug prevention in nightlife settings: A review of experimental studies. Substance Use and Misuse, 46(13):1569–91, 2011.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Responsible Beverage Service Training: From Theory to Practice (2014 webinar—click “view event archive”)
Keg registration laws, enacted at the local or state level, require alcohol retailers to place a unique identifier on a keg and record the purchaser’s name and address at the time of sale. Keg registration enables law enforcement agents to identify and hold responsible the adult who provided the alcohol, should underage drinking occur.
Cohen DA, Mason K, & Scribner R. The population consumption model, alcohol control practices, and alcohol-related traffic fatalities. Preventive Medicine, 34(2):187–97, 2000.
Fell JC, Fisher DA, Voas RB, Blackman K, & Tippetts AS. The relationship of underage drinking laws to reductions in drinking drivers in fatal crashes in the United States. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40(4):1430–40, 2008.
Markowitz S, Poe-Yamagata E, Andrews T, Deb P, Nesson E, Florence C, et al. Estimating the relationship between alcohol policies and criminal violence and victimization. German Economic Review, 13(4):416–35, 2012.
Ringwalt CL & Paschall MJ. The utility of keg registration laws: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(1):106–8, 2011.
NIAAA, Alcohol Policy Information System, Retail Sales: Keg Registration
Under this strategy, a campus bans the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages at social events held on campus property.
Resources identified only for strategies rated effective.
Under an amnesty policy, a campus does not impose sanctions on a student who seeks help for another student in danger of serious harm or death from alcohol use, even if the help seeker has been drinking underage or has provided the alcohol to an underage peer. Amnesty policies also may be known as medical amnesty or Good Samaritan policies, and some exist at the state level.
Lewis DK & Marchell TC. Safety first: A medical amnesty approach to alcohol poisoning at a US university. International Journal of Drug Policy, 17(4):329–38, 2006.
Under this strategy, a campus requires classes on Friday mornings to discourage excessive alcohol use by students on Thursday evenings.
Paschall MJ, Kypri K, & Saltz RF. Friday class and heavy alcohol use in a sample of New Zealand college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67(5):764–9, 2006.
Wood PK, Sher KJ, & Rutledge PC. College student alcohol consumption, day of the week, and class schedule. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 31(7):1195–1207, 2007.
Ward RM, Cleveland MJ, & Messman-Moore TL. Latent class analysis of college women’s Thursday drinking. Addictive Behaviors, 38(1):1407–13, 2013.
Under this strategy, a campus establishes policies that set certain constraints on alcohol sales, such as a limited number of alcoholic beverages per person, availability of food and non-alcoholic beverages, no self-service, and required beverage service training.
Geller ES & Kalsher MJ. Environmental determinants of party drinking bartenders vs. self-service. Environment and Behavior, 22(1):74–90, 1990.
Geller ES, Kalsher MJ, & Clarke SW. Beer versus mixed-drink consumption at fraternity parties: A time and place for low-alcohol alternatives. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52(3):197–204, 1991.
Under this strategy, a campus bans the possession and consumption of all substances within its residence halls.
Odo J, McQuiller L, & Stretesky P. An empirical assessment of the impact of RIT’s student alcohol policy on drinking and binge drinking behavior. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, 44(3):49–67, 1999.
Wechsler H, Lee JE, Nelson TF, & Kuo M. Underage college students' drinking behavior, access to alcohol, and the influence of deterrence policies. Findings from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study. Journal of American College Health, 50(5):223–36, 2002.
Wechsler H, Lee JE, Nelson TF, & Lee H. Drinking levels, alcohol problems and secondhand effects in substance-free college residences: Results of a national study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62(1):23–31, 2001.
A ban on beer kegs is an approach taken by a campus or local or state government in an effort to decrease the amount of alcohol at parties. Campus bans may apply to specific settings, such as athletic events or tailgate parties.
Kilmer JR, Larimer ME, Parks GA, Dimeff LA, & Marlatt GA. Liability management or risk management? Evaluation of a Greek system alcohol policy. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 13(4):269–78, 1999.
Under this strategy, a campus or local or state government establishes requirements specifying how old someone must be to serve or sell alcohol. Requirements may differ by type of alcohol establishment (e.g., off- vs. on-premise establishments and type of alcohol—beer, wine, or spirits) and may include exceptions under certain circumstances.
Andréasson S, Lindewald B, & Rehnman C. Over-serving patrons in licensed premises in Stockholm. Addiction, 95(3):359–63, 2000.
Forster JL, McGovern PG, Wagenaar AC, Wolfson M, Perry CL, & Anstine PS. The ability of young people to purchase alcohol without age identification in northeastern Minnesota, USA. Addiction, 89:699–705, 1994.
Forster JL, Murray DM, Wolfson M, & Wagenaar AC. Commercial availability of alcohol to young people: Results of alcohol purchase attempts. Preventive Medicine 24(4):342–7, 1995.
