Maryland Strategic Prevention Framework: Final Evaluation Report

Transcription

1 2015 Maryland Strategic Prevention Framework: Final Evaluation Report Supported by a grant from the US Department of Health and Human Services, 0 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (grant number SPO ) in collaboration with the MD Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Behavioral Health Administration. Maryland SPF State Evaluation Team December, 2015

2

3 Submitted by MSPF State Evaluation Team University of Maryland School of Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Health Services Research Department 220 Arch Street Saratoga Building 12 th Floor Baltimore, MD Franҫoise Pradel, PhD Lead Evaluator Hellena Admassu, PharmD Post-doctoral Fellow Susan Giang, BS Research Assistant Marianne Gibson, MS Clinical Research Project Coordinator Nicole Sealfon, MPH Clinical Research Project Coordinator

4 Table of Contents Table of Contents... 1 Table of Figures and Tables... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 4 BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW OF MARYLAND STRATEGIC PREVENTION FRAMEWORK (MSPF)... 6 EVALUATION QUESTIONS... 7 STATE-LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION AND CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT... 8 ENHANCING MARYLAND S PREVENTION CAPACITY & INFRASTRUCTURE STATE-LEVEL OUTCOME EVALUATION COMMUNITY-LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOMES Allegany County Anne Arundel County Baltimore County Baltimore City Calvert County Caroline County Carroll County Cecil County Charles County Dorchester County Frederick County Garrett County Harford County Howard County Kent County Montgomery County Prince George s County Queen Anne s County St. Mary s County Somerset County

5 Talbot County Washington County Wicomico County Worcester County DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS APPENDICES Appendix A. Summary Table of Strategies Appendix B. MSPF Coalition Member Survey Appendix C. Additional Data Charts

6 Table of Figures and Tables Figure 1. MSPF Communities Progress Approval Dates Figure 2. Past 30-Day Alcohol Use among Ages Years, MD and US Figure 3. Alcohol Consumption Trends among Maryland High School Students Figure 4. Past 30-Day Alcohol Use among High School Students, by Community Figure 5. Past 30-Day Binge Drinking among Ages Years, MD and US Figure 6. Past 30-Day Binge Drinking among High School Students, by Community Figure 7. Percent Impaired of Total Crashes among Ages 16-25, by Community Figure 8. Number of Impaired Crashes per 10,000 Persons among Ages Years, by Community Figure 9. Alcohol Related Consequence Trends: Emergency Department Visits and Fatalities Figure 10. Average Age-adjusted Rates for Alcohol-related Emergency Department Visits by Community: Maryland, Table 1. Coalition Survey Responses Table 2. MSPF Technical Assistance Trainings Table 3.MSPF Communities Progress through June 30, Table 4. Priorities Selected by MSPF Communities Table 5. Variable Selected by MSPF Communities Table 6. Contributing Factors Identified by Communities by Variable and Priority Table 7. Strategies Selected by MSPF Communities Table 8. Impaired crashes as a proportion of total crashes

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Background and Objectives In 2009, SAMHSA awarded funding to the Maryland Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration (ADAA) to administer the SPF model in Maryland (referred hereafter as MSPF). ADAA has since been merged with the Mental Health Administration, to create the Behavioral Health Administration (BHA). The MSPF main priority was to reduce the misuse of alcohol by youth and young adults in Maryland as measured by the following indicators: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Reduce the number of young persons, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes involving youth The 24 jurisdictions in Maryland received funds to conduct the SPF phases and address at least one of the above priorities in their communities. Another priority of MSPF was to strengthen State- level and community-level prevention capacity and infrastructure, through: Increasing formal prevention planning groups and processes Increasing prevention training and technical assistance to State, jurisdictional and community planning groups Providing funding to local communities for evidence-based prevention activities that meet their self-identified needs State-Level Prevention Capacity and Infrastructure The MSPF initiative accomplished the following: Developed a Statewide Strategic plan to reduce underage drinking, young adult binge drinking, and alcohol-related crashes Increased prevention capacity in Maryland through the hiring of MSPF coordinators and local evaluators and provision of training and technical assistances to jurisdictions Implemented the MSPF in 21 out of 24 jurisdictions Conducted evaluation of the MSPF initiative Community-Level Capacity and Infrastructure The MSPF initiative led to the following achievements: 21 communities went through all the phases of the SPF and were implementing strategies by the end of the project. Reducing underage drinking was identified as a priority issue in 21 communities, followed by binge drinking (6 communities), and alcohol-related crashes (3 communities). Social Availability (19 communities), Law Enforcement and Adjudication (13 communities) and Social Community Norms (11 communities) were the most commonly targeted Variables. 4

8 The 2015 Coalition survey indicated that, overall, members were satisfied with their coalition s planning and implementation abilities, leadership and membership, communication, personal ownership, progress and outcomes, and institutionalization. State Level Outcome Evaluation Priority #1: Reduce the number of Maryland youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use: Data from the Maryland Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) suggest that Maryland underage drinking rates are decreasing and lower than the national average. Priority #2: Reduce the number of Maryland young adults, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking: According to NSDUH, the rates of binge drinking in Maryland have been fluctuating over the years. Most recent data show that binge drinking in Maryland was close to the national rate (39.4% vs. 38.7% in 2013). Data from the 2013 YRBS reveal that high school students binge drinking rates were higher than the State average in 21 jurisdictions. Priority #3: Reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes involving youth and young adults, ages in Maryland: The Maryland Automated Accident Reporting System (MAARS) data shows a 28% decline in the number of impaired crashes from 2008 to Community-Level Outcome Evaluation MSPF communities identified 38 contributing factors, notably lack of enforcement resources, lack of compliance with regulations and ordinances, parents providing a location to allow underage persons drinking, low perception of legal repercussion for alcohol use and underage drinking, perception that binge drinking is cool, perception that drinking is central to social life, and perception that underage drinking is common. To measure changes in these contributing factors, primary data was collected across 16 communities with over 10,400 participants. Changes in these contributing factors were noted; some changed for the better while others were unaffected or changed negatively. These are detailed in the Community Level Implementation and Outcomes tables. 5

9 BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW OF MARYLAND STRATEGIC PREVENTION FRAMEWORK (MSPF) Recognizing the power of prevention to help prevent, delay, and or reduce disability from chronic diseases including substance abuse, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) developed the Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF). The SPF is built on a community-based risk and protective factors approach to prevention and adopts a series of guiding principles that can be utilized at the federal, state, county and community levels. A fundamental aspect of SPF is utilizing a public health approach to prevention, meaning efforts should be focused on population based change. Throughout the SPF process States and communities are expected to methodically: 1. Assess their prevention needs based on epidemiological data 2. Build prevention capacity 3. Develop a strategic plan 4. Implement effective community prevention programs, policies and practices 5. Evaluate their efforts In 2009, SAMHSA awarded funding to the Maryland Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration (ADAA) (which has since been merged with the Mental Health Administration, to create the Behavioral Health Administration (BHA)), to develop and implement the SPF model in Maryland (referred hereafter as MSPF). The MSPF Advisory Committee was convened from the Governor s State Drug and Alcohol Abuse Council (SDAAC) and was comprised of three active workgroups: the State Epidemiology Outcomes Workgroup (SEOW), Cultural Competence Workgroup and the Evidence Based Practices Workgroup. The Advisory Committee collaborated to develop recommendations for MSPF priorities, activities, policies, practices and guiding principles. The Advisory Committee determined the overarching MSPF Priority would be to reduce the misuse of alcohol by youth and young adults in Maryland as measured by the following indicators: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Reduce the number of young persons, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes involving youth

10 The second major priority of MSPF was to strengthen both State-level and community-level prevention capacity and infrastructure, through: Increasing formal prevention planning groups and processes Increasing prevention training and technical assistance to State, jurisdictional and community planning groups Providing funding to local communities for evidence-based prevention activities that meet their self-identified needs EVALUATION QUESTIONS In 2011, BHA contracted the University of Maryland School Of Pharmacy to provide State- level evaluation and technical assistance services for the 24 jurisdictions participating in the MSPF project. The State-level evaluation included both process and outcome measures and addressed the five steps of SPF and the goals and objectives of MSPF. Process questions addressed through the State-level evaluation included: 1. Have necessary needs assessments been completed? 2. Have evidence-based programs, policies, and practices been implemented based on the SPF process? 3. How closely did implementation match the Strategic Plan? 4. What deviations, if any occurred? 5. Why did these deviations occur? 6. What impacts did these deviations have on the intervention and evaluation? 7. Who provided what services, to whom, in what context, at what cost? The State-level outcome evaluation was contingent upon the implementation of community level programs funded under the MSPF initiative. The State evaluation team collected data to measure changes in the MSPF indicators across the duration of the project. Outcome questions addressed through the State-level evaluation included: 1. Were there reductions in the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use? 2. Were there reductions in the number of young persons, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking? 3. Were there reductions in the number of alcohol-related crashes involving youth ages 16-25? 7

11 STATE-LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION AND CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT Evaluation of the Five Steps of SPF In this section, we discuss how Maryland implemented SPF -SIG and enhanced its prevention infrastructure during the length of the project (July of 2009 through June of 2015). Background MSPF efforts were focused at the State level during the first two funding years. As mentioned earlier, beginning in 2009, the MSPF Advisory Committee was formed and consisted of three active workgroups: the State Epidemiology Outcomes Workgroup (SEOW), the Cultural Competence Work Group and the Evidence Based Practices Workgroup. The three workgroups collaborated to develop recommendations for the MSPF priorities, activities, policies, practices and guiding principles, and fed the information back to the MSPF Advisory Committee for official approval. Priorities, activities, policies, practices and principles were incorporated into the MSPF Strategic Plan. Needs Assessment The Behavioral Health Administration (BHA) aimed to profile the impact of substance abuse in Maryland by facilitating a systematic data driven approach to generating and monitoring priorities for substance abuse prevention in the State. This was a novel approach supported by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), who maintains that prevention should: be outcomes based, be public-health oriented and use epidemiological data. During the State-level needs assessment, the Advisory Committee looked at data indicators on drug, alcohol and tobacco use, and their related consequences. Upon extensive review of the available data, the Advisory Committee identified the three priorities for the MSPF initiative. The selected priorities were to reduce : 1) the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use, 2) the number of young persons, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking, and 3) the number of alcoholrelated crashes involving year olds. Capacity Building The State used MSPF resources to strengthen the capacity of its prevention system and infrastructure in order to expand and strengthen the number, reach, and effectiveness of community-level prevention programs and strategies. The prevention system and infrastructure was strengthened through the provision of: 1) additional alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) prevention trainings at the State, jurisdictional and community levels, 2) technical assistance and resources to assist local communities to strengthen their ATOD awareness, needs assessment, community mobilization, active prevention coalitions and strategic planning capabilities and 3) technical assistance and resources to communities for program monitoring and evaluation. 8

12 The number, reach, and effectiveness of community-level prevention programs and strategies were strengthened through the provision of additional resources at the community level to encourage the implementation of evidence based environmental strategies and programs that specifically address local community needs along with the State MSPF priorities and indicators and that are designed to affect population level changes in substance abuse and consequences. The State hired an MSPF Technical Assistance Coordinator, whose responsibility was to identify, provide and coordinate training and technical assistance to jurisdictions throughout the phases of the SPF process. Plans were also made for the Technical Assistance Coordinator to collaborate with the Office of Education and Training for Addiction Services (OETAS) and the MSPF Advisory Committee to develop the Prevention Training Academy, whose main focus would be to ensure Maryland attains its MSPF priorities. It should be noted that due to limited resources, there was minimal collaboration with OETAS and the State s MSPF Advisory Committee and the Prevention Training Academy was not executed. Once the State determined its priorities and enhanced capacity, a Strategic Plan was developed. The Strategic Plan outlined how the State planned to execute the SPF process. Maryland s SPF Strategic Plan was approved by SAMHSA on February 24, Implementation At the State level, implementation of the MSPF initiative began with all 24 jurisdictions in Maryland being eligible to receive a $10,000 MSPF Assessment and Planning Grant. The money was directed to local Health Departments and was used to conduct a jurisdictional level assessment. Each county s Prevention Coordinator was tasked with convening a county level MSPF planning group comprised of individuals from a variety of sectors. The planning group collaborated, collected, and interpreted local data related to 1) underage drinking, 2) youth and young adult binge drinking, and 3) alcohol-related crashes. A deliverable of the Assessment and Planning Grant was a report submitted to ADAA that included the following information: 1) a description of the jurisdiction-wide MSPF planning group, 2) assessment of jurisdictional data/ information on alcohol use and its consequences among youth and young adults, 3) assessment and prioritization of key causes and contributors to alcohol use and its consequences, 4) assessment of jurisdictional prevention resources and infrastructure, 5) identification of local communities with high numbers and rates of alcohol use and consequences, 6) identification of local communities with high level of resources/ readiness to implement the MSPF process, 7) selection of the community being proposed for the MSPF Community Implementation Grant funding, and 8) description of the assistance the Prevention Office will provide to the local MSPF community grant funding. Originally, this jurisdictional assessment was going to be used as part of a competitive process to determine which jurisdiction would receive MSPF implementation funding, but ultimately at the direction of CSAP, each jurisdiction in the State was deemed eligible to be funded. 9

13 Evaluation The State initially contracted with the University of Maryland College Park s Center for Substance Abuse Research (CESAR) to conduct the process and outcome evaluation of the SPF initiative. However, in 2011, the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy in Baltimore took over the role of State-level evaluator and technical assistance provider. ENHANCING MARYLAND S PREVENTION CAPACITY & INFRASTRUCTURE In the following section, we describe in detail the attainment of the performance measures in enhancing Maryland s Prevention Capacity and Infrastructure. The MSPF communities followed the steps of the MSPF process and through hard work and perseverance made substantial progress. Among the 24 communities that participated in MSPF, there were three communities that never completed the Needs Assessment phase. Due to lack of capacity and resources as well as changes in coalitions, these three communities never received approval for a needs assessment and were unable to complete a strategic plan and implement strategies. Improving State Prevention Infrastructure The MSPF project enhanced the State s capacity by increasing the prevention workforce. In each jurisdiction, a MSPF leadership team collaborated with the local coalition and implemented the SPF process in the community. The MSPF leadership team was comprised of the local Prevention Coordinator, MSPF Coordinator and the local evaluator. The MSPF grant allowed for the creation of a new position, MSPF Coordinator. MSPF Coordinators were a crucial component to implementing SPF in each jurisdiction especially with capacity building. Most coordinators were very active in fostering partnerships with local agencies and organizations, networking in the community and raising awareness of MSPF, the alcohol problem in their community and the coalition. Through MSPF, 18 coordinators were hired by local jurisdictions adding to the prevention staff for Maryland. Another impact of MSPF on the State s capacity was increasing the knowledge and use of local data collection. Every jurisdiction hired a local evaluator who helped to evaluate strategy implementation and the impact of the MSPF project on underage drinking, binge drinking and alcohol-related crashes. Coalitions designed and collected local surveys to assess the outcomes in their community. Community Coalition Building As part of the MSPF initiative, every jurisdiction either identified an existing coalition to work with or created a coalition representing different sectors. In 11 jurisdictions, an established community coalition served as the coalition for MSPF. Another four jurisdictions partnered with existing coalitions and created a sub-committee that would serve as the MSPF work group for the project. The remainder eight jurisdictions started brand new coalitions for MSPF. The coalitions involved in the project varied in size, level of involvement from the members, and awareness by the community of their efforts. 10

14 In order to assess the coalitions, the State Evaluation team developed a MSPF Coalition Member Survey (see Appendix B). Questions measured coalition members satisfaction on Planning and Implementation, Leadership & Membership, Personal Involvement, Communication, Ownership of the Coalition, Progress and Outcomes, and Institutionalization. Additionally, members were asked about their role in the coalition, the sector they represented, length of involvement, and how they became involved with the coalition. The MSPF Coordinators disseminated the survey goals and link to all their coalition members. In total, 238 coalition members across the State completed the survey. Five coalitions had less than five members complete the survey. Reasons for the low response rate in these coalitions varied. Calvert County had a difficult time gaining community support to establish a local coalition. Most of the work for MSPF was done with the MSPF leadership team and the local high school. Table 1. Coalition Survey Responses Jurisdiction Coalition Name Coalition Member Responses Allegany Frostburg Community Coalition 28 Anne Arundel Northern Lights against Substance Abuse 11 Baltimore Baltimore County Combating Underage Drinking Coalition 13 Baltimore City Greenmount East Drug Free Coalition 2 Calvert Calvert County Underage Alcohol Abuse Reduction Team 1 Caroline Drug Free Caroline Coalition 11 Carroll Carroll County Coalition against Underage Drinking 14 Cecil Cecil County MSPF Community Coalition 13 Charles Charles County Substance Abuse Advisory Coalition 11 Dorchester Dorchester County Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol 7 Frederick Frederick County Alcohol Prevention Initiative 11 Garrett Garrett County Drug Free Communities Coalition 15 Harford Harford FACE-IT 1 Howard Howard County Alcohol Coalition 16 Kent Kent County Adolescent Substance Abuse Coalition 9 Montgomery Montgomery County Coalition 6 Prince George s Prince George's SPF Community Coalition 2 Queen Anne s Queen Anne's Drug Free/SPF Coalition 20 St. Mary s St. Mary's Community Alcohol Coalition 17 Somerset Prevention Works in Somerset County 3 Talbot Talbot Partnership for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Prevention 5 Washington Drug Free Washington County 9 Wicomico Drug Free Wicomico 8 Worcester Worcester Drug and Alcohol Abuse Council MSPF Subcommittee 5 11

15 The majority of coalition members who responded were representing their organization and/or agency. Overall, coalition members reported satisfaction with their coalition s planning and implementation abilities, leadership and membership, communication, personal ownership, progress and outcomes, and institutionalization. Most coalitions had a diverse membership with some key sectors /organizations more involved in the coalition. The top sectors selected as more active included Law Enforcement Agencies, Schools, State or Jurisdictional Government Agencies, Business Community, and Healthcare Professionals. Training and Technical Assistance sessions to MPSF Communities The Behavioral Health Administration increased the training and technical assistance provided to the local jurisdictions. Over the six years of MSPF implementation in Maryland, local jurisdiction staff participated in trainings developed by CAPT, CADCA, and the State Evaluation team. A summary of the trainings are provided in Table 2 below. Additionally, technical assistance calls and visits were provided to jurisdictions from the State Evaluation team and BHA throughout the SPF process. Table 2. MSPF Technical Assistance Trainings Title Implementing Evidence-Based Environmental Prevention Strategies Coaching Coalitions to Greatness Building Coalitions Capacity to do the work Coaching Skills Training Workshop Wellness and Behavioral Health Training Building a Maryland Prevention Learning Community Needs Assessment Trainings CLI Trainings Strategic Planning Trainings Evaluator Trainings MSPF 101 Workshops FY 15 Planning Meetings Trainers CAPT CADCA CADCA CAPT CAPT CAPT State Evaluation Team State Evaluation Team State Evaluation Team State Evaluation Team BHA BHA and State Evaluation Team During the final two years of the project, BHA convened a MSPF Symposium. The Symposium presented an opportunity for all 24 jurisdictions to have peer to peer sharing on accomplishments, organization of MSPF efforts, and challenges and successes. During the 2013 MSPF Symposium, 13 MSPF communities presented their work and participants attended a roundtable on sustainability. In 2014, the MSPF Symposium added poster presentations allowing every MSPF coalition to share their accomplishments and highlight their strategies. There were also presentations from eight MSPF communities, a Law Enforcement Panel, and a keynote presentation from Dr. David Jernigan titled, Creating Alcohol Policy Change. 12

16 Although the State provided estimated deadlines for completion of the MSPF phases, communities moved through MSPF at different paces. The progression of MSPF communities by calendar year is shown in the following chart. Communities began working on the MSPF project in During that first year, the communities were trained on the SPF process and on conducting a community needs assessment. In 2012, most of the community needs assessments were approved (n=15) and four jurisdictions began strategy implementation. In 2013, an additional 13 strategic plans were approved for a total of 17 of the 24 communities implementing strategies. By 2015, strategy implementation occurred for at least two years in almost 21 MSPF communities in Maryland. By Fiscal Year 2015, 21 MSPF communities in Maryland were implementing strategies. MSPF Communities Progress Approval Dates 16 Needs Assessment Approved Strategic Planning Part 1 Approved Strategic Planning Part 2 Approved 14 Number of Counties Year Figure 1. MSPF Communities Progress Approval Dates 13

17 Milestones reached by each community as of June 30, 2015 are detailed in Table 3. Table 3.MSPF Communities Progress through June 30, 2015 County Jurisdiction Assessment Needs Assessment - Submitted Needs Assessment - Approved Strategic Planning Part 1 Submitted Strategic Planning Part 1- Approved Strategic Planning Part 2- Submitted Strategic Planning Part 2- Approved Allegany X X X X X X X Anne Arundel X X X X X X X Baltimore* X X X X X X X Baltimore City X X X X X X X Calvert X X X X X X X Caroline X X X X X X X Carroll X X X X X X X Cecil X X X X X X X Charles X X X X X X X Dorchester X X X X X X X Frederick X X X X X X X Garrett X X X X X X X Harford X X X X X X X Howard X X X X X X X Kent X X X X X X X Montgomery X X Prince George's X X Queen Anne's X X X X X X X Somerset X X X X X X X St. Mary's X X X X X X X Talbot X X X X X X X Washington X X X X X X X Wicomico* X X Worcester X X X X X X X Totals X = Change since last annual reporting period ( July 01, 2013 June 30,2014) *Baltimore and Wicomico Counties are starting over again with a new MSPF community. During the assessment phase, each community used local data to select their MSPF priority (ies), intervening variables and contributing factors. This work ultimately identified where each community would focus their MSPF efforts. The following tables indicate the Priorities, Variables and Contributing Factors selected by each MSPF community. 14

18 Table 4. Priorities Selected by MSPF Communities MSPF Priorities Total Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use 21 Reduce the number of young persons, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking 6 Reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes involving youth ages Table 5 indicates the intervening variables selected by the MSPF communities. None of the MSPF communities selected the intervening variables of Promotion and Pricing. Table 5. Variable Selected by MSPF Communities County Social Availability Law Enforcement & Adjudication Social & Community Norms Low Perceived Risk Retail Availability Promotion Allegany X X X X Anne Arundel X X Baltimore X X X Baltimore City X X X Calvert X X X Caroline X X X X Carroll X X X Cecil X X Charles X X X X Dorchester X X Frederick X X X Garrett X X X Harford X X X Howard X X X X Kent X X X Montgomery Prince George's Queen Anne's X X Somerset X X X X St. Mary's X X X Talbot X X X Washington X X X Wicomico Worcester X X Totals Pricing 15

19 Table 6 shows the contributing factors selected by each community based on their selected intervening variables and by priority. For the priority of reducing alcohol-related crashes, ages 16-25, the top contributing factor selected was lack of law enforcement resources. For the priority of reducing binge drinking, among youth ages 18-25, the top contributing factor was young adults ages perceive that binge drinking is normal and cool. For the priority of reducing underage drinking, ages 12-20, the top contributing factor was lack of law enforcement resources followed by lack of compliance with regulations and ordinances. Table 6. Contributing Factors Identified by Communities by Variable and Priority Priority Reduce Alcohol- Related Crashes, Ages Priority Reduce Binge Drinking, Ages Variable Enforcement/ Adjudication Low perceived risk Variable Community/ Social Norms Contributing Factor Category Number of Communities Lack of Law Enforcement Resources 2 Low Perceived Risk of Physical Harm or Danger in Drinking and Driving Contributing Factor Category Young Adults Age Perceived That Binge Drinking Is Normal And Cool 1 Number of Communities 3 College Students Believe Drinking is Central To Social Life 2 Low Perceived Risk Of Physical Harm 1 Enforcement/ Adjudication Young Adults Have Limited Access To Responsible Drinking Education Minimal Or Inconsistent Judiciary Consequences and Penalties 1 1 Low perceived risk Retail Availability College Students Perceive Little Disapproval By Friends 1 Toward Binge Drinking On Occasion Low Perceived Risk Among Youth of Physical Harm from 1 Binge Drinking Bars are popular with students and offer drink specials 1 that promote high-risk consumption Overconsumption of Alcohol in Licensed Outlets 1 Social Availability College Students consume alcohol at off-campus parties. A lack of awareness of consequences for providing alcohol. 1 16

20 Priority Reduce Underage Drinking, Ages Variable Community/ Social Norms Enforcement/ Adjudication Low perceived risk Retail Availability Social Availability Contributing Factor Category Number of Communitie s Youth Perception that Drinking is Cool 3 College Students Believe Drinking is Central to Social Life 2 Youth Perception that Underage Drinking is Common 2 Lack of Awareness Among Youth of the Consequences of Underage Drinking Lack of Law Enforcement Resources 11 Minimal or Inconsistent Judiciary Consequences and 3 Penalties Lack of Consistent Compliance Checks 2 Alcohol Sales to Minors 1 Low Perception of Legal Repercussions for Alcohol Use and Underage Drinking Low Perceived Risk Among Youth of Physical Harm from Alcohol Use Lack of Knowledge Among Youth of Health and Legal Consequences of Underage Drinking Youth Don't Expect to Get Caught If They Show Up At School, 1 at School Events or On/Off-campus Housing Intoxicated Lack of Compliance with Regulations and Ordinances 10 Lack of Employees Trained at Retail Establishments 3 Alcohol Sales to Minors by Retail Outlets 2 Bars are Popular with Students and Offer Drink Specials that Promote High-risk Consumption High Liquor Store Outlet Density 1 Third Party Sales to Minors 1 Parents Providing a Location to Allow Underage Persons to 7 Drink Lack of Parental Supervision of Alcohol Supply in the Home 6 Access Alcohol from Community Members and Community 4 Events Access Alcohol from Friends or Family Members 4 Lack of Awareness to Consequences for Providing 4 Access to Alcohol at Community Celebrations and Recreational Activities Access to Alcohol at College House parties and Unaware of Legal Consequences For Providing Alcohol To Those under 21 Access to Alcohol at Home

21 During the planning phase, each community selected evidence-based strategies to target their identified contributing factors. The different strategies selected by the 21 jurisdictions that reached the implementation phase are listed below in Table 7. These strategies were identified from the Strategic Plans Part II for each community. Table 7. Strategies Selected by MSPF Communities Strategy Compliance Checks Third Party Purchaser Compliance Checks Party Patrols Saturation Patrols Enhance Enforcement at Concert Venue Promote Prosecution and Adjudication for Underage Alcohol Use TIPS hotline Responsible Beverage Server training Sticker Shock Social Norms Campaign Social Marketing Campaigns Be the Wall Buzzkill Talk. They Hear You. Domino Strategy Local Media Campaign Be the Parent on the Scene Can You Afford It? Media Advocacy Counter-advertising Media Campaign Parents Who Host Lose the Most campaign Policy Change Local School System College Policies Liquor Board Community Event Alcohol Provision Policies Retail Establishments Alcohol.edu Parent Education College Campus Initiatives Communities Implementing Allegany, Anne Arundel, Baltimore City, Baltimore, Carroll, Cecil, Dorchester, Frederick, Harford, Kent, Queen Anne s, Somerset, Washington, Worcester Kent Allegany, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Charles, Dorchester, Fredrick, Harford Anne Arundel, Caroline, Cecil, Frederick, Garrett, Kent, Queen Anne s, Talbot, Washington, Worcester Howard Calvert, Howard, Talbot Allegany, Carroll, Washington Allegany, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Dorchester, Garrett, St. Mary s, Talbot, Baltimore, Carroll Allegany, Calvert, St. Mary s, Washington Caroline, Garrett, Queen Anne s Charles Charles Talbot Cecil, Charles, Frederick, Howard, Somerset Dorchester St. Mary s Allegany, Baltimore City, Frederick Baltimore City Allegany, Baltimore, Calvert, Carroll, Charles, Harford, Somerset Carroll, Kent Allegany, Charles St. Mary s Garrett, Queen Anne s, Worcester Baltimore Harford Baltimore, Kent, St. Mary s Allegany, Baltimore, Charles 18

22 STATE-LEVEL OUTCOME EVALUATION Priority #1: Reduce the number of Maryland youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use For this priority, underage drinking was operationalized as alcohol consumption within the past 30 days among youth ages 12 to 20 years. National surveys suggest that Maryland underage drinking rates are significantly lower than the national average. Overall, Maryland YRBS data shows a downtrend in underage drinking since Another national survey, NSDUH (National Survey on Drug Use and Health) conducted among ages 12 and older supports this finding. Underage drinking among Maryland youth (ages 12 to 20 years) declined from 27.1% in 2004 to 22.9% in 2013 (Figure 2). (Note: this survey has different questions and sample population compared to YRBS likely contributing to the different estimates.) 40 Past 30-Day Alcohol Use among Ages Years, MD and US Percent US MD Years Source: National Survey on Drug Use and Health, Figure 2. Past 30-Day Alcohol Use among Ages Years, MD and US Lifetime underage drinking among Maryland high school students has declined from 73.1% in 2005 to 60.9% in 2013 according to the YRBS (Figure 3). This is significantly lower than the national rate of 66.2%. 19

23 Alcohol Consumption Trends among Maryland High School Students Percent Ever drank alcohol Drank before 13 Drank in past 30 days Binge drank in past 30 days Source: Youth Risk Behavior Survey, Figure 3. Alcohol Consumption Trends among Maryland High School Students Comparison between different jurisdictions reveals a wide range in underage drinking rates: while 23.2% of Prince George s County s high school students report past month alcohol use, nearly 45% of Worcester County students report doing so (Figure 4). Percent Past 30-Day Alcohol Use among High School Students, by Community a Prince Georges Balt. City Montgomery Howard Talbot Maryland Charles Baltimore Washington Somerset Wicomico Anne Arundel Carroll Harford Dorchester Frederick Allegany St. Mary's Caroline Cecil Calvert Kent Queen Annes Garrett Worchester Community a - Percentage of high school students reporting at least one drink of alcohol on one or more of the past 30 days Source: Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2013 Figure 4. Past 30-Day Alcohol Use among High School Students, by Community 20

24 Priority #2: Reduce the number of Maryland young adults, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking For the purposes of MSPF, binge drinking was defined as having five or more drinks of alcohol in a row among young adults. In the decade since 2003, about 40% of young adults have reported binge drinking although this number has fluctuated between 36.1% and 43.2% during this time (Figure 5). While the second MSPF priority focused on young adults 18 to 25 years, State trends reveal changes of drinking behavior among those who are outside of this age range. Fewer adolescents, ages 12 17, binge drank in 2013 compared to 2003 (6.8% vs. 9.4%) (Appendix C). In contrast, a slightly greater proportion of those older than 25 years binge drank, trending up from 20.5% to 22.4% during the same time (Appendix C). In both of these populations, the 2013 NSDUH results place Maryland close to the national averages. While statistically not significant, fewer high school students report binge drinking since 2005 as indicated in YRBS (20.8% in 2005 to 17.0% in 2013) (Figure 3). This is lower than the national average of 20.8% in As with 30-day alcohol use, a geographic variation is observed here with 9.5% of Prince George s County students and 30.9% of Worcester County students reporting past month binge drinking (Figure 6). Past 30-Day Binge Drinking among Ages Years, MD and US Percent US MD Years Source: National Survey on Drug Use and Health, Figure 5. Past 30-Day Binge Drinking among Ages Years, MD and US 21

25 Past 30-Day Binge Drinking among High School Students, by Community a Percent Prince Georges Baltimore City Montgomery Howard Maryland Charles Baltimore Talbot Somerset Wicomico Anne Arundel Washington Harford Frederick Carroll Dorchester St. Mary's Cecil Calvert Queen Annes Allegany Caroline Kent Garrett Worchester Community a - Percentage of Maryland high school students who had five or more drinks of alcohol in a row within a couple of hours, on one or more of the past 30 days Source: Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2013 Figure 6. Past 30-Day Binge Drinking among High School Students, by Community 22

26 Priority #3: Reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes involving youth and young adults, ages in Maryland Alcohol-related car crashes are one of the numerous consequences of alcohol consumption. The Maryland Automated Accident Reporting System (MAARS) data provided by the National Study Center at the University of Maryland School of Medicine shows a decline in the number of impaired crashes. From 2008 to 2013, there was a 28% decrease in the number of alcohol related crashes in the priority age group (Table 8). In 2013, 4.92% of all crashes were by impaired drivers, representing a notable decline compared to previous years. Jurisdictional percentages vary, ranging from 1.64% in Prince George s County to 11.39% in Worcester County (Figure 7). The difference between jurisdictions is even greater when looking at crashes per 10,000. While the State average is 19.6 impaired crashes per 10,000 people, community rates range from 9 in Baltimore City to 104 in Worcester (Figure 8). Table 8. Impaired crashes as a proportion of total crashes Impaired Crashes Total Crashes Percent Impaired ,193 39, % ,096 38, % ,879 34, % ,889 32, % ,825 31, % ,570 31, % Source: Maryland Automated Accident Reporting System, % Percent Impaired of Total Crashes among Ages 16-25, by Community Percentt Impaired Crashes 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Prince George's Baltimore City Queen Anne's Talbot Baltimore Montgomery Anne Arundel Harford Maryland Howard Dorchester Wicomico Washington Charles Saint Mary's Cecil Carroll Frederick Somerset Calvert Garrett Caroline Kent Allegany Worcester Source: Maryland Automated Accident Reporting System, 2013 Figure 7. Percent Impaired of Total Crashes among Ages 16-25, by Community 23

27 Number of Impaired Crashes per 10,000 Persons among Ages Years, by Community Number of Impaired Crashes per 10, Baltimore City Queen Anne's Montgomery Somerset Prince George's Harford Baltimore County Maryland Dorchester Howard Allegany Kent Anne Arundel Talbot Wicomico Washington Saint Mary's Frederick Cecil Charles Calvert Caroline Garrett Carroll Worcester Source: Maryland Automated Accident Reporting System, 2013 Figure 8. Number of Impaired Crashes per 10,000 Persons among Ages Years, by Community YRBS suggests that Maryland lies along the national averages with regard to risk factors for alcohol related crashes. In 2013, a fifth (20.7%) of Maryland high school students report having ridden in a car with someone who had been drinking and of those who drive, 8.8% had been drinking while driving. Other consequences such as hospital utilization and fatalities are also indicative of excessive drinking among Marylanders of all ages. Statewide, the rate of alcohol related emergency department (ED) visits has declined to 82.4 per 100,000 after a peak of 99.3 in 2012 (Figure 9). The youth and young adult ED visit rates have remained unchanged since 2008 hovering around 50 per 100,000 for year olds. In 2014, 26% (or 270) of all intoxication deaths were attributed to alcohol and were often in combination with other substances. Alcohol related fatality has increased by 35% since 2008 peaking at 270 in 2014 (Figure 9). 24

28 Alcohol Related Consequence Trends: Emergency Department Visits and Fatalities ED visit per 100,000 Fatality Count Source: Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Figure 9. Alcohol Related Consequence Trends: Emergency Department Visits and Fatalities Average Age-adjusted Rates for Alcohol-related Emergency Department Visits by Community: Maryland, Source: Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Figure 10. Average Age-adjusted Rates for Alcohol-related Emergency Department Visits by Community: Maryland,

29 COMMUNITY-LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOMES In this section, we describe how the MSPF communities implemented each SPF step and strengthened their capacity towards reducing underage drinking, binge drinking, and/or alcohol-related crashes. We provide a detailed description of each MSPF community s characteristics and status. A summary table identifies each community s selected priorities, intervening variables, contributing factors, and strategies. We also describe how strategies were implemented and provide a summary of the communities successes and challenges. Finally, for each community we provide a table with baseline and follow- up data on contributing factors targeted by the MSPF initiative. The table also includes the level of changes for these contributing factors (positive change, no change, negative change). 26

30 Allegany County MSPF Community: Frostburg MSPF Organization: Frostburg State University Coalition Name: Frostburg Community Coalition Prevention Coordinator: Chris Delaney MSPF Coordinator: Lyndsey Baker Local Evaluator: Jesse Ketterman Needs Assessment Approval: March 26, 2012 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: April 27, 2012 Strategy Implementation Start: October 16, 2012 The City of Frostburg is the selected MSPF community in Allegany County. Frostburg is a small community composed of 7,822 residents in the Appalachian Highlands (elevation 2,000 feet) of Western Maryland in Allegany County; the year-round residential population is 84.5% White, 11.6% African- American and 1.7% Hispanic. A state college, Frostburg State University (FSU) is located in the city and adds another 4,919 students (67.7% White, 25% African-American, 3.5% Hispanic, and 1.3% Asian) 3,000 of which live within city limits to the population when school is in session. Allegany County is a primarily rural county in the western panhandle of Maryland, bordered by Garrett County to the west, Washington County to the east, the State of West Virginia to the south, and the State of Pennsylvania to the North. Examining data collected in the needs assessment, the coalition selected the priorities of both reducing underage drinking and reducing binge drinking in their community. The table below lists the intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community. The strategies selected focus on: conducting media campaigns and media advocacy; enhancing law enforcement capacity to prevent underage and binge drinking; increasing responsible beverage server training activities in alcohol retail establishments; and changing Frostburg State University policies to discourage heavy drinking among college students by increasing Friday classes and revising disciplinary sanctions to identify high risk drinkers. 27

31 ALLEGANY COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Social Availability Contributing Factors Students lack awareness of the consequences for providing alcohol to those under 21 years old. Mt. Ridge High School students are attending college house parties and consuming alcohol. Mt. Ridge High School students are consuming alcohol in remote, rural locations on the weekends. Strategies Media Campaigns Underage drinking campaign (high school) Media Advocacy Times-News Radio Announcements/Messages FSU Channel 3 Messages Social Norms Campaign Monthly messages about perceptions of alcohol use Media Campaigns Underage drinking campaign (high school) Media Advocacy Times-News Radio Announcements/Messages FSU Channel 3 Messages Social Norms Campaign Monthly messages about perceptions of alcohol use Media Campaigns Underage drinking campaign (high school) Media Advocacy Times-News Radio Announcements/Messages FSU Channel 3 Messages Social Norms Campaign Monthly messages about perceptions of alcohol use Social and Community Norms FSU students and Mt Ridge High School students consider alcohol use as part of their weekend schedules. Implement a Parents Who Host Lose the Most campaign Educate parents about issues such as local underage drinking, youth access to alcohol, effective measures to reduce youth access and adolescent brain development research regarding damage due to alcohol use Distribute campus alcohol policies & associated punishments to all incoming/returning students 28

32 Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Contributing Factors Frostburg City Police is currently understaffed by three officers, thereby making it difficult to patrol effectively. Strategies Establish procedure for party patrols targeting open parties in residential settings that are unlicensed taverns and outdoor areas with a history of attracting underage drinkers. Develop procedure for citizens complaints about a disorderly house and similar violations that may result in disciplinary action against a licensee. Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws Retail Availability Minimum penalties for alcohol violations feed the perception that an alcohol violation is not a serious offense. Compliance Checks are only done twice per year when resources are available. Establish procedure for party patrols targeting open parties in residential settings that are unlicensed taverns and outdoor areas with a history of attracting underage drinkers. Develop procedure for citizens complaints about a disorderly house and similar violations that may result in disciplinary action against a licensee. Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws Cooperating Pub Program an agreement between coalition and bar will provide free Tips Training if entered into agreement Increase Compliance Checks by law enforcement for Frostburg establishments 29

33 Priority: Reduce the number of young adults, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Variables Social Availability Social and Community Norms Law Enforcement and Adjudication Contributing Factors Students host drinking parties and charge $5 for a refillable cup of jungle juice or beer. Sixty percent of the alcohol consumed by FSU students is done through off-campus parties. FSU students and Mt Ridge High School students consider alcohol use as part of their weekend schedules. 35% of FSU students who drink alcohol engage in high-risk drinking behaviors such as doing shots of alcohol and consuming drinks with high alcohol by volume to become intoxicated more quickly than social drinking. Frostburg City Police is currently understaffed by three officers, thereby making it difficult to patrol effectively. Strategies Media Campaigns Social Host Liability Campaign High-risk drinking campaign Media Advocacy Times-News Radio Announcements/Messages FSU Channel 3 Messages Social Norms Campaign Monthly messages about perceptions of alcohol use Distribute campus alcohol policies & associated punishments to all incoming/returning students Revise student disciplinary sanctions to identify high risk drinkers Petition college deans to encourage Friday classes Distribute campus alcohol policies & associated punishments to all incoming/returning students Revise student disciplinary sanctions to identify high risk drinkers Petition college deans to encourage Friday classes Establish procedure for party patrols targeting open parties in residential settings that are unlicensed taverns and outdoor areas with a history of attracting underage drinkers. Implement saturation patrols during targeted time periods such as the post-closing hours, i.e. Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws Develop procedure for citizens complaints about a disorderly house and similar violations that may result in disciplinary action against a licensee. 30

34 Priority: Reduce the number of young adults, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Retail Availability Contributing Factors Minimum penalties for alcohol violations feed the perception that an alcohol violation is not a serious offense. The same student rentals are being cited multiple times for noise violations. Five Frostburg area bars are popular with FSU students and offer drink specials that promote high-risk consumption. Compliance Checks are only done twice per year when resources are available. Strategies Establish procedure for party patrols targeting open parties in residential settings that are unlicensed taverns and outdoor areas with a history of attracting underage drinkers Implement saturation patrols during targeted time periods such as the post-closing hours Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws Develop procedure for citizens complaints about a disorderly house and similar violations that may result in disciplinary action against a licensee Establish procedure for party patrols targeting open parties in residential settings that are unlicensed taverns and outdoor areas with a history of attracting underage drinkers Implement saturation patrols during targeted time periods such as the post-closing hours, i.e. Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws Cooperating Pub Program Agreement between coalition and bar will provide free Tips Training if entered into agreement Messaging campaigns -posters, coasters, table tents, and spoken messages for bar and retail establishments Provide incentives for activities within Frostburg bars that reduce alcohol consumption, i.e. pie eating contest, bingo night, trivia night, hotdog eating contest, etc. Increase Compliance Checks by law enforcement for Frostburg establishments 31

35 Strategy Implementation Beginning in 2012, Allegany County was the first jurisdiction in Maryland to implement MSPF strategies. Throughout implementation, hours of overtime were awarded to law enforcement personnel to conduct a variety of activities, including compliance checks, Knock and Talks and saturation patrols. Law enforcement was also tasked with managing the local TIPS hotline, which received 95 calls. The Cooperating Alcohol Agreement, a partnership between the coalition and alcohol retailers, was developed to encourage responsible beverage service. The terms 3,119.5 hours of overtime were awarded to local law enforcement through the MSPF initiative of the agreement included TIPS training for all employees, a press release to promote the partnership, a letter to the county liquor board stating the partnership, and a display of the low-risk drinking strategies developed by the coalition in their establishment. At the conclusion of MSPF, 25 businesses had joined the Cooperating Alcohol Agreement which resulted in 200 staff members being TIPS trained. Secret Shopper checks at Cooperating Alcohol Agreement partners occurred 59 times to ensure establishments were abiding by the conditions of the agreement. Cooperating Alcohol Agreement partners were found compliant with the terms of the agreement 88% of the time. Seventy-seven social media campaigns were created that targeted different populations, including, middle school students, Mountain Ridge High School students, Frostburg State University students and business owners. Parents who Host Lose the Most pledge cards were collected from 1,178 parents. 32

36 ALLEGANY COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Social Availability Contributing Factors/Objective Students lack awareness of the consequences for providing alcohol to those under 21 years old Increase awareness of the consequences for FSU students how provide alcohol to minors from 26.4% to 40% as measured by the monthly NCHIP survey Mt. Ridge High School students are attending college house parties and consuming alcohol By Fall Semester 2013, increase the number of party stings by 2 per semester as measured by Frostburg City Police Reports Baseline Data NCHIP Survey Students aware of consequences for providing alcohol to those under 21 years old o 26.4% - Fall 2011, (n=53) No party stings were implemented per year by Frostburg City Police Follow-Up Data NCHIP Survey Students aware of consequences for providing alcohol to those under 21 years old o 66% - Fall 2013, (n=115) o 57% - Spring 2013, (n=168) o 59% - Spring 2014, (n=139) o 51% - Fall 2014, (n=128) o 51% - Spring 2015, (n=118) FY 2014 No party stings have been implemented and were not considered feasible by the Frostburg City Police FY 2015 The coalition decided to not have party stings and would seek to obtain a Social Host Ordinance for Frostburg to address hosting large scale, high-risk parties. Ordinance lacked support from Frostburg City official No baseline data available FY 2015 Respondents who were aware that law enforcement conduct party patrols to look for underage drinking o 86% (n=188) Change in contributing factor (+) Positive change (~) No change 33

37 ALLEGANY COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Social and Community Norms Contributing Factors/Objective FSU students and Mt. Ridge High School students consider alcohol use as part of their weekend schedules By spring semester 2013, decrease the 30 day alcohol use among Mt. Ridge seniors and FSU students by 5% as measured by the NCHA on the FSU campus and YRBS at the high school level Baseline Data No baseline data for Underage Drinking Surveillance available 2011 NCHA 47.9% (n=676) FSU students consumed alcohol in the past 30 days 2011 YRBS 49.5% (n= 335) Mt. Ridge High School Senior students consumed alcohol in the past 30 days Follow-Up Data FY 2013 to FY Underage Drinking Surveillance (FSU Police) TIPS Hotline Calls: 95 total calls Saturation Patrols: 2620 total hours Party Patrols: total hours 116 total underage alcohol-related citations 137 total open container citations 40 total noise citations 2013 NCHA 47.5% (n=500) FSU students consumed alcohol in the past 30 days 2013 YRBS 43% (n= 188) Mt. Ridge High School Senior students consumed alcohol in the past 30 days Fall 2014 Alcohol.edu at MRHS Health Classes, (n=174) 47% never had a drink Of who had a drink before, 31% had a drink the last 2 weeks 10% were age 12 of younger when they had their first drink 40% obtained alcohol from a friend over the age of 21 Change in contributing factor (~) No change (+) Positive change 34

38 ALLEGANY COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Contributing Factors/ Objective Frostburg City Police is currently understaffed by three officers, thereby making it difficult to patrol effectively Increase the number of citations to 84 citations per academic year for the next 4 years For each academic year, increase alcohol-related citations among FSU students by 15% as measured by the FSU Student Conduct Report Minimum penalties for alcohol violations feed the perception that an alcohol violation is not a serious offense. By Fall 2014, decrease the number of second time underage citations by 5%, from 15% to 10% Baseline Data FSUPD/ FPD Student Conduct Report FY 2011: o 73 alcohol-related citations issued FSUPD/ FPD Student Conduct Report FSU students who received a second alcohol-related citation o 15% - FY 2011, (n= 10) Follow-Up Data FSUPD/ FPD Student Conduct Report Alcohol-related citations issued FY 2012 o 99 citations issued o 26% increase from baseline FY 2013 o 110 citations issued o 50.7% increase from baseline FY 2014 o 147 citations issued o 101.4% increase from baseline FY 2015 o 51 citations issued o 30% decrease from baseline FSUPD/ FPD Student Conduct Report FSU students who received a second alcohol-related citation o 12% - FY 2012, (n=11) o 17% - FY 2013, (n=11) o 25% - FY 2014, (n=25) o 17% - FY 2015, (n=32) Community Awareness Assessment Students who reported that it s likely or very likely to get caught, cited, or arrested by law enforcement if they consume alcohol under the age of 21 o 29% - Fall 2014, (n= 16 of 119) o 38% - Spring 2015, (n=11 of 100) Change in contributing factor (+) Positive change (-) Negative change 35

39 ALLEGANY COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Retail Availability Contributing Factors/ Objective Compliance checks are only done twice per year when resources are available By 2012, increase the number of compliance checks performed by law enforcement by 5 per semester Baseline Data Compliance Checks FY 2011: o Zero (0) Compliance checks conducted Checks only done twice per year when resources are available Follow-Up Data Compliance Checks FY 2013 o 10 rounds of checks conducted o 318 checks Noncompliant: 11 violations Compliant: 96.5% of checks FY 2014 o 10 rounds of checks conducted o 258 checks attempted Noncompliant: 8 violations Compliant: 96.9% of establishments FY 2015 o 10 rounds of checks conducted o 261 checks attempted Noncompliant: 9 violations Compliant: 96.6% of establishments Change in contributing factor (+) Positive change 36

40 ALLEGANY COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of young adults, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Variables Social Availability Contributing Factors/ Objectives Students host drinking parties and charge $5 for a refillable cup of jungle juice or beer. By Fall 2013, decrease the percent of students who drink in off-campus house parties by 5% as measured by Alcohol.edu By Fall 2014, increase awareness consequences for FSU students who provide alcohol to minors as measured by the monthly NCHIP Survey Baseline Data Alcohol.edu Executive Summary Students who report they drink at off-campus house parties o 60% - Fall 2010, (n= 857) No baseline available No baseline available NCHIP Survey FSU students who are aware of consequences for providing alcohol to minors o 26.4% - Before Spring 2013, (n=53) Follow-Up Data Alcohol.edu Executive Summary Students who report they drink at offcampus house parties o 62% - Fall 2012, (n=688) o o 58% - Fall 2013, (n=668) N/A; Omitted location of drinking question off the survey - Fall CORE Survey 55% of FSU students consume alcohol at off campus house parties Spring Maryland College Alcohol Survey 62% (n=159) of past-month drinkers reported drinking at an off campus party NCHIP Survey FSU students who are aware of consequences for providing alcohol to minors o 57% - Spring 2013, (n=168) o 66% - Fall 2013, (n=115) o 59% - Spring 2014, (n=139) o 51% - Fall 2014, (n=128) o 51% - Spring 2015, (n=118) Change in contributing factor (~) No change (+) Positive change 37

41 ALLEGANY COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of young adults, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives By Spring 2013, decrease the 30-day alcohol use among Mountain Ridge seniors and FSU student s by 5% as measured by the National College Health Assessment on the FSU campus and the YRBS survey at the high school level Baseline Data 2011 NCHA 47.9% (n=676) FSU students consumed alcohol in the past 30 days 2011 YRBS 49.5% (n= 335) of Mt. Ridge High School Senior students consumed alcohol in the past 30 days Follow-Up Data 2013 NCHA 47.5% (n= 500) of FSU students consumed alcohol in the past 30 days 2013 YRBS 43% (n=188) 30-day alcohol usage rate of high schools seniors in Allegany County Change in contributing factor (~) No change (+) Positive change 38

42 ALLEGANY COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of young adults, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Intervenin g Variables Social and Community Norms Contributing Factors/ Objectives FSU students consider alcohol use as part of their weekend schedules By spring semester 2013, decrease the 30 day alcohol use among FSU students by 5% as measured by the National College Health Assessment (NCHA) on FSU campus and the YRBS survey at the high school level FSU students who drink alcohol engage in high-risk drinking behaviors such as doing shots of alcohol and consuming drinks with high alcohol by volume to become intoxicated more Baseline Data 2011 NCHA 47.9% (n=676) FSU students consumed alcohol in the past 30 days 2011 YRBS in Mt. Ridge High School 49.5% (n= 335) 30-day alcohol usage rate of high schools seniors in Mt. Ridge High School No baseline data available Alcohol.edu Executive Summary FSU students stated they would consume alcohol by shots o 35% - Fall 2010, (n= 648) FSU students consume high alcohol by volume o 15% - Fall 2010, (n=568) Follow-Up Data 2013 NCHA 47.5% (n= 500) of FSU students consumed alcohol in the past 30 days 2013 YRBS 43% (n=188) 30-day alcohol usage rate of high schools seniors in Allegany County Alcohol.edu at MRHS Health Classes FY 2015; (n=85) o 47% never had a drink o Of who had a drink before, 31% had a drink the last 2 weeks o 10% were age 12 of younger when they had their first drink o 40% obtained alcohol from a friend over the age of 21 Alcohol.edu Executive Summary FSU students who are consuming alcohol by shots o 51% - Fall 2012, (n= 648) o 43% - Fall 2013, (n=668) o 46% - Fall 2014, (n=552) Change in contributing factor (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change (-) Negative Change 39

43 ALLEGANY COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of young adults, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Intervenin g Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives quickly than social drinking. Decrease the number of FSU students who state they consume shots of alcohol and high alcohol by volume drinks by 5% as measured by Alcohol.edu and Making It Count data (Goal : 30% liquor shots and 10% high alcohol by volume) Baseline Data Making It Count Students who are consuming jungle juice consisting of 90% alcohol by volume o 15% - Fall 2012, (n= 467) Follow-Up Data Making It Count Students who are consuming jungle juice consisting of 90% alcohol by volume o 10% - Spring 2013, (n=25) o 15% - Fall 2013, (n=438) o 13% - Fall 2014, (n=103) o Not reported - Spring 2015 No baseline data available Spring 2014 MD-CAS Survey, (n= 4209) Grain alcohol usage o 15.8% - FSU respondents, (n= 392) o 11.6% - Other MD schools, (n=317) Change in contributing factor (~) No Change 40

44 ALLEGANY COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of young adults, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Contributing Factors/ Objectives The same student rentals are being cited multiple times for noise violations. By the end of the academic year, reduce the number of noise violations by 15% Frostburg City Police is currently understaffed by three officers, thereby making it difficult to patrol effectively. For each academic year, increase alcohol-related citations among FSU students by 15% as measured by the FSU Student Conduct Report (goal: 84 citations per academic year for next 4 years) By Fall 2014, decrease the number of second time underage alcohol citations from 15% to 10% through increased fines at the university level Baseline Data FSU Off-Campus Housing Violations Report FY 2011: 56 noise violations FSUPD Student Conduct Reports FY 2011 o 73 alcohol-related citations were issued to students FSUPD Student Conduct Reports FY 2011 o 15% of FSU students received a second alcoholrelated citation No baseline data available Follow-Up Data FSU Off-Campus Housing Violations Report FY 2013: 45 noise citations o 19.6% reduction from baseline FY 2014: 39 noise citations o 30.3% reduction from baseline FY 2015: 36 noise citations o 35.7% reduction from baseline FSUPD Student Conduct Reports Alcohol-related citations issued to students o FY 2012: 99 citations issued o FY 2013: 110 citations issued o FY 2014: 147 citations issued o FY 2015: 74 citations issued FSUPD Student Conduct Reports Students who received a 2 nd alcohol related citation o FY 2012: 12% (n=11) o FY 2013: 17% (n=11) o FY 2014: 25% (n=25) o FY 2015: 17% (n=32) Community Awareness Assessment Students who reported that it s likely or very likely to get caught, cited, or arrested by law enforcement if they consume alcohol under the age of 21 o 29% - Fall 2014, (n= 16 of 119) o 38% - Spring 2015, (n=11 of 100) Change in contributing factor (+) Positive change (+) Positive change (-) Negative change 41

45 ALLEGANY COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of young adults, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Variables Retail Availability Contributing Factors/ Objectives Five Frostburg area bars are popular with FSU students and offer drink specials that promote high-risk consumption. Each semester, increase the number of staff for each of the five bars that are trained on over serving a patron by two staff members as measured by the number of staff who complete TIPS Training Baseline Data TIPS Trainings o 1 staff member per bar TIPS trained Assessment Toolkit Worksheets Happy Hours are promoted at all 5 bars, large-sized drinks and pitchers are promoted at 3 bars, all-you-can-drink specials are promoted at 2 bars, 10 cent draughts are promoted at 1 bar, and two-4-one specials are promoted at 1 bar No CAA agreements signed recorded prior to FY 2013 No compliance checks conducted prior to FY2013 Follow-Up Data TIPS Trainings FY 2013: 15 bars trained; 67 staff trained FY 2014: 5 additional bars trained (Total = 20 bars) o 68 additional staff trained (Total =135 trained) FY 2015: o 69 additional staff trained (Total =204 trained) Fall 2014 TIPS Survey 59% (n=24) reported that the training will be helpful with dealing with alcohol-related incidents CAA Agreements FY 2013: 12 total establishments signed agreement FY 2014: 18 total establishments signed agreement FY 2015: 25 total establishments signed agreement Compliance Checks FY 2013 o o 10 rounds of checks conducted 318 checks Noncompliant: 11 violations Compliant: 96.5% of checks Change in contributing factor (+) Positive Change 42

46 ALLEGANY COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of young adults, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Follow-Up Data FY 2014 o 10 rounds of compliance checks o 258 checks attempted Noncompliant: 8 alcohol violations Compliant: 96.9% of checks FY 2015 o 10 rounds of compliance checks o 261 checks attempted Noncompliant: 6 alcohol violations Compliant: 96.9% of checks Change in contributing factor 43

47 Impact of Contributing Factors The overall change in Allegany County s contributing factors (CFs) showed a moderately positive trend. The contributing factors associated with the Social and Community Norms showed variable results based on age groups. For Mt. Ridge high school students, there was a reduction in high schools seniors consuming alcohol in the past month from 49.5% to 43% while no change was interpreted in FSU students (47.9% to 47.5%). Similarly, the contributing factors associated with social availability showed a minor positive change. While there were no additional parties stings implement by law enforcements to address high school seniors attending college parties, there was an overall improvement in the awareness of consequences to providing alcohol to those under 21 years old from 26.4% to 51% in the NCHIP survey. CFs associated with retail access also showed positive improvements through sustained compliance rates above 96% since FY 2013 of the liquor establishment checked by Allegany County law enforcements. Concurrently, negative change in contributing factor associated with FSU students receiving second alcohol-related citation (increased from 15% of students with second violation in FY 2011 to 17% in FY 2015) was interpreted. While this is an increase in second offense for underage drinking violations, this may be a by-product associated with FSUPD increased resources to improve surveillance for underage drinking. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains Allegany County forged a strong partnership with Frostburg State University, which proved to be instrumental in their successful strategy implementation. Through the partnership with the University, the Frostburg Community Coalition was formed and received buy in from the surrounding community and local businesses. The Frostburg Community Coalition was able to secure a Drug Free Communities grant to continue their prevention efforts after MSPF ended. 44

48 Anne Arundel County MSPF Community: Northern Anne Arundel County MSPF Organization: Chesapeake Center for Youth Development Coalition Name: Northern Lights Against Substance Abuse Prevention Coordinator: Heather Eshleman MSPF Coordinator: Loretta Lawson-Munsey (Apr June 2013)/ Sherry Medley (Jan Present) Local Evaluator: Erica Rosen (Jun Present) Needs Assessment Approval: October 18, 2013 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: November 18, 2013 Strategy Implementation Start: January 6, 2014 Anne Arundel County is a primarily urban county bordered by Baltimore County and Baltimore City to the North, Howard County and Prince George s County to the West, rural Calvert County to the South, and the Chesapeake Bay to the East. It is considered to form part of the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area. The county seat, Annapolis, is also the State capital of Maryland; near Annapolis, US Route 50/301 crosses over the Chesapeake Bay via the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, connecting the Eastern Shore of Maryland with Central and Western Maryland. Anne Arundel had a population of 537,656 as of the 2010 US Census. The county MSPF coalition, Northern Lights Against Substance Abuse, originally selected Northern Anne Arundel County consisting of zip codes (Brooklyn Park), (Pasadena), (Glen Burnie East), (Glen Burnie West), and (Curtis Bay) as their selected MSPF community. This region has a total population of 177,035, with 8% of the population between the ages of 12 and 17, 4% between 18 and 20, and 8% between 21 and 25. The majority of residents in Anne Arundel and Northern Anne Arundel County are White (75% for the entire county), with African-Americans (16%) and Hispanics (6%) making up the majority of the rest of the population. Data collected in the needs assessment helped the community to select the priority of reducing underage drinking. The table below lists the intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community. The strategies selected focus on enhancing law enforcement and adjudication practices and increasing compliance checks and the number of employees trained at retail establishments. 45

49 ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Contributing factors Strategies Variables Retail Availability Non-Compliance to regulations and ordinances Conduct annual compliance checks Law Enforcement and Adjudication Lack of employees trained at retail establishments Lack of enforcement dedicated to underage drinking citations Increase the availability of free or low cost TAM training to local retail establishments. Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws. Develop and implement party patrol and saturation plan. Strategy Implementation MSPF initiatives were focused in the northern region of Anne Arundel County. The Northern Lights against Substance Abuse (NLASA) coalition was formed and began implementing strategies during the second half of FY 14. Strategy implementation resulted in over 200 people being trained in responsible 212 individuals have been trained in Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) since FY 14 beverage service (RBS) and nearly 250 hours of overtime hours being awarded to law enforcement to conduct saturation patrols, party patrols and compliance checks. NLASA began exploring measures to increase the number of staff members trained in RBS. A community outreach person was hired to educate key stakeholders in a variety of sectors on the importance and success of the TAM training initiative, in hopes having the current ordinance reexamined or adjusted to be in line with the prevention of underage drinking. The ordinance has not been reexamined or modified to date due to lobbying constraints. 46

50 ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Retail Availability Contributing Factors/ Objectives Lack of employees trained at retail establishments Increase number of onsite TAM trained employees and provide TAM training to 100 employees by FY 2015 Non-Compliance to regulations and ordinances Increase percentage of liquor establishments checked from 10% to 25% by Fiscal Year 2015 Baseline Data Interviews with 2013 AAC Board of License Commissioner members Only one manager is required to participate in training and that manager is not always on site to monitor sales Compliance Checks (Anne Arundel County Police) 16 establishments (10% ) of the 156 licensed establishments checked 2013 CSC-DOH Consumption Survey 11% of NAAC underage youth reported obtaining alcohol from a liquor store 6% reported obtaining it from a restaurant or bar Follow-Up Data TAM Trainings FY 2014 o 3 trainings conducted o 69 employees trained FY 2015 o 10 trainings conducted o 143 employees trained Compliance Checks (Anne Arundel County Police) FY 2014 o 56 establishments checked (35.9%) Noncompliant: 14 establishments Compliant: 75% of establishments FY 2015 o 52 establishments checked (33.3%) Noncompliant: 20 establishments Compliant: 61.5% of establishments o 2 events serving alcohol met protocol checklist requirements No comparable data available Change in contributing factor (+) Positive change (+) Positive change 47

51 ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Law Enforcemen t and Adjudication Contributing Factors/ Objectives Lack of enforcement dedicated to underage drinking citations Increase hours dedicated to saturation and party patrols from 0 hour per month to 4 hours per month by 2015 Baseline Data Underage Drinking Surveillance (Northern District Anne Arundel County Police) FY 2013 o 0 hours dedicated to saturation/party patrols. 120 police hours dedicated solely to underage drinking prevention Follow-Up Data Underage Drinking Surveillance (Anne Arundel County Police) FY 2014 o patrol hours dedicated Average of 12.9 hours per month FY 2015 o 93 patrol hours dedicated Average of 7.75 hours per month Change in contributing factor (+) Positive change 48

52 Impact of Contributing Factors The general trend for NLASA Coalition s contributing factors (CFs) is a positive change. Positive changes have been interpreted in the contributing factors associated with the retail availability and law enforcement intervening variables. Improvements were noted in the compliance checks conducted by local law enforcement on licensed alcohol establishments and TAM trainings for employees of retail establishments. Law enforcement dedication to underage drinking also displayed a positive change with an increase from zero hours dedicated to 93 hours of patrols. Continued follow-up is desirable to assess for future sustained contributing factor changes associated with Anne Arundel County s implementation of underage drinking prevention efforts under the Partnership for Success (PFS) grant. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains The Northern Lights against Substance Abuse coalition (NLASA) was comprised of energetic members who supported the implantation of MSPF. The buy in from the community led to two additional underage drinking and substance abuse prevention coalitions being formed in the Southern and Western parts of the county. Additionally, the coalition forged a strong partnership with law enforcement that supported efforts to prevent underage drinking. Anne Arundel County is one of 10 jurisdictions in Maryland that will be eligible to receive funding through the Partnership for Success grant to continue underage and binge drinking prevention efforts. 49

53 Baltimore County MSPF Community: Dundalk (Jan 2012 Jun 2013) / Towson (Jun 2013 present) MSPF Organization: Baltimore County Department of Health Coalition Name: Combating Underage Drinking Coalition (CUD) Prevention Coordinator: Victoria Pfannerstein MSPF Coordinator: Rhondalyn Gross Local Evaluator: Marge Rosenweig Needs Assessment Approval: March 14, 2014 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: May 14, 2014 Strategy Implementation Start: N/A Baltimore County is a primarily urban/suburban county that almost completely surrounds the city of Baltimore, with the southern half of the county being compromised mostly of suburban neighborhoods of Baltimore. The population of Baltimore County is 805,029 based on the 2010 U.S. Census. The ethnic makeup of the county is 64.6% white, 26.1% African American, 5.0% Asian and 4.2% Hispanic. The MSPF community selected by the Baltimore County Underage Drinking Coalition consists of the Towson and Cockeysville police precincts. The area forms a central wedge between the east and west portions of the County and extends from the Baltimore City line to the south and to the Pennsylvania border to the north. The total population of the MSPF community is 301, 256. Of that there are approximately 40, 404 youth ages 10-19, 36% of the County s year old population. Within the community, Towson University and Goucher College are located which increases the population of young adults as well as students at Loyola University which is located just south of the target area but many students considers Towson their go to spot. The county completed a new needs assessment after switching MSPF communities. Data collected in the needs assessment helped the community to select the priority of reducing underage drinking. The table below lists the intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community. The strategies selected focus on enhancing law enforcement and adjudication practices, increasing community knowledge through media campaigns and outreach, developing new policies and procedures and increasing the number of on-site staff trained in RBS. 50

54 BALTIMORE COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Contributing factors Strategies Variables Social Availability Adult Provision of Alcohol to Minors Educate parents (and other adults) about issues such as local underage drinking, youth access to alcohol, effective measures to reduce youth access and adolescent brain development, etc. Enhance capacity to enforce alcohol laws and policies on campus property and at campussponsored events Law Enforcement and Adjudication Retail Availability Lack of enforcement resources Lack of compliance with regulations and ordinances Lack of sufficient on-site staff trained in RBS Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws. Conduct alcohol age compliance checks and issue citations to retailers selling alcohol to youth Maintain/expand CTARR combined with media coverage of compliant retailers Establish evidence-based best practices for local retailers 51

55 Strategy Implementation Baltimore County s Combating Underage Drinking (CUD) coalition began implementing MSPF strategies in FY 15. Implementation successes include increasing the number of compliance checks conducted at local retail establishments from zero in 2014 to 91 in FY 15, and increasing the number of servers who are TIPs trained. Additionally, the CUD coalition developed a Cooperating Taverns and Alcohol Retailers Agreement (CTARR), which highlights best practices for alcohol retailers. A mailing was sent to all Baltimore County alcohol licensees inviting them to agree to have one staff member per shift TIPs trained. At last check, 113 CTARR agreements were signed by local retailers and returned to the coalition. Retailers who signed the agreement received a window cling indicating they joined CTARR and will have their names listed on the county s website. 52

56 BALTIMORE COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Social Availability Contributing Factors/ Objectives Adult Provision of Alcohol to Minors By June 2015, decrease by 2% college students selfreported drinking in social settings (e.g., parties, residences, recreational events) as measured by the NCHA/TU survey 2015 Baseline Data 2012 CORE Survey,(n=522) 71.5% of underage 21 Towson students reported drinking at private parties 53.1% of underage 21 Towson students reported Where they live as reason for drinking 2009 YRBS 38% self-reported drinkers say alcohol was given to them by someone else 2011 YTRBS 42 % self-reported drinkers say alcohol was given to them by someone else 2012/2013 Alcohol.edu 76% of Goucher first-year students report drinking in their homes Follow-Up Data 2014 CORE Survey, (n=369) 72.1% of underage 21 Towson students reported drinking at private parties 63.1% of underage 21 Towson students reported Where they live as reason for drinking No comparable data available No comparable data available No comparable data available Change in Contributing Factor (~) No change (-) Negative change (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change By June 2015, decrease by 2% ease of obtaining alcohol reported by high school students as measured by the MDS MDS3 Survey 82% of youth in target community say it s very or fairly easy to obtain alcohol No comparable baseline data No 2015 MDS3 survey implemented (?) Insufficient amount of Underage Drinking Surveillance (i.e. party patrols) FY 2015: 13 underage drinking patrols data to assess change 53

57 BALTIMORE COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Retail Availability Contributing Factors/ Objectives Lack of compliance with regulations and ordinances By 2015, increase from 0 to 60 the number of retail establishments in MSPF area routinely checked By 2015, increase from 0 to 25 (15% of 169 vendors in MSPF area) the number of establishments that have agreed to have one trained employee per shift Baseline Data Key informant interview BC Police Department sponsored compliance checks are only conducted in response to complaints 2013 Liquor Board Data 39.2% of licensed vendors in target area served to underage cadets CTARR Agreement to have 1 RBS trained employee per shift 0 retail establishments (of the 169) signed and agreed to have one trained employee shift Follow-Up Data Compliance Checks FY 2015 o 6 rounds of checks (at 47 locations) o 98 compliance checks attempted Non-compliant: 23 of checks Compliant: 76.5% of checks CTARR Agreement to have 1 RBS trained employee per shift FY 2015 o 113 retail establishments signed agreement Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change (+) Positive change Lack of sufficient on-site staff trained in RBS By 2015, increase the number of employees attending subsidized TIPS/TAM training from 17* in 2014 to 34 in 2015 (TIPS/TAM data) By 2015, conduct Fake ID training for 50 alcohol retail employees of the target area TIPS/TAM Training FY 2014 o 17 staff were trained Only 1 TIPS trained person/establishment required; does not have to be on premises Fake ID Trainings No baseline data reported TIPS/TAM Training FY 2015 o 33 employees trained Fake ID Trainings FY 2014 and prior: No data available FY 2015: 2 trainings held o 107 retail employees trained (+) Positive Change 54

58 BALTIMORE COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Contributing Factors/ Objectives By 2015, increase from 0 to 25 (15% of 169 vendors in MSPF area) the number of establishments that have agreed to have one trained employee per shift Lack of enforcement resources Maintain the 2013 person-hour level of law enforcement resources dedicated to underage drinking activities through June Baseline Data CTARR Agreement: 0 retail establishments (of the 169) signed and agreed to have one trained employee shift Key Informant Interview BC Police Department sponsored compliance checks are only conducted in response to complaints Without grants from SAP, MHSO, and MSPF, dedicated underage drinking enforcement would not occur Follow-Up Data CTARR Agreement to have 1 RBS trained employee per shift FY 2015: 113 retail establishments signed agreement (21 in MSPF region) Compliance Checks FY 2015 o 40 establishments checked o 6 underage alcohol possession citations given o 61 False IDs citations o 20 False IDs confiscated Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive Change 55

59 Impact of Contributing Factors While Baltimore County implemented their newly constructed contributing factors for only this past fiscal year, there is a general moderately positive trend in the change. Retail availability s contributing factors showed a positive change in the compliances checks, RBS training and Fake ID trainings. However, insufficient amount of follow-up data was collected to fully assess the change in the social availability s contributing factor. Continued follow-up is optimal to assess for future sustained contributing factor changes associated with Baltimore County s continued implementation of underage drinking prevention efforts under the Partnership for Success (PFS) grant. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains Baltimore County s CUD coalition has a long standing history of conducting prevention activities in the community and their meetings are well-attended by a variety of sectors. Although the coalition had a later start beginning implementation, they were able to accomplish many of the objectives they set for themselves. Representatives from the local Baltimore County colleges are regularly in attendance during coalition meetings and have been receptive to the SPF process. Baltimore County is one of 10 jurisdictions in Maryland that will be eligible to receive funding through the Partnership for Success grant to continue underage and binge drinking prevention efforts. 56

60 Baltimore City MSPF Community: Greenmount East MSPF Organization: Oliver Community Association Coalition Name: East Baltimore Drug Free Coalition: MSPF Subcommittee Prevention Coordinator: Debra Furr-Holden (Sep Aug 2013) / Orethea Mattison (Aug Present) MSPF Coordinator: Sylvia Quinton Local Evaluator: Thandi Hicks-Harper Needs Assessment Approval: January 11, 2013 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: June 25, 2013 Strategy Implementation Start: November 13, 2013 Baltimore City is the largest city in Maryland and a major east coast harbor city with a population of 620,961 as of the 2010 U.S. Census. The Greenmount East (GE) Community Statistical area is centrally located in the city, comprising an area of roughly 510 acres (~ 0.8 square miles) and bordered by East North Avenue to the North, North Milton Avenue to the East, East Biddle Street and East Chase Street to the South, and Interstate-83 and Greenmount Avenue to the West, with the neighborhood of Oliver taking up a large portion of the region. The population of Greenmount is 9,262 according to the 2010 Census, with African-Americans making up 94.3% of that number (White population is 3.6% and Hispanic/Latino population is 1.2%), and 34.2% of the population is under the age of 25. The median household income for Greenmount East is $20,708 (compared to $37,395 for all of Baltimore City and $72,419 for Maryland), with a 19.7% unemployment rate (compared to 11.1% for Baltimore City) and 37.7% of families living below the federal poverty line (compared to 15.2% for Baltimore City). The Greenmount East region also has a very high alcohol store density, with 9.7 retail alcohol establishments for every 10,000 residents (compared to a rate of 4.6/10,000 for Baltimore City overall), and high incidents of youth delinquency and violence. Through examining data collected in the needs assessment, the coalition selected the priority of reducing underage drinking in their community. The table below lists the intervening variables, and contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community. The strategies selected focus on limiting retail availability and changing social and community norms. 57

61 BALTIMORE CITY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Contributing factors Strategies Variables Retail Availability High Liquor Store Outlet Density Media advocacy team from coalition members. Determine & implement grassroots efforts on local policy Social and Community Norms Non-compliance to regulations and ordinances inside and outside of liquor stores Youth perceive drinking as acceptable and cool Local Petition Drive Compliance checks for alcohol retailers Peer-2-Peer (P2P) Education Strategy Implementation The Greenmount East (GE) coalition began implementing MSPF strategies in FY 14. Noting the high alcohol retail density in the GE/Oliver community, and that youth reported ease of access in obtaining alcohol, the coalition partnered with the Liquor Inspector and the City s VICE unit to conduct compliance checks at neighborhood liquor stores. In total, 40 compliance checks were conducted. Additionally, in conjunction with a citywide effort to change the zoning code, the coalition encouraged the community to get involved to reduce the sale and consumption of alcohol in youth through initiating a petition that would challenge Baltimore City s current zoning practices by eliminating non-conforming liquor stores. The coalition partnered with the Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA) to develop two media campaigns as part of a Peer-2-Peer (P2P) education strategy, where students were trained to take the lead in messaging their peers about underage drinking and consequences related to substance use. Students from three schools in the city participated in developing two main media campaigns: Beer and Alcohol Ruins Future (B.A.R.F) and Sippin Stupid. Students developed slogans and logos using counteradvertising which were featured on t-shirts, buttons, posters, videos, post cards and websites. Additionally, they used spoken word to create a rap video that denounces underage drinking. The students who participated in the P2P sessions presented the materials in a variety of settings, including at community events and at the participating schools. 58

62 BALTIMORE CITY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Retail Availability High Liquor Store Outlet Density By fall of 2014, build infrastructure, awareness, and community support of pending rezoning liquor store outlet legislation, in an effort to reduce the number on nonconforming stores in Greenmount East residential areas, as measured by increase in number of community members who attend hearings Non-compliance to regulations and ordinances inside and outside of liquor stores By 2014, decrease the number of youth reported by their peers to have successfully purchased alcohol (from 50% to 25%), as measured by GEOY survey results FY 2013 Greenmount East has 37 liquor stores inside of or on its boundaries (10 within the Oliver community) twice Baltimore City s average alcohol outlet density 2013 Greenmount East/Oliver Youth (GEOY) survey data, (n=71) 40% claimed that at least 50% of their peers successfully purchased alcohol within the past 30 days 20% indicated that youth purchase alcohol at least once a week and almost 15% said they knew youth who purchase everyday Follow-Up Data FY petition signatures were collected supporting the liquor store outlet legislation FY petition signatures were collected supporting liquor store outlet legislation 2015 Greenmount East/Oliver MSPF Youth Survey 55% of youth (n= 276) reported it was very or somewhat easy to purchase alcohol from the community 15% (n=42) report it has become more difficult to purchase alcohol in the community 93.5% (n=259) report they have not purchased alcohol without their ID in the past year Changes to Contributing Factor (~) No change (~) No Change 59

63 BALTIMORE CITY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Retail Availability (Cont d) By 2014, increase the number of retail establishments checked for compliance from 18 to 25 in Greenmount East/Oliver FY 2013 Two Greenmount East stores were found guilty for lack of ID checks Follow-Up Data Compliance Checks (Baltimore County Police) FY 2014 o 20 retail establishments checked Noncompliant: 11 establishments Compliant: 9 (45%) establishments FY 2015: 20 retail establishments checked o Noncompliant: 5 (25%) establishments o Compliant: 15 (75%) establishments Changes to Contributing Factor (~) No Change Social and Community Norms Youth perceive drinking as acceptable and cool By fall of 2014, increase the number of students who positively change their perception that drinking is cool, as measured by a pre and post survey. Baseline TBD 2009, 2011 Youth and adult focus group interviews and 1-on-1 interviews Social media, like Facebook and YouTube, are tools that successfully promote and influence alcohol choices use among youth Drinking is promoted among peers at special events, parties, at school, and as a rites of passage. You are not mature or accepted unless you take that drink, said a young male. Drinking is perceived as a way to have more fun 2015 Greenmount East/Oliver MSPF Youth Survey 53% of students (n=150) felt the B.A.R.F. / #sippinstudpid messages changed their perception that drinking is cool (+) Positive Change 60

64 Impact of Contributing Factors Baltimore City reconstructed their needs assessment and implementation plan for FY 2015 after relocating to a new region for their targeted population. There is insufficient amount of data to assess the overall trend of Baltimore City s contributing factors; however there is a positive outlook with their implementation of their social norms campaigns. At the conclusion of this fiscal year, no change was found in Baltimore City s implementation of their retail availability s contributing factors for improving noncompliance of liquor stores and the high liquor store outlet density. Continued follow-up is optimal to assess for future improved and sustained contributing factor changes associated with Baltimore City s implementation of underage drinking prevention efforts under the Partnership for Success (PFS) grant. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains Successes include partnering with MICA and the Center for Alcohol Market and Youth at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Students presented the materials developed for the B.A.R.F campaign at Brown University and were selected as the Design for Social Impact Professional in the Core 77 Design Award. Additionally, the products developed by the students were recognized by Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and have been placed in locations all around the City. Challenges include the formation of a consistent coalition. Baltimore City is one of 10 jurisdictions who will be eligible to receive funding through the Partnership for Success grant to continue underage and binge drinking prevention efforts. 61

65 Calvert County MSPF Community: Lusby, primarily the neighborhood of Chesapeake Ranch Estates MSPF Organization: Calvert Alliance Against Substance Abuse Coalition Name: Underage Alcohol Abuse Reduction Team Prevention Coordinator: Julie Boutaugh MSPF Coordinator: Anna Black (Jan 2012 June 2013)/ Matthew Hanley (Oct Present) Local Evaluator: Marge Rosensweig (Apr 2013 present) Needs Assessment Approval: September 10, 2012 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: March 28, 2013 Strategy Implementation Start: June 18, 2013 Calvert County is located in the southern region of Maryland. Essentially a peninsula immediately south of Anne Arundel County, Calvert County is bordered on the east by the Chesapeake Bay, and is separated from Prince George s, Charles, and Saint Mary s counties to the west by the Patuxent River. Calvert County along with Charles and Saint Mary s Counties is traditionally referred to as Southern Maryland and the county has two incorporated towns: North Beach and Chesapeake Beach, located on the Chesapeake Bay at the northeast corner of the county. The MSPF Coalition, Underage Alcohol Abuse Reduction Team, has selected the Lusby and Chesapeake Ranch Estates (CRE) area for the primary focus of their MSPF intervention, located in the southernmost part of the county. CRE has approximately 4,000 homes and between 12,000 and 15,000 residents. Patuxent High School, the only high school in the southern part of the county, serves this area and had 1,147 students in the school year. 79% of the residents in CRE are White, 14% are African- American, and 5.5% of the community lives below the federal poverty level. Examining data collected in the needs assessment, the coalition selected the priority of reducing underage drinking in their community. The table below lists the intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community. The strategies selected focus on: educating parents about social hosting laws and the consequences of providing alcohol to minors; creating a network of parents to focus on preventing underage alcohol use in the community; enhancing law enforcement capacity to address underage drinking and establish party patrols in CRE; and establishing a social norms campaign for the high school and middle school that services the Lusby and Chesapeake Ranch Estates communities. 62

66 CALVERT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Contributing Factors Strategies Variables Social Availability Low Perceived Risk Social and Community Norms Parents provide alcohol to minors and do not monitor alcohol supply in the home. Adults and parents of teens are unaware of the legal consequences of proving alcohol to minors. Teenagers have a low perception of legal consequences. Teens report they are not deterred by alcohol laws because they do not see peers getting in trouble for alcohol related violations. Youth perception that alcohol is a normal part of the high school experience and that in order to be seen as cool teenagers must partake in alcohol use. Implement a Parents Who Host Lose the Most campaign in Chesapeake Ranch Estates(CRE) Establish a network of concerned citizens who hold similar beliefs about underage alcohol use Promote the prosecution and adjudication of alcohol law violations Media campaign, sending postcard-sized information to residents of CRE detailing legal consequences of providing alcohol to minors Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol law violations by providing Control Dispersal Training to local law enforcement and State s Attorney Establish party patrols in CRE and enhance area patrolling Social Norms campaign Targeting high school students to reinforce the perception vs. reality of teen drinking by relaying the results of survey to PHS [Patuxent High School] using social media. Encouraging peer-to-peer education and regulation of alcohol through the use of an essay and art contest in PHS under the topic: Teens Changing Teen Perception about Alcohol Use Encouraging all 8 th grade students to resist alcohol by focusing on all the positive things they do with a twitter-style self-portrait mural in a highly visible location in the schools 63

67 Strategy Implementation Through a strong collaboration with the school system, Calvert County was able to administer the CRC- AC youth survey on three separate occasions and sampled a total of 1,803 students. Data collected in the CRC-AC survey were used to develop a social norms campaign that targeted high school students to change their perceptions about alcohol use among their peers. The PACK coalition was formed at Patuxent High School and collaborated with a communication and design firm to develop a campaign to dispel myths and reveal the reality of underage drinking among their peers. Survey data showed that 68% of students perceived their peers to be drinking alcohol, but 32% of students actually reported drinking alcohol. Using these figures, the coalition developed the #68v32 campaign. The #68v.32 campaign intended to exemplify the difference in perception versus reality. The coalition used various social media sites to generate curiosity about the meaning of #68v32 and eventually revealed the meaning through a video that aired on Comcast and the Calvert Apex Cinemas. 64

68 CALVERT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Social Availability Contributing Factors/ Objectives Parents provide alcohol to minors and do not monitor alcohol supply in the home Expand the PWH campaign under the umbrella of CRE-NN by increasing from 33 to 40 the number of PWH Pledge Cards signed; from 37 to 45 the number of PWH yard signs posted; and from 19 to 25 the number of CRE residents who allow their name printed in connection with publicity regarding pledge Baseline Data 2012 Parent Focus Groups Parents state they provide alcohol to minors for gathering in the home In addition, parents state they do not monitor alcohol supply in the home CRE Adult Survey Adults surveyed who said it is not wrong or only a little wrong for adults to provide minors with alcohol o 31% - FY 2012, (n=132) Youth Community Survey Teens surveyed who said they consume alcohol in their own home or in a friend s home o 69.7% - FY 2012, (n=218) Follow-Up Data Youth and Parent Focus Groups Youth who said they took it from home without permission and said their friends do that o 11.6% & 56% - Winter/Spring of 2014 o 8.1% & 59.4% - Fall 2014 o Not reported - Spring 2015 CRE Adult Surveys Adults who said it s not wrong or a little wrong for adults to provide alcohol to minors o 16.2% - Winter/Spring of 2014 o 14.3% - Fall 2014 o Low responses not reported - Spring of 2015 CRE Youth Surveys Youth who said their parents gave them alcohol o 15.5% - Winter/Spring of 2014, (n=802) o 7.3% - Fall 2014, (n=757) o 9% - Spring 2015, (n=244) Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive Change 65

69 CALVERT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Social Availability (cont d) Contributing Factors/ Objectives Adults and parents of teens are unaware of the legal consequences of providing alcohol to minors. Increase the number of adults cited for providing alcohol to minors from 0 to 4 by May 2015 Decrease by 10% the number of teens perceiving peers obtaining alcohol from parents and older relatives and siblings from T to T Survey Baseline Data 2014 Winter/Spring CRE Adult Survey, (n=44) 97.6% of adults know the laws about adult provision of alcohol to minors 97.6% of adults knowingly allowing alcohol to be used by minors even if they do not provide it 2012 Adult Focus Groups, n=12 Adults reported they do not know the legal consequences for providing alcohol to teens Parents reported not being concerned with the legal consequences of providing alcohol to minors because they did not know of anyone actually facing charges for the act Youth Community Survey Teens surveyed who said they consume alcohol in their own home or in a friend s home o 69.7% - FY 2012, (n=218) Follow-Up Data 2015 Winter/Spring CRE Adult Survey 95.2% of adults know the laws about adult provision of alcohol to minors 90.5% know the law about adults knowingly allowing alcohol to be used by minors even if they don t provide it Parent Focus Groups Adults who know the laws about adult provision of alcohol o 97.6% - Winter/Spring 2014 o 95.2% - Fall 2014 o Not reported - Spring 2015 CRE Youth Surveys Youth who said their peers got alcohol from their parents o 29.6% - Winter/Spring 2014, (n=802) o 31% - Fall 2014, (n=757) o 29% - Spring 2015, (n=244) Youth who said their peers got alcohol from a friend or relative who is 21 or older o 33.4% - Winter/Spring 2014, (n=802) o 55.4% - Fall 2014, (n=757) o 61.9% - Spring 2015, (n=244) Change in Contributing Factor (-) Negative change 66

70 CALVERT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Low Perceived Risk Contributing Factors/ Objectives Teenagers have a low perception of legal consequences. Increase the number of alcohol citations for minors ages in Lusby from 22 in 2012 (MSP & CCSO data) to 44 by June 2015 through vigorous area patrolling and enforcement Increase by 10% (from Fall T-2 Youth Survey to outcome Spring T-3 youth Survey) in the number of youth who perceive that alcohol use among their peers will result in legal consequences Baseline Data Alcohol citations written to minors DJS data o CY 2010: 25 citations in Lusby o CY 2012: 22 citations in Lusby o Only 6 of those citations were taken on as cases CC Sheriff s Office o FY 2013: 38 citations issue to minors in County CRE Youth Survey Number of youth who perceive that alcohol use among their peers will result in legal consequences o Winter/Spring 2014 T-2, (n= 745) 5% - No risk 41% - Slight risk 30% - Moderate risk 18% - Great risk Follow-Up Data Alcohol Citations written to minors FY 2013: 8 citations (MSP data) FY 2014: 19 citations (Court Docket data) FY 2015: 10 citations (Court Docket data) CRE Youth Survey The number of youth who perceive that alcohol use among their peers will result in legal consequences o Spring 2015 T-2, (n= 242) 5% - No risk 36% - Slight risk 38% - Moderate risk 21% - Great risk Change in Contributing Factor (-) Negative change (+) Positive change 67

71 CALVERT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Social and Community Norms Contributing Factors/ Objectives Youth perception that alcohol is a normal part of the high school experience and that in order to be seen as cool teenagers must partake in alcohol use. Decrease the perception that that the typical student at PHS has consumed alcohol in the past 30 days from a baseline of 85% (January 2014 baseline) to 70% (June 2015 postprogram) as measured by the CRE-AC Youth Survey Baseline Data CRE-AC Youth Survey Youth who reported drinking more than a sip of alcohol o 32% of youth - Winter/Spring 2014, (n=802) % of students who perceived that typical students drink more than a sip and _(%)_ of same-age friends o 87% and 68.8% - Winter/Spring 2014, (n=802) Students who believe it s OK for typical underage student to drink o 76% - Winter/Spring 2014, (n=802) Youth focus groups Winter/Spring of 2014 T-1: Reasons for underage drinking was to fit in, by boredom, then depression, rebellious feelings, and - in last place - to have fun at a party FY 2012, (n=86): Drinking is a standard part of high school life, with youth attending 2-4 parties (i.e., gathering of 4+ teens) each weekend and often after Follow-Up Data CRE-AC Youth Survey Youth who reported drinking more than a sip of alcohol o 23% - Fall 2014 T-2, (n= 745) o 23% - Spring 2015 T-3, (n= 242) % of students who perceived that typical students drink more than a sip and _(%)_ of same-age friends o 84%; 65.5% - Fall 2014 T-2,(n= 745) o 89%; 64% - Spring 2015 T-3, (n=242) Students who believe it s OK for typical underage student to drink o 71% - Fall 2014 T-2, (n= 745) o 74% - Spring 2015 T-3, (n= 242) Youth focus groups : Reasons for underage drinking T-2 (in Fall 2014): Having fun at a party was cited most frequently, followed by fitting in, depression, boredom, and rebelliousness T-3 (in Spring 2015): Having fun at a party was cited most frequently, followed by fitting in, depression, boredom, and rebelliousness Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change 68

72 CALVERT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data school during the week o Goal at parties is to get drunk with friends, have fun; play drinking games, and hook-up. Behavior was expected and normal part of high school life, especially if you wanted to be considered cool among peers Follow-Up Data Change in Contributing Factor Increase from 325 (in 2014) to 350 (by June 2015) in the number of 8 th grade students at Lusby s two middle schools who engage in peer-to-peer interaction about positive activities Spring th grade students engaged in peerto-peer interaction about positive activities FY th grade students engaged in peer-to-peer interaction about positive activities (+) Positive Change 69

73 Impact of Contributing Factors The overall trend for all the contributing factors is a minor positive change. The contributing factors for low risk and social availability showed variation in their change from baseline and after their implementation (follow-up data). In social availability s adults and parents of teens are unware of legal consequences of providing alcohol minors contributing factor, although there seems to be a slight decrease in percentage of parents knowing the laws from baseline, the percentage is still very high. In the Low Perceived Risk, the contributing factor targeting teenagers having low perception of legal consequences saw a decrease in minors being issued citations for underage drinking; but there was increased awareness by the youth of the legal consequences of getting caught drinking underage. Social and community norms contributing factor portrayed a positive change with a decreasing trend in percentage of students perceiving same-age friends and themselves in consuming more than a sip of alcohol. A minor decrease in the contributing factor was also seen in the student perception of whether it was OK for an underage student to drink. Continued follow-up is desirable to assess for future sustained contributing factor changes associated with Calvert County s continued implementation of underage and binge drinking prevention efforts under the Partnership for Success (PFS) grant. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains Calvert County experienced challenges with regard to forming a community coalition in their targeted area of Chesapeake Ranch Estates (CRE) and a formal community coalition in CRE was never established. However, through partnering with the local schools, a youth coalition was formed at Patuxent High School and had success during implementation. Calvert County is one of ten jurisdictions in Maryland that is eligible to receive funding through the Partnership for Success grant to continue underage drinking prevention activities. 70

74 Caroline County MSPF Community: Caroline County MSPF Organization: Caroline County Department of Health Coalition Name: Drug Free Caroline Coalition Prevention Coordinator: Vernon Spriggs (Mar 2013 present) MSPF Coordinator: Tony Gianninoto (Jul 2012 Sept 2013) / Shirley Lake (Oct present) Local Evaluator: Linda Walls Needs Assessment Approval: June 4, 2012 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: December 18, 2012 Strategy Implementation Start: May 15, 2013 Caroline County is on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and is bordered by the State of Delaware to the east, Dorchester County to the south, Talbot County to the West, and Queen Anne s County to the North. Caroline County is a primarily rural agricultural community with a 2010 population of 33,367 people, with Whites representing 83% of the population, African-Americans representing 14% of the population and the remained being primarily people of Hispanic descent. Examining data collected in the needs assessment, the coalition selected the priorities of reducing underage drinking and reducing alcohol related crashes among year olds in their community. The table below lists the intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community. The strategies selected focus on: enhancing law enforcements capacity to address alcohol laws; educating parents about health issues and the importance of preventing underage youth from drinking alcohol; and to educate youth regarding the dangers of drinking and driving or riding with a friends who has been drinking. 71

75 CAROLINE COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Contributing factors Strategies Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Resource shortages for police officers Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws Social Availability Lack of parental supervision and monitoring of underage drinking at home Educate (parents) and advocate for specific outcomes with pre-approved materials using purchased media - only in conjunction with other evidence-based strategies. Blend with this strategy, the strategy of educating parents about issues such as local underage drinking, youth access to alcohol, effective measures to reduce youth access and adolescent brain development research regarding damage due to alcohol use and the strategy to establish rules for young adults in the family on providing alcohol to youth. Priority: Reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes involving youth ages Contributing factors Strategies Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Resource shortages for police officers Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws Low Perceived Risk Youth do not perceive danger in drinking and driving and/or riding with a driver who has been drinking. Educate and advocate for specific outcomes with pre-approved materials using purchased media - only in conjunction with other evidence-based strategies 72

76 Strategy Implementation Caroline County began implementing MSPF strategies in During their two years of implementation, 235 law enforcement patrol hours were dedicated toward compliance checks, shoulder tap operations and saturation patrols. Shoulder tap operations were discontinued in FY 15 due to staff shortages within the Sherriff s Office. Media advocacy was used to publicize the Sherriff s Offices enforcement efforts. Caroline County adopted several communication campaigns, including Be the Wall, Talk. They hear you. And Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over. A Media Specialist was hired to help plan and strategically disseminate the campaign messages. Materials were disseminated in a variety of locations, including Back to School nights, community events and health fairs. The coalition estimates that over one million impressions were made from the variety of underage drinking prevention messages. 73

77 CAROLINE COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Law Enforcement and Adjudication Resource shortages for police officers Increase annual law enforcement hours devoted to underage drinking patrols targeting ages from 0 hours in 2012 to 100 hours annually by FY 2015 Underage Drinking Surveillance FY 2011 o 0 saturation patrols o 0 hours dedicated party patrols o 11 DUI arrests in Caroline County o 11 citations issued for underage drinking FY 2012 o Zero dedicated drunk driving patrols in recent years o Zero sobriety checkpoints in at least two years Law enforcement saw a shortage of five officers due to budget cuts in the past two years Follow-Up Data Underage Drinking Surveillance Spring 2013 o 8 hours of saturation patrols FY 2014 o 118 patrol hours o 15 underage drinking citations o 5 arrests for providing alcohol to a minor FY 2015 o 109 hours of saturation patrols o 9 saturation patrols o 17 underage drinking citations o 3 DUI arrests Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change 74

78 CAROLINE COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Social Availability Lack of parental supervision and monitoring of underage drinking at home By FY 15, expose at least 500 Caroline County households (Baseline = 0) with children/young adults ages 12 to 20 with awareness and education materials as to consequences of lack of monitoring and supervision of alcohol in the home and impact of alcohol on brain development 0 were exposed to the consequences of lack of monitoring and supervisions of alcohol 2011 Youth Focus Group, (n=16) Reason for underage drinking was o Parents allow it and a lack of parental supervision 2012 Community Perception Survey, (n=16) Majority of respondents saying students can get alcohol from home and/or older friends/older siblings 68.6% said the parents actually supply alcohol to some extent 100% said parents are not monitoring the supply Follow-Up Data FY 2014: Estimated 4,000 households were reached at Back to School night, in person displays, and recipients at other events FY 2015: 55 print/social media postings countywide; 37 events dates to disseminate Be the Wall and Talk campaigns FY 2014 Be the Wall Campaign Survey, (n=115) 36% (n=41) of the survey respondents recall seeing the Be the Wall messages 2012 Youth Focus Group, (n=11) Ease in access of alcohol in the all indicated o home via parents, relatives, or older siblings No follow up data provided Change in Contributing Factor (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change 75

79 CAROLINE COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes involving youth ages Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Law Enforcement and Adjudication Resource shortages for police officers Increase law enforcement patrols with emphasis on drinking and driving from 0 (FY 12) to 100 hours annually by FY 15 Underage Drinking Surveillance FY 2011 o 0 saturation patrols o 0 hours dedicated party patrols o 11 DUI arrests in Caroline County o 11 citations issued for underage drinking FY 2012 o Zero dedicated drunk driving patrols in recent years o Zero sobriety checkpoints in at least two years. o Law enforcement saw a shortage of five officers due to budget cuts in the past two years Compliance Checks No checks recorded for baseline Follow-Up Data Underage Drinking Surveillance Spring 2013 o 8 hours of saturation patrols FY 2014 o 118 saturation patrol hours o 15 underage drinking citations o 5 arrests for providing alcohol to a minor FY 2015 o 109 hours of saturation patrols o 9 saturation patrols o 17 underage drinking citations o 3 DUI arrests Compliance Checks Spring 2013: None reported FY 2014 o 23 establishments checked Noncompliant: 5 (21.7%) Compliant: 18 (78.3%) o 3 citations for purchasing alcohol for minors FY 2015 o 29 establishments checked Noncompliant: 7 (38%) Compliant: 18 (62%) Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive Change 76

80 CAROLINE COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes involving youth ages Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Low Perceived Risk Youth do not perceive danger in drinking and driving and/or riding with a driver who has been drinking. Reduce by 20% (from 11.1% to 8.8% for Grade 10 and from 26.1% to 20.88% for Grade 12) by CY 14 the number of high school students who have driven while drinking as measured by the FY 14 Youth Risk Behavior Survey or the State Highway Safety Administration s Young Driver Survey 2007 Maryland Adolescent Survey Grade 10 o 11.1% of Grade 10 students who have driven while drinking o 35.5% of Grade 10 students who have ridden with a driver under the influence Grade 12 o 26.1% of Grade 12 students who have driven while drinking o 47.9% of Grade 12 students who have ridden with a driver under the influence No baseline data available Underage Drinking Surveillance FY 2011 o 0 saturation patrols o 0 hours dedicated party patrols o 11 DUI arrests in Caroline County o 11 citations issued for underage drinking Follow-Up Data 2013 YRBS Grade 10 o 11.7% of Grade 10 students who reported driving while drinking during the past 30 days o N/A- Grade 10 students who have ridden with a driver under the influence was not asked Grade 12 o 20.9% of Grade 12 students who reported driving while drinking during the past 30 days o N/A - Grade 12 students who have ridden with a driver under the influence was not asked Spring 2013 Young Driver Survey Administered however no reported data at the end of this reporting period Underage Drinking Surveillance Spring 2013 o 8 hours of patrols FY 2014 o 118 patrol hours o 15 underage drinking citations o 5 arrests for providing alcohol to a minor Change in Contributing Factor Grade 10: (~) No change Grade 12: (+) Positive change (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change (+) Positive change 77

81 CAROLINE COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes involving youth ages Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Low Perceived Risk (cont d) FY 2012 o Zero dedicated drunk driving patrols in recent years o Zero sobriety checkpoints in at least two years. o Law enforcement saw a shortage of five officers due to budget cuts in the past two years Follow-Up Data FY 2015 o 109 hours of saturation patrols o 9 saturation patrols o 17 underage drinking citations o 3 DUI arrests Change in Contributing Factor 78

82 Impact of Contributing Factors The overall change in the contributing factors (CFs) for Caroline County showed a mild positive trend. While there is some improvement in the contributing factors, the change from baseline to follow-up in the contributing factors of the law enforcement and social availability were both variable. The social availability s CFs provided insufficient data to assess a change in the lack of parental supervision and monitoring of underage drinking at home. The FY2015 survey was not available at the time of this evaluation which made a summary of the CFs for this intervening variable inconclusive. Similarly, in the alcohol-related crashes priority, the low perceived risk s contributing factors showed variability in their change from baseline but their overall trend is moving in a positive direction. There is a decrease in percentage in Grade 12 students and no change in Grade 10 who reported driving while drinking the past 30 days. Survey was administered but insufficient amount of data was available at the time of this reporting period. More implementation and follow-up in the coalition can help assess whether the contributing factors showing insufficient amount of data can demonstrate a meaningful change in the future. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains Caroline County was able to forge strong partnerships with the Maryland State Police and the local Sherriff s Office, which aided in the implementation of strategies pertaining to law enforcement and adjudication. One challenge was the coalition did not meet their intended number of compliance checks. The coalition set a goal to conduct at least two compliance checks per each 38 alcohol-licensed establishment, but was only able to reach 29 establishments due to resource issues. 79

83 Carroll County MSPF Community: Westminster, Carroll County Central Region MSPF Organization: Carroll County Health Department Prevention Office Coalition Name: Carroll County Coalition Against Underage Drinking Prevention Coordinator: Amy Laugelli MSPF Coordinator: Carol Mullen Local Evaluator: Erin Artigiani Needs Assessment Approval: May 18, 2012 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: November 5, 2012 Strategy Implementation Start: March 7, 2013 Carroll County is a primarily rural county in central Maryland, bordered on the east by Baltimore County, to the south by Howard and Montgomery Counties, to the west by Frederick County, and to the north by the State of Pennsylvania. The Carroll County MSPF community is the county s central region, encompassing the county seat of Westminster, a region which accounts for roughly 28% of the total county population (47,470 out of 167,134). The population demographics of Carroll County are 92.9% White, 3.2% African-American, 1.4% Asian, and 2.6% Hispanic or Latino, as of the 2010 U.S. Census. Westminster also contains two colleges (Carroll County Community College and McDaniel College) and the largest grade schools in the county. Examining data collected during the needs assessment, the coalition selected the priority of reducing underage drinking in their community. The table below lists the intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community. The strategies selected focus on: increasing enforcement at school-related events to keep intoxicated students from entering; increasing the number of compliance checks conducted at retail stores and increasing the signage discouraging underage drinking purchases within alcohol retail establishments; increasing the number of retail employees who have received responsible beverage server training; increasing the use of the TIPS Hotline for reporting disorderly houses and possible underage drinking at house parties; and educating parents on the harmful effects of underage drinking. 80

84 CARROLL COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Contributing Factors Strategies variables Retail ID issues - Lack of signage regarding Post prominent signs Availability checking IDs and the hazards of underage drinking displayed by licensed alcohol establishments Compliance to regulations and ordinances - Local retailers sell alcohol to underage youth Conduct annual compliance checks Social Availability Employees Lack of employee training on RBS Provision of alcohol to minors - Lack of supervision of minors provides opportunities to drink Lack of parental monitoring of alcohol supply in the home Parents make alcohol available in the home Establish Law enforcement led class on appropriate policies and practices for seller/licensees cited for violations Develop procedures for citizen complaints about a disorderly house and similar violations where underage drinking occurs Educate parents about local issues of underage drinking, youth access to alcohol, effect of drinking on the underage brain Low Perceived Risk Youth perception - Lack of knowledge among youth of health and legal consequences of underage drinking Educate and advocate for specific outcomes with pre-approved materials using purchased media Youth perception Youth don t expect to get caught if they show up at school events intoxicated Adopt practices to prevent students from bringing alcohol to school or school-related events 81

85 Strategy Implementation The Carroll County Coalition began implementing MSPF strategies in Their successes include enhancing compliance checks in Westminster and the surrounding communities. Prior to MSPF, compliance checks at alcohol retailers were not conducted regularly. During MSPF implementation, 256 compliance checks were conducted throughout the county. The coalition also worked to train employees on responsible beverage service. Throughout the MSPF initiative, TAMS training was provided to 86 employees at 15 different establishments. To discourage students from attending school sponsored events under the influence of alcohol, the Carroll County Public School system used breathalyzers during school events to measure BAC in students who were suspected of being under the influence of alcohol. Additionally, a TIPS line was created as a way for people to anonymously report suspected drug or alcohol parties. In total 95 calls, texts and s were made to the TIPS line, most of which were related to alcohol. The Save your Brain Challenge was developed to encourage middle school students to help in the development of prevention messages geared toward their peers. Four out of nine middle schools in Carroll County participated in the challenge, and a total of 9 challenges were held during MSPF implementation. Students who participated in the challenge were eligible to win one of several prizes available. The coalition also adopted the Parents who Host Lose the Most (PWHLTM) campaign as a way to inform parents of the risks of hosting underage drinking parties. Campaigns materials were distributed at local events and the PWHLTM logo was featured in the Prevention Office s newsletter. 82

86 CARROLL COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Retail Availability ID issues - Lack of signage regarding checking IDs and the hazards of underage drinking displayed by licensed alcohol establishments Double the number of alcohol establishments displaying signs by September 2015 Compliance to regulations and ordinances - Local retailers sell alcohol to underage youth Increase the number of licensed alcohol establishments receiving compliance checks by September 2015 Environmental Scans FY 2012 o 10 establishments displayed signage o Environmental scans showed that no restaurants and only some bars displayed signs like no sales to minors Compliance Checks (Sheriff s Office & Westminster Police) FY 2012 o Initial compliance checks indicate for 14 or 16 establishments o Approximately 3-4 establishments (25%) were noncompliant o 75% were compliant Follow-Up Data Environmental Scans FY 2014 o 42 establishments were given toolkits FY 2015 o 38 establishments were given toolkits o 9 establishments received ID guides and 41 received Be a True Friend signage toolkits Compliance Checks (Sheriff s Office & Westminster Police) FY 2013 o 35 establishments checked Noncompliant: 6 establishments Compliant: 34 establishments (82.9%) o 1 was non-compliant on both checks Spring 2014 o 53 establishments checked Noncompliant: 5 establishments Compliant: 48 establishments (90.6%) Change to Contributing Factor (+) Positive change (+) Positive change 83

87 CARROLL COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Retail Availability (Cont d) Employees - Lack of employee training on RBS Increase the number of employees participating in law enforcement led RBS training programs from 1 per retailer to 3 per retailer by September 2015 RBS/TAM Trainings Prior to implementation, approximately 1 employee was trained per establishment May 2009-Dec 2010, 146 staff employees were TAM trained Follow-Up Data FY 2015 o 94 establishments checked Noncompliant: 12 establishments Compliant: 82 establishments (87.2%) RBS/TAM Trainings Spring 2013 o 12 trainings held o 24 staff trained from 9 establishments Average of 2.4 staff trained per retailer FY 2014 o 3 trainings held o 12 staff trained from 8 establishments Average of 1.5 staff trained per retailer FY 2015 o 4 trainings held o 41 staff trained from 9 establishments Average of 4.5 staff trained per retailer Change to Contributing Factor (+) Positive change 84

88 CARROLL COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Social Availability Provision of alcohol to minors - Lack of supervision of minors provides opportunities to drink Develop and implement procedures for TIPS line expansion to increase usage by community residents by September 2015 Lack of parental monitoring of alcohol supply in the home - Parents make alcohol available in the home Increase community participation in parent education programs that address monitoring of underage access to alcohol by September Awareness Program Community Survey (n=40) 95% of youth find it easy or very easy to get alcohol from home without parental knowledge Youth said it is easy to obtain alcohol o 75% of youth said from parents o 88% of youth said from older siblings TIPS Hotline Calls No TIPS hotline was developed prior to FY Awareness Program Community Survey, (n=40) 95% of youth find it easy or very easy to get alcohol from home without parental knowledge Youth said it is easy to obtain alcohol o o 75% of youth said from parents 88% of youth said from older siblings 2012 Lions Club Parent Survey, (n=35) 86% of the parents felt that adult hosting was at least somewhat of a problem Follow-Up Data 2015 Carroll County Youth Survey, (n=184) 72% thought that it would be easy or very easy for a teen or person their age to get any kind of alcohol from home without parental knowledge 47.8% thought it was very easy for a teen their age to get alcohol in their community No follow-up data available for access from older siblings TIPS Hotline Calls FY 2013: 10 calls; 4 texts, 1 FY 2014: 13 calls; 8 texts, 0 FY 2015: 19 calls; 5 texts, 3 s 2015 Carroll County Youth Survey, (n=184) 72% thought that it would be easy or very easy for a teen or person their age to get any kind of alcohol from home without parental knowledge No follow-up data available for access from older siblings Change to Contributing Factor (+) Positive change (+) Positive change 85

89 CARROLL COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Low Perceived Risk Youth perception - Lack of knowledge among youth of health and legal consequences of underage drinking Convene youth coalition to develop and market youth underage drinking prevention web page and other preapproved materials by September Speak-Out Teen Forum Community Survey, (n=60) 83% did not believe alcohol can be more harmful if you begin drinking at an early age No baseline data available Follow-Up Data 2015 Carroll County Youth Survey, (n=184) 53% believe that it is OK for teens or people their age to have an alcoholic drink 53.5% of youth said there was lot of risk of harm from drinking 1 or 2 drink of alcohol every day 2015 Carroll County Youth Survey, (n=184) 77.3% - Youth are aware of policies/rules at their school/college regarding underage drinking 53.9% - Youth are aware of anyone at their school/college who has been penalized as a result of underage drinking 70% - Youth who agreed that there are clear rules about what they can and cannot do when they are around other people who are drinking Change to Contributing Factor (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change 86

90 CARROLL COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Youth perception Youth don t expect to get caught if they show up at school events intoxicated Increase availability and use of breathalyzers at school events by September 2015 Anecdotal Breathalyzer Results 40 youth showed up intoxicated to the Westminster High Junior Prom in May 2012 No breathalyzers were used at school events before FY 2014 No baseline data available Follow-Up Data Breathalyzer results at school events FY 2014 o 9 schools used breathalyzers o 11 tested positive for alcohol BAL >0.02 FY 2015 o 2 High schools used breathalyzers o 8 students tested positive for BAL o Each offense was a suspension, one was a criminal citation 2015 Carroll County Youth Survey, (n=184) 77.3% - are aware of policies/rules at their school/college regarding underage drinking 53.9% - are aware of anyone at their school/college who has been penalized as a result of underage drinking Change to Contributing Factor (+) Positive Change 87

91 Impact of Contributing Factors The general trend for Carroll County Coalition s contributing factors (CFs) is a moderately positive change. An insufficient amount of baseline data for the low perceived risk s CFs was provided to assess whether the knowledge of youth perception of legal and health consequences of underage drinking has changed. Positive change is indicated in increasing the availability and use of breathalyzer tests in youth; however again, insufficient amount of data was provided at this time to determine if there was a notable change in the youth perception. Positive changes have been assessed in both the retail and social availability variables. Improvement was noted in the compliance by licensed alcohol establishments to alcohol regulations and training their employees on RBS/TAM programs since FY Additionally, more alcohol establishments participated in Be a True Friend signage toolkit to bring awareness of the hazards of underage drinking. Concurrently, in social availability s CFs, youth awareness of easy access to alcohol at home without parental knowledge decreased from 95% in FY 2012 to 72% in FY 2015 which showed some improvement in youth perception of ease of access. No follow-up data was provided to assess specifically the various age groups that provide underage youth alcohol. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains Since the inception of MSPF, the Prevention Office has formed a strong coalition and has been very active within the community. The coalition meetings were well attended by a variety of stake-holders. Strong relationships have been formed with the Sherriff s Office, McDaniel College and other community organizations, which has proven instrumental throughout the MSPF process. Additionally, in the summer of 2015, SAMHSA contacted Carroll County s prevention office asking to highlight the work of the coalition. The Prevention and MSPF Coordinators were interviewed by SAMHSA as part of the feature. 88

92 Cecil County MSPF Community: Cecil County MSPF Organization: Project Crossroad Coalition Name: Cecil County MSPF Community Coalition Prevention Coordinator: Jennifer Padgett MSPF Coordinator: Step Mika Local Evaluator: Tim Kerns (April 2013 present) Needs Assessment Approval: August 13, 2012 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: November 5, 2012 Strategy Implementation Start: January 25, 2013 Cecil County is located in northeastern Maryland, bordered in the north by the State of Pennsylvania, to the east by the State of Delaware, to the west by Harford County and to the south by Kent County. The county is physically divided into two land masses by the Chesapeake Bay and the Delaware Canal. There are eight incorporated towns in the county and the MSPF community selected is the entire county. The population of Cecil County is 101,108 based on the 2010 U.S. Census, with 25% of the population under the age of 18 and 7% being 15 to 19 years old. The county is almost 90% White, 6.2% African-American, and 3.4% Hispanic. Examining data collected in the needs assessment, the coalition selected the priorities of reducing underage drinking and reducing alcohol related crashes among year olds in their community. The table below lists the intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community. The strategies selected focus on: increasing the number of compliance checks conducted at retail stores; increasing law enforcement saturation patrols during events where underage drinking is common, such as homecoming and prom; and posting media messages on billboards to discourage drinking and driving. 89

93 CECIL COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Contributing Factors Strategies variables Retail Availability Increase compliance checks Sales to Minors without Checking ID (Underage Buying/Serving of Alcohol in Retail Stores & Establishments. General Youth Alcohol Use Media Messaging using Billboards CECIL COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes involving youth ages Contributing Factors Strategies variables Law Enforcement & Adjudication Underage drinking and driving Implement saturation patrols during targeted dates such as homecoming, football games, and prom Media Messaging using Billboards: Discourage Drinking and Driving Insufficient law enforcement resources Implement saturation patrols during targeted dates such as homecoming, football games, and prom Media Messaging using Billboards: Discourage Drinking and Driving 90

94 Strategy Implementation Cecil County s coalition began implementing strategies in Citing a lack of resources dedicated toward compliance checks, Cecil County s MSPF team contracted with the Liquor Board to increase routine compliance checks. During three years of implantation, over 600 compliance checks were conducted at liquor retail stores and establishments. Overall, about 90% of liquor retail stores were found to be compliant. To increase the perception of risk among youth regarding the lack of consequences associated with drinking and driving, MSPF funding was allocated to law enforcement to conduct saturation patrols. In total, 121 saturation patrols were conducted, resulting in numerous citations for adults and persons under 21 years old. Three billboard design contests were held that encouraged Cecil County youth to submit drawings featuring underage drinking prevention messages. The MSPF coalition selected the winners of the contests and the winning designs were featured on billboards alongside the most populated roads in the county. 91

95 CECIL COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use variables Retail Availability Contributing Factors/Objectives Sales to Minors without Checking ID (Underage Buying/Serving of Alcohol in Retail Stores & Establishments. Increase the number of compliance checks to account for two checks for each licensed agency per year and measure the effectiveness of the campaign on the awareness of underage drinking among the staff of licensed liquor establishment (Increase compliance checks by 15% from 95 to 110 checks by June 30, 2013) Baseline Data Compliance Checks (Liquor Board data) Total of 160 liquor establishments CY 2011 o 95 compliance check conducted o Noncompliant: 21 checks o Compliant: 78% of checks CY 2012 o 95 compliance checks conducted, (n=68 establishments) o Noncompliant: 30 (44%) of establishments Environmental Scan CY 2012 o 80% of bars had happy hours o 100% of retail stores had sales on alcohol o 150 liquor licenses granted in county o 1 out of 20 sold alcohol to someone under age 21 Follow-Up Data Compliance Checks (Liquor Board & MSP data) CY 2013 o 200 compliance checks conducted CY 2014 o 238 compliance checks conducted o Noncompliant: 21 checks o Compliant: 217(91.2%) checks CY 2015 o 190 compliance checks conducted o Each licensed establishment was checked twice o Noncompliant: 19 checks o Compliant: 171 (90%) checks Changes in Contributing Factor (+) Positive Change 92

96 CECIL COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes involving youth ages variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Contributing Factors/Objectives Insufficient law enforcement resources to conduct saturation and party patrols. Lack of these resources feeds the perception that youth can drink, drive, and not have any consequences Increase law enforcement saturation patrols using all police agencies within the county (per agency for five agencies Maryland State Police, Elkton PD, Perryville PD, Cecil County Sheriff s Office and Northeast PD) Reduce DUI arrests by 5% from 2013 numbers Baseline Data Underage Drinking Surveillance/ Saturation Patrols CY 2011 o 5 parties raided by CC Sherriff s Office Prosecutor Interview Less than 1 DWI case per month in Juvenile Court Cecil County Police CY 2013 o 365 DUI arrests in first 6 months Follow-Up Data Underage Drinking Surveillance/ Saturation Patrols CY 2014 o 49 saturation patrols conducted o 14 underage drinking citations issued o 82 DUIs (under age of 21) July - Dec 2014 o 4 saturation patrols o 46 citations issued 1 underage drinking citation 6 DUIs 3 criminal arrests made CY2015 o 285 hours of saturation patrol o 270 traffic stops resulting in citations/ warning/equipment repair o 73 juvenile contacts or arrests made by participating officers Underage Drinking Surveillance/ Saturation Patrols CY 2014 o 49 saturation patrols conducted o 82 DUIs(under age of 21) July - Dec 2014 o 4 saturation patrols o 6 impaired driving arrests CY2015 No data provided Changes in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change (~) No change 93

97 CECIL COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes involving youth ages variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication (Cont d) Contributing Factors/Objectives Create messaging to increase public awareness of law enforcement s campaign and reduce the incidence of impaired driving Baseline Data CY 2011 Youth Perception Survey, (n=41) 38.5% youth think community is effective at enforcing laws against driving after drinking Follow-Up Data Changes in Contributing Factor No comparable data available (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change 94

98 Impact of Contributing Factors Cecil County s implementation of its contributing factors (CFs) showed a moderately positive trend. Improvement in compliance checks conducted by law enforcement and passing rate of compliance checks by licensed establishments were observed to address sales of alcohol to minors. Concurrently, law enforcement and adjudication s CFs saw minor improvement. Increase resources were dedicated (i.e. number of hours of patrol and number of saturation patrols conducted) to underage drinking and surveillance. However, the intervening variable (law enforcement and adjudication) observed no change in the number of DUIs reported by law enforcements and insufficient amount of data to assess whether there was an increased public awareness of law enforcement activity to address underage drinking and impaired driving Continued follow-up is needed to assess for sustained positive outcomes in Cecil County s continued implementation of underage and binge drinking prevention efforts under the Partnership for Success (PFS) grant. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains Cecil County formed a strong partnership with law enforcement and the Liquor Board which proved critical in their successful implementation. Cecil County is one of ten jurisdictions in Maryland that is eligible to receive funding through the Partnership for Success grant to continue underage drinking prevention activities. 95

99 Charles County MSPF Community: Charles County MSPF Organization: Charles County Department of Health Coalition Name: Charles County Substance Abuse Advisory Coalition Prevention Coordinator: Allen Evans MSPF Coordinator: Linda Smith Local Evaluator: Amber Starn Needs Assessment Approval: March 9, 2012 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: October 8, 2012 Strategy Implementation Start: November 6, 2012 Charles county is located in Southern Maryland, bordered by Prince George s County and Washington, DC to the north, the Patuxent River, Calvert County, and St. Mary s to the east, and the Potomac River and the State of Virginia to the south and west. The Charles County MSPF Coalition selected the entire county as the MSPF community. The county population is 146,551 as of the 2010 Census, with 14% of the population between the ages of 16 and 25. The racial make-up of the community is 51% White, 41.6% African-American, 3.1% Asian and 4.5% Hispanic. However, the enrollment of Charles County Public Schools shows a picture of the demographic shift that has occurred in the county since the 2000 census. There are 26,778 students in the school system, with 52% being African-American, 33.7% White, 5.3% multi-racial, 5.3% Hispanic, and 3.1% Asian. Additionally, 6.4% of the entire county is listed as living below the poverty line, but 29% of students in the school system qualify for free or reducedcost lunches. Examining data collected in the needs Assessment, the coalition selected the priorities of both reducing underage drinking and reducing binge drinking in their community. The table below lists the intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community. The strategies selected focus on: increase law enforcement activities such as party patrols and tips hotlines for reporting complaints to address underage drinking concerns; implementing an educational program on social hosting consequences and concerns; promoting the prosecution and adjudication of alcohol violations within the county s Teen Court; increasing capacity and implementing new protocols on college campuses to address binge drinking concerns among college age youth and young adults. 96

100 CHARLES COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Contributing Factors Strategies Variables Social Availability Parents provide location for teen parties - alcohol not monitored Conduct training for law enforcement and community leaders to more effectively utilize party patrols as a tool to address underage drinking Social and Community Norms Young adults or friends provide alcohol to underage youth High use of alcohol by youth during celebrations: homecoming, prom, graduation, and sports victories Teens think drinking is cool College students believe drinking is central to social life Implement a Parents Who Host Lose the Most- Don t Be a Party to Teenage Drinking Public Information Campaign Public Information Conduct training for law enforcement and community leaders to more effectively utilize party patrols as a tool to address underage drinking Create a similar campaign to Parents Who Host using tag lines Don t be a Party to Underage Drinking and Buzzkill. Conduct training for law enforcement and community leaders to more effectively utilize party patrols as a tool to address underage drinking Research the feasibility of developing a tip or hot line for citizens complaints about a disorderly house by negotiating with the Crime Solvers to integrate into the current system. Media campaign Promote the prosecution and adjudication with sanctions of alcohol law violations within Teen Court Build capacity at the college to develop a more comprehensive plan that targets college students years old Alcohol warning signs - Incorporate the use of the College Drinker s Check-up 97

101 CHARLES COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of young adults, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Contributing Factors Strategies Variables Social and Community Norms College students believe drinking is central to social life Build capacity at the college to develop a more comprehensive plan that targets college students years old Alcohol warning signs - Incorporate the use of the College Drinker s Check-up (CDCU) Low Perceived Risk College students perceive little disapproval by friends toward binge drinking on occasion Young adults have a low perceived risk to binge drinking Build capacity at the college to develop a more comprehensive plan that targets college students years old Alcohol warning signs - Incorporate the use of the newly NREPP approved College Drinker s Check-up (CDCU) Revise information in campus alcohol policy to include more information about binge drinking Alcohol warning signs - Incorporate the use of the newly NREPP approved College Drinker s Check-up Strategy Implementation Charles County s coalition began implementing MSPF strategies in Since beginning implementation, Charles County s coalition has forged a strong partnership with law enforcement and the College of Southern Maryland (CSM). The coalition has adopted various media campaigns, including Parents who Host Lose the Most, Talk. They Hear You. and Buzzkill to reach the public. Previously, compliance checks were funded through another source in the county, and the funding was set to run out in FY 15. Through MSPF, the coalition was able to continue conducting compliance checks and during FY 15, 123 compliance checks were conducted. Twentyfive establishments were found to be out of compliance and received education on local laws. MSPF resources were also allocated for underage drinking surveillance and party patrols. Approximately 50 party patrols were conducted, resulting in 86 underage drinking citations. 98

102 CHARLES COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Social Availability Parents provide location for teen parties - alcohol not monitored Increase the number of parents who are aware of the consequences of hosting underage drinking parties through 4 Parents Who Host Lose the Most campaigns opportunities Young adults or friends provide alcohol to underage youth Reduce the number of teens reporting that they get their alcohol supply from their friends and/or older siblings from 80% to 70% Pinefield Community Survey, (n=66) 2/3 (66.7%) felt that parents occasionally provide alcohol for their kids parties March 2011 Focus Groups Parents reported alcohol supplies in the home were not monitored TEG Alcohol Survey, (n=20) 80% respondents get alcohol from friends and siblings March 2011 Focus Groups Parents felt friends/siblings over legal age buy it Follow-Up Data Spring 2015 Charles County Parent Survey, (n=94) How often do you think parents provide alcohol for their kids? (n=22) o 27.3% said Occasionally o 31.8% said Rarely 47% - of parents said they are less likely to provide alcohol to minors as a result of PWHLTM Do you think the PWHLTM campaign would keep parents from hosting parties where alcohol is available or served? (n=22) o 23% said Yes o 41% said Maybe Media Campaign Survey Parents who reported that they have seen PHWLTM campaign o 2013: 19% o 2014: 13% o 2015: 23% TEG Alcohol Survey 20% respondents get alcohol from friends and older siblings 60% of the students reported that they had not consumed alcohol in the past month Changes in Contributing Factor (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change (+) Positive change 99

103 CHARLES COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Social Availability (Cont d) High use of alcohol by youth during celebrations: homecoming, prom, graduation, and sports victories Increase the number of underage drinking citations issued by the Charles County Sheriff s Office from 23 to 38 by June 2016 Underage Drinking Surveillance (Charles County Sheriff s Office) FY 2011: 23 underage drinking citations issued Follow-Up Data Underage Drinking Surveillance (Charles County Sheriff s Office & La Plata Police) FY 2012 o 9 underage drinking citations FY 2013 o 8 underage drinking citations FY 2014 o 26 party patrols o 22 underage drinking citations FY 2015 o 21 party patrols o 47 underage citations o 39 adult alcohol citations Changes in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change Compliance Checks No compliances checks reported before FY 2014 Compliance Checks FY 2014 o 41 checks conducted o Noncompliant: 7 checks (14%) o Compliant: 34 checks (86%) FY 2015 o 123 checks conducted o Noncompliant: 25 checks o Compliant: 98 checks (80%) o 25 establishments received education on local laws 100

104 CHARLES COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Social and Community Norms Teens think drinking is cool Reduce the perception of parent approval of drinking among 12 th graders from 52.2% to 51.2% by June Maryland Adolescent Survey Students reported their parents would be OK with them drinking any form of alcohol o 52.2% of 12 th graders o 59.6% of 10 th graders Follow-Up Data 2013 YRBS Students reported their parents would be OK with them drinking any form of alcohol at least once or twice a month o 39% of 12 th graders Changes in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change 101

105 CHARLES COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of young adults, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Social and Community Norms College students believe drinking is central to social life Reduce the notion among college age students that drinking is central to the college experience by 3% from 62.4% to 60.5% for males and from 51.6% to 50.1% for females 2010 CSM CORE Alcohol and Drug Survey, (n=227 La Plata & n=58- Waldorf) Students who saw drinking is central to the social life o Male 62.4% of La Plata students 65.5% of Waldorf students o Female - 50% of La Plata/ Waldorf Students who reported binge drinking in the previous 2 weeks o 27.1% of La Plata students o 37.9% of Waldorf 2012 CSM Perception Survey,(n=27) 30% of those surveyed felt that quite a lot of people in the community think that binge drinking is normal or expected 41% felt that a great deal of teens and young adults think that binge drinking is cool 22% felt that quite a lot feel that it is cool Follow-Up Data 2014 CSM CORE Alcohol and Drug Survey (n= 349) Waldorf Center is no longer operational Students who reported drinking is central to their social life o Male % of La Plata students o Female % of La Plata students Students who reported binge drinking in the past 30 days 25.3% of La Plata students No comparable data available Changes in Contributing Factor (+) Positive Change 102

106 CHARLES COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of young adults, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Social and Community Norms (Cont d) College students perceive little disapproval by friends toward binge drinking on occasion Reduce the percentage of CSM CORE survey participants who report peer pressure to drinking from 30.8% to 30.2% of La Plata students 2010 CORE Alcohol and Drug Survey, (n=227 - La Plata & n=58 - Waldorf) Students who experienced peer pressure to drink or use drugs in the past 30 days o 30.8% of La Plata students o 32.7% of Waldorf Students who felt their friends would disapprove if they drank 4-5 drinks every day o 87.4% of La Plata students o 87.7% of Waldorf Their friends would disapprove of them drinking 5+ drinks in 1 sitting o 69.8% of La Plata students o 64.3% of Waldorf PCS respondents who felt that their community views binge drinking by as wrong or very wrong o 72%; adults o 72%; yo o 77%; yo Follow-Up Data 2014 CSM CORE Alcohol and Drug Survey (n=349) Students who experienced peer pressure to drink or use drugs in the past 30 days o 24.1% of La Plata Students N/A This question was not asked in the follow-up 2014 survey N/A This question was not asked in the follow-up 2014 survey N/A This question was not asked in the follow-up 2014 survey Changes in Contributing Factor (+) Positive Change 103

107 CHARLES COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of young adults, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Low Perceived Risk Young adults have a low perceived risk to binge drinking Increase the percentage of CSM college students who perceive great risk in taking five or more drinks in one sitting from 56.5% to 54.8% of La Plata students 2010 CSM CORE Alcohol and Drug Survey, (n=227 - La Plata & n=58 - Waldorf) Students who felt that there was great risk in having 5 or more drinks in one sitting o 56.5% of La Plata students o 50% of Waldorf students 2012 CSM Perception Survey, (n=27) 30% felt that a great deal of teens and young adults perceive they are unlikely to be arrested or prosecuted for drinking and driving Follow-Up Data 2014 CSM CORE Alcohol and Drug Survey (n=349) Students who felt that there was great risk in having 5 or more drinks in one sitting o 59.4% of La Plata students No pertinent follow-up data available to report Changes in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change 35% felt that local laws are enforced 23% felt that quite a lot of local laws are not enforced 30% felt that existing laws for binge drinking are weak 104

108 Impact of Contributing Factors The overall trend of the contributing factors (CFs) associated with this priority shows an overall moderately overall positive trend. In the social availability variable, a significant reduction from 80% to 20% in youth respondents who indicated they obtain their alcohol from friends or older siblings. Additionally, to address the high use of alcohol by youth during celebrations, law enforcement activity increased through more underage drinking surveillance (number of party patrols and underage drinking citations) as well as conducting more compliance checks of licensed establishments each fiscal year. Compliance rates have improved compared to baseline from no checks done to 123 checks conducted with an 80% compliance rate. Insufficient amount of data was provided to assess parental awareness of the consequences of hosting underage drinking parties further follow-up is needed to assess for possible meaningful results. Social and Community Norms CFs also displayed positive change. Youth perception of believing drinking is central to social life reduced in both male and female La Plata students from 62.4% and 50% to 54.7% and 48.1%, respectively. Youth perception of the risk of binge drinking also increased from 56.5% to 59.4% in La Plata students who were asked if those who have five or more drinks in one sitting are at a greater risk. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains Charles County experienced challenges with implementing the program MyStudentBody at the CSM. Participation was lower than anticipated and the intended audience was not reached, in part because students could take the program voluntarily. After reviewing participation in MyStudentBody, CSM changed the policy from volunteer based to require students who received a sanction take the course as a disciplinary action. 105

109 Dorchester County MSPF Community: Dorchester County MSPF Organization: Dorchester Partnership for Children and Families Coalition Name: Dorchester County Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol Prevention Coordinator: Ervina Johnson MSPF Coordinator: Ervina Johnson Local Evaluator: Linda Walls Needs Assessment Approval: June 4, 2012 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: April 2, 2013 Strategy Implementation Start: June 27, 2013 The entire county is the MSPF community selected by the Dorchester County MSPF Coalition. The county is boarded on the south and west by the Chesapeake Bay, to the north by Caroline and Talbot counties, to the east by Wicomico County and the State of Delaware. The county is primarily rural and supports a thriving maritime and agricultural lifestyle. The county population is 32,618 according to the 2010 U.S. Census, with 66% being non-hispanic white, 28% African-American, 4% Hispanic, and 2% from other ethnic backgrounds. At least 17.2% of the population is between the ages of 5 and 19. Examining data collected in the needs assessment, the coalition selected the priority of reducing underage drinking in their community. The table below lists the intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community. The strategies selected focus on: increasing the number of compliance checks conducted at retail stores; increasing the number of alcohol retail establishment employees who have received responsible beverage server training; enhance law enforcements ability to enforce alcohol laws, including establishing party patrol procedures; and implementing a public education media campaign promoting underage drinking prevention messages. 106

110 DORCHESTER COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Contributing Factors Strategies Variables Retail availability Social availability Retailers are not 100 % compliant with checking identification of minors Lack of monitoring at community events/seasonal events where alcohol is served Provision of alcohol to minors/lack of parental monitoring Conduct compliance checks and issue citations to retailers selling alcohol to minors. Provide (evidence-based) alcohol awareness training for retail establishments. Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws (including establishing procedures for party patrols, targeting open parties in residential settings that are unlicensed taverns or other outdoor areas with a history of attracting underage drinking). Inventory existing community venues where alcohol is available and not closely monitored including events without a one-day license or where the arm band ordinance does not apply. Implement a public information/media campaign in conjunction with other evidence based strategies. Strategy Implementation Dorchester County s Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol Coalition (CMCA) began implementation in FY 14 and focused their efforts on reducing retail and social availability. Five rounds of compliance checks were conducted at liquor retail establishments. Throughout implementation, a total of 36 out of 66 establishments in the county were checked, with 29 retailers being found compliant. During FY 14, 71.5 hours were dedicated toward underage drinking surveillance patrols, which resulted in 71 alcohol citations being issued. To raise awareness among adults about underage drinking, CMCA used social media, radio, PSAs and printed advertisements to spread the messages from the Be the Parent on the Scene campaign. Additionally, the Liquor Board agreed to add a policy to one-day alcohol licensees requiring them to display We ID- must be 21 years old to purchase signs during events. In FY 14, 78 one day license events were held. 107

111 DORCHESTER COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Retail Availability Retailers are not 100 % compliant with checking identification of minors Increase to 100% (from 35% or 23 of 66 establishments in 2012) the percentage of retail outlets in Dorchester County checked for compliance regarding selling alcohol to minors by the end of CY 2014 Increase from 0% to 30% (from 0 of 68 in 2012 to 23of 68 in 2015), the number of licensed alcohol outlets that have participated in server training Compliance Checks (Dorchester County Liquor Board) FY 2012 o 23 establishments of 66 (35%) received compliance checks o At recheck, 9 establishments out of 68 (13%) received compliance checks RBS Training RBS Server training is required for every licensed holder, but is optional for servers on duty 0% of the license holders have trained servers Follow-Up Data Compliance Checks (Dorchester County Liquor Board) FY 2014 o 5 rounds of checks (38 hours) 36 establishments out of 66 checked (54.5%) o Noncompliant: 7 establishments o Compliant: 29 checks (80.5%) FY 2015: o None reported RBS Training FY 2014 o None reported FY 2015 o 1 RBS training o 19 staff trained Policy Change Dec 2014 Liquor Board has agreed to add a policy to 1-day licenses stipulating that We ID must be 21 years old to purchase sign(s) clearly visibly will be posted for the duration of the event Change in Contributing Factor (~) No change 108

112 DORCHESTER COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Social Availability Lack of monitoring at community events/seasonal events where alcohol is served Increase the number of patrols targeting community events and seasonal recreation from 0 to five by the close of CY 2014 Increase party patrol hours from 0 to 100 annually targeting open parties in residential settings or outdoor areas with a history of attracting underage drinking Underage Drinking Surveillance/Patrols (Maryland Department of Natural Resources Police) CY 2012: 0 hours of law enforcement support of underage alcohol access at certain community events where alcohol is served (but not sold) and where seasonal activities such as boating, hunting, or outdoor parties are traditionally coupled with alcohol Follow-Up Data Underage Drinking Surveillance/Patrols (Maryland Department of Natural Resources Police) FY 2014 o 17 patrols (71.5hours) o 71 alcohol citations issued FY 2015 o None collected for this reporting period One Day License Events (Dorchester County Liquor Board) FY 2014 o 78 events o 18 applicants Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change (~) No change 109

113 DORCHESTER COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Social Availability (Cont d) Provision of alcohol to minors/lack of parental monitoring Expose at least 25% of parent households with children ages (from 0 to 625 households) of the targeted age group (ages 12-20) with social hosting liability and alcohol use consequences messages by FY 2014 Youth focus groups 2011 (n=18); 2012 (n=16) Youth reported easy access to alcohol at home due to lack of supervision by parents, parent permission to drink at home, or parents /older siblings / relatives supplying alcohol to youth Zero households of the target age group (ages 12-20) with social hosting campaigns were exposed Follow-Up Data No comparable data available; strategy not implemented Change in Contributing Factor (~) No change 110

114 Impact of Contributing Factors Dorchester County s contributing factors (CFs) showed no change in its overall trend. While there was no overall change in CFs, the contributing factors within retail availability show progress with increased underage drinking surveillance conducted by Dorchester County law enforcement. Compliance checks and RBS training showed minor improvements since fiscal year 2012; but insufficient data or inconsistent reporting made it difficult to fully assess whether the change of the contributing factor is meaningful. Concomitantly, social availability s contributing factor also targeted increasing the number of patrol hours from baseline to address underage drinking. Similarly to retail availability, there is lack of follow-up data to assess the exposure of parents about the risk of hosting underage drinking parties. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains Dorchester County experienced a shift in MSPF administration during implementation, with responsibilities moving from the Local Management Board to the Health Department. This shift resulted in a vacancy in the MSPF Coordinator position. 111

115 Frederick County MSPF Community: City of Frederick MSPF Organization: Asian American Center of Frederick Coalition Name: Alcohol Prevention Initiative Prevention Coordinator: Todd Crumm and Laura LaMotte MSPF Coordinator: Elizabeth Chung Local Evaluator: Linda Hardman Needs Assessment Approval: March 13, 2013 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: August 9, 2013 Strategy Implementation Start: August 25, 2013 Frederick County is located in Western Maryland, bordered to the east by Howard and Carroll Counties, to the west by Washington County, to the north by the State of Pennsylvania, and to the south by Montgomery County and the State of Virginia. The total county population is 233,385 as of the 2010 U.S. Census. The MSPF community selected is the county seat, the city of Frederick. It is defined by four zip codes: 21701, 21702, 21703, and The total population of Frederick City is 85,000 including 12,583 young adults between the ages of 10 and 24 years old, with 63.8% being White, 18.6% African- American, 5.8% Asian, 7.2% Hispanic, and 4.6% of other ethnicity. There are two colleges (Hood College and Frederick Community College) and three high schools in the city. Examining data collected in the needs assessment, the coalition selected the priority of reducing underage drinking in their community. The table below lists the intervening variables, and contributing factors that were selected by the community. The strategies selected focus on enhancing law enforcement and adjudication practices, increasing community knowledge through media campaigns and outreach, increasing compliance checks and increasing the number of on-staff trained in RBS. 112

116 FREDERICK COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Contributing Factors Strategies Variables Social Availability Low Perceived Risk Provision of alcohol to minorsyouth report getting alcohol from older friends and friends homes Lack of awareness among adults that there are consequences for providing alcohol to minors Low perceived risk among youth of physical and other harm from alcohol use Parents Who Host Lose The Most Campaign Media advocacy to include press releases and other media formats to include messaging regarding access to alcohol, promotion of underage party tip hotline Parents Workshops Educate parents about issues related to local underage drinking, youth access to alcohol, effective measures to reduce access, and adolescent brain development research Parents Who Host Lose The Most Campaign Parents Workshops Educate parents about issues related to local underage drinking, youth access to alcohol, effective measures to reduce access, and adolescent brain development research Parents Who Host Lose The Most Campaign Parent Workshops - Educate parents about issues related to local underage drinking, youth access to alcohol, effective measures to reduce access, and adolescent brain development research Law Enforcement and Adjudication Low perception of consequences of alcohol use (arrest, suspension, jail) Lack of law enforcement resources Lack of consistent compliance checks Parents Who Host Lose The Most Campaign Media education and advocacy campaign Start to investigate and determine adjudication of compliance checks Start to investigate and determine adjudication of liquor board violations Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws. Including increased police manpower dedicated to underage drinking efforts and saturation patrols. Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws. Including increased police manpower dedicated to underage drinking efforts and saturation patrols. Conduct alcohol age compliance checks and issue citations to retailers selling alcohol to youth Establish law enforcement led class on appropriate policies and practices for sellers /licensees cited for violations 113

117 Strategy Implementation Frederick County s Alcohol Prevention Initiative coalition (API) began implementing MSPF strategies in FY 14. MSPF funding helped enhance law enforcement capacity to address alcohol laws. Throughout MSPF implementation, hours were dedicated by law enforcement to conduct saturation and party patrols. Frederick County s Liquor Board collaborated with local law enforcement to conduct 230 compliance checks in FY 14 & 15. Additionally, the Liquor Board and Frederick City police also collaborated to conduct merchant trainings for alcohol retailers to educate retailers on local regulations and how to prevent sales to individuals under 21 years old. These trainings were well received by attendees. The API coalition also adopted the Parents who Host Lost the Most (PWHLTM) campaign to educate parents on the issues related to local underage drinking. Billboards and PSAs were used to spread the messages of the campaign. 114

118 FREDERICK COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Social Availability Provision of alcohol to minorsyouth report getting alcohol from older friends and friends homes Reduce number of youth who report usually easy or no problem to obtain alcoholic beverages by 2% from 39% in 2012 to 37% in 2014 as measured by the FC-API Youth Survey 2012 API Youth Survey, (n=1016) Usually easy or no problem to obtain alcoholic beverages o 39% of youth 2012 API Youth Survey, (n=1016) First alcoholic drink under 21 years old o 45% of youth First alcoholic drink under years old o 22% of youth Locations where underage drinkers obtain alcohol o 40% : Friend s home o 48% : Private parties o 58% : Older friends o 33% : Home Follow-Up Data 2015 API Youth Survey, (n=500) Usually easy or no problem to obtain alcoholic beverages o Youth 17 & under: 35% o Youth 18 & older: 64% 2015 API Youth Survey, (n=500) First drink under age of 21 o 26% : Youth ages 17 yo & under o 71% : Youth ages 18 & over First drink between ages years old o 15% : Youth 17 & under o 31% : Youth 18 and over Locations where underage drinkers obtain alcohol o Youth 17 & under 57% : Friend s Home 40% : Private Parties 56% : Older Friends 54% : Home o Youth 18 & Older 58% : Friend s Home Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change < 17yo: (-) Negative change >18yo: (+) Positive change: < 17yo (-) Negative change >18yo: 115

119 FREDERICK COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Social Availability (Cont d) Lack of awareness among adults that there are consequences for providing alcohol to minors By June 30, 2015, increase the number of media contacts, number of posters visible in local alcohol retail establishments and number of public presentations targeted to educate the public of the consequences for provision of alcohol to minors from baseline of zero in 2012 to # Baseline = 0 Follow-Up Data 42% : Private Parties 76% : Older Friends 54% : Home 2015 API Parent Survey 46% of Parents surveyed (n= 154), reported seeing or hearing API media campaign messages 50% (n= 77) responded that they talked to their child after seeing or hearing message about underage drinking 51 % (n=?)parents surveyed reported moderate to great risk of getting arrested for providing alcohol to minors Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change 116

120 FREDERICK COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Low Perceived Risk Low perceived risk among youth of physical and other harm from alcohol use Increase the percentage of youth who report a risk of alcohol to their overall health and achievement of life goals by 2% from 56% in 2012 to 58% in 2014 as measured by the FC-API Youth Survey 2012 FC-API Youth Survey, (n=1016) How dangerous of a risk is alcohol in your opinion, to your overall health and achievement of life goals? o 56% of youth reported risk How dangerous of a risk are people of harming themselves (physically or in other ways) if they have 5 or more drinks (binge drink) of an alcoholic beverage 1-2 times a week? o 60% of youth reported moderate to great risk o 40% of youth reported they believe there was no risk, slight risk or don t know when asked Follow-Up Data 2015 FC- API Youth Survey, (n=500) How dangerous of a risk is alcohol in your opinion, to your overall health and achievement of life goals? o 63% of youth 17 & under reported moderate to great risk How dangerous of a risk are people of harming themselves (physically or in other ways) if they have 1 or 2 drinks of alcohol nearly every day? o 64% Youth 17 & under reported moderate to great risk o 36% of Youth 17& under reported no risk, slight risk, or don t know when asked Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change 117

121 FREDERICK COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Low Perceived Risk (Cont d) Low perception of consequences of alcohol use (arrest, suspension, jail) By June 30, 2015, decrease the percentage of youth who report no risk or slight risk of likelihood that a youth under age 21 is arrested for alcohol use by 2 percentage points from 19% in 2012 to 17% as measured by the FC-API Youth Survey 2012 FC- API Youth Survey, (n=1016) 62% of youth who did not know legal risks (i.e. arrest) of underage alcohol use How likely is it that a youth under age 21 arrested for alcohol use? o 19% of youth report no risk or slight risk Follow-Up Data 2015 FC-API Youth Survey n=126 (ages 17 & under); n=374 (ages 18 & older) 26% of youth who did not know legal risks (i.e. arrest) of underage alcohol use How likely is it that a youth under age 21 arrested for alcohol use? o Youth 17 & under No risk: 2.38% Moderate risk: 24.6% Great risk: 23.18% o Youth 18 & older No risk: 3.21% Moderate risk: 31.28% Great risk: 18.18% Change in Contributin g Factor (+) Positive change 118

122 FREDERICK COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Law Enforcement and Adjudication Lack of law enforcement resources By June 30, 2015, increase law enforcement saturation and party patrol operations from 2 in FY2014 to 4 operations in FY2015; increase the number of man hours dedicated to underage drinking from baseline of 0 hours in 2012 to 340 man-hours in total Saturation/Party Patrols dedicated to underage drinking Zero Saturation or Party Patrol operations and hours dedicated before FY 2012 Targeted enforcement efforts are unfunded Alcohol Violations In , around 55% alcohol related violations were issued by Frederick Police department July 2010 to June 2011, 58% of juvenile service referrals for alcohol violations were reported in the jurisdiction Follow-Up Data Saturation/Party Patrols dedicated to underage drinking FY 2014 o o 3 Patrols (163 total hours) 5 Traffic citations; 5 warnings to vehicles FY 2015 o 4 Patrols (124.5 total hours) o 13 Alcohol-related violations o 33 Traffic citations, 2 DUI arrests o 11 Field sobriety tests TIPS Hotline FY 2015: 21 TIPS calls received Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change 119

123 FREDERICK COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Law Enforcement and Adjudication (Cont d) Lack of consistent compliance checks By June 30, 2015, increase the number of alcohol retail enforcement checks conducted from 2 in FY 2014 to 3 by law enforcement agencies Compliance Checks 158 (51%) alcohol establishments are located within the city Spring Only one compliance check reported Follow-Up Data Compliance Checks FY 2014 o 5 Rounds of checks ( total hours) o 159 Checks conducted o Noncompliant: 20 checks o Compliant: 139 (87.4%) checks FY 2015 o 3 Rounds of checks o 71 Checks conducted (76.5 total hours) o Noncompliant: 13 checks o Compliant: 58 checks (81.7%) Liquor Merchants training FY 2014: 2 classes on how to prevent alcohol sales to minors (n=118) Survey (% agreed that they were satisfied with the training of those who completed the survey): o Nov 2013 (n=68): 99% o May 2014 (n=25): 100% Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change 120

124 Impact of Contributing Factors Frederick County s overall change in contributing factors of social availability, low perceived risk, and law enforcement showed a moderately positive change. Based on the age of the youth, the youth perception of social access of alcohol showed variation in response. Youth less than 17 years old saw reductions in perception of ease to obtain alcohol from 39% to 35% as well as at what age was their first alcohol drink. Conversely, youth 18 years old and older showed opposite results. Youth 18 and older perceived alcohol was easy to obtain from older friends (39% to 64%). Additionally, youth 18 and older reported higher percentages in having their first drink under the age of 21 (45% to 71%) and under years old (22% to 31%) compared to youth 17 and younger. Contributing factor associated with low perceived risk showed a greater youth perception of the harm of alcohol to their physical health. Improvements from baseline of 56% to 63% showed more youth were aware of the possible harmful impact of underage drinking. More underage surveillance, consistent compliance checks, and better compliance rates were contributing factors that showed a general positive trend for the law enforcement intervening variable. A limitation during the assessment of change in contributing factor was that breakdown of age for specific surveys were not enforced for baseline. Thus, interpretation of data could potentially be impacted. Continued follow-up is optimal to assess for future sustained contributing factor changes in the outcomes associated with Frederick County s continued implementation of underage drinking prevention efforts under the Partnership for Success (PFS) grant. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains API had success working with certain sectors in the community, including law enforcement, the Liquor Board and Health Department. One challenge API faced was collaborating with the local schools to administer the API survey. Although they were unable to administer the survey within the schools, they had success collecting local level data in the community. Frederick County is one of the 10 jurisdictions in Maryland that is eligible to receive funding through the Partnership for Success grant to continue underage drinking prevention activities. 121

125 Garrett County MSPF Community: Garrett County MSPF Organization: Drug Free Communities Coalition Coalition Name: Garrett County Drug Free Communities Coalition Prevention Coordinator: Nancy Brady MSPF Coordinator: Sadie Liller Local Evaluator: Lucia Barger Needs Assessment Approval: May 4, 2012 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: March 11, 2013 Strategy Implementation Start: May 23, 2013 Garrett County is a primarily rural county at the western-most point of Maryland. It is boarded to the east by Allegany County, to the south and west by the State of West Virginia, and to the north by the State of Pennsylvania. The Garrett County MSPF Coalition selected the entire county as their MSPF community. The county population is 30,097 according to the 2010 U.S. Census, with only 16% of residents living within incorporated town boundaries. The population is 97.9% White and it is the most sparsely populated county in Maryland with only 47 people per square mile. Garrett County is home to a high concentration of vulnerable residents who lack access to many of the services available in more urban and suburban