Freisthler B, Gruenewald PJ, Treno AJ, & Lee J. Evaluating alcohol access and the alcohol environment in neighborhood areas. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 27(3):477–84, 2003.
Lenk KM, Toomey TL, & Erickson DJ. Propensity of alcohol establishments to sell to obviously intoxicated patrons. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 30(7):1994–9, 2006.
Preusser DF & Williams AF. Sales of alcohol to underage purchasers in three New York counties and Washington, D.C. Journal of Public Health Policy, 13(3):306–17, 1992.
Toomey TL, Wagenaar AC, Erickson DJ, Fletcher LA, Patrek W, & Lenk KM. Illegal alcohol sales to obviously intoxicated patrons at licensed establishments. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 28(5):769–74, 2004.
Warpenius K, Holmila M, & Mustonen H. Effects of a community intervention to reduce the serving of alcohol to intoxicated patrons. Addiction, 105(6):1032–40, 2010.
Party patrols are a community-based approach in which campus or local teams, made up of police and sometimes volunteers, visit locations where there have been reports and complaints about noisy party activity or visit addresses associated with keg registrations to determine whether underage drinking is taking place. If illegal activity is occurring, the police cite any adults who appear to have facilitated underage drinking and cite those drinking underage.
Newman IA, Shell DE, Major LJ, & Workman TA. Use of policy, education, and enforcement to reduce binge drinking among university students: The NU Directions Project. International Journal of Drug Policy, 17(4):339–49, 2006.
Saltz RF, Paschall MJ, McGaffigan RP, & Nygaard PMO. Alcohol risk management in college settings: The safer California universities randomized trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 39(6):491–99, 2010.
Saltz RF, Welker LR, Paschall MJ, Feeney MA, & Fabiano PM. Evaluating a comprehensive campus-community prevention intervention to reduce alcohol-related problems in a college population. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (Suppl. 16):21–7, 2009.
Under this strategy, a state or local government increases the cost of an alcohol license, thereby increasing the cost of operating an alcohol establishment and potentially increasing the price of alcohol and reducing the density of alcohol establishments in a given area.
Under this strategy, local or state governments prohibit home delivery of alcohol, either by local establishments or over the Internet, with the intent of preventing underage alcohol sales.
Fletcher LA, Toomey TL, Wagenaar AC, Short B, & Willenbring ML. Alcohol home delivery services: A source of alcohol for underage drinkers. Journal on Studies of Alcohol and Drugs, 61(1):81–4, 2000.
Noisy assembly laws, enacted at the local or state level, give law enforcement legal cause to enter a private residence if a gathering of more than one person in a residential area or building produces noise that unreasonably disturbs the peace, quiet, or repose of another. Such laws also enable law enforcement to enter residences where they have reason to suspect underage drinking is occurring.
In this context, bystander intervention programs offered by campuses are designed to increase a student’s capacity and willingness to intervene when another student may be in danger of harming him/herself or another person due to alcohol use. Bystander intervention programs also are used to reduce consequences of drug use, sexual assault, and other problems.
Under this strategy, a campus hosts alcohol-free events to provide students with social alternatives to parties and bars where alcohol is being served.
Patrick ME, Maggs JL, & Osgood DW. Late night Penn State alcohol-free programming: Students drink less on days they participate. Prevention Science, 11(2):155–62, 2010.
Wei J, Barnett NP, & Clark M. Attendance at alcohol-free and alcohol-service parties and alcohol consumption among college students. Addictive Behaviors, 35(6):572–9, 2010.
Safe-rides programs are conducted by a campus or the local community to provide free or low-cost transportation, such as taxis or van shuttles, from popular drinking venues or events to residences or other safe destinations.
Harding WM, Caudill BD, Moore BA, & Frissell KC. Do drivers drink more when they use a safe ride? Journal of Substance Abuse, 13:283–90, 2001.
Caudill BD, Harding WM, & Moore BA. At-risk drinkers use safe ride services to avoid drinking and driving. Journal of Substance Abuse, 11:149–59, 2000.
Shoulder tap campaigns are a method used to enforce minimum legal drinking age laws whereby undercover youth, supervised by local law enforcement, approach adults outside alcohol establishments and ask them to purchase alcohol on their behalf. When a violation occurs, law enforcement issues warnings or citations to the adult.
Fabian LEA, Toomey TL, Lenk KM, & Erickson DJ. Where do underage college students get alcohol? Journal of Drug Education, 38(1):15–26, 2008.
Toomey TL, Fabian LEA, Erickson DJ, & Lenk KM. Propensity for obtaining alcohol through shoulder tapping. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 31(7):1218–23, 2007.
Social host property laws are enacted by local or state governments to hold accountable adults who permit underage drinking to occur on property they control. The primary purpose of social host property laws is to deter underage drinking parties.
Under this strategy, states adopt a unique design for identification cards (e.g., vertical instead of horizontal state driver licenses) for those under age 21 so that age of the card holder is easier to identify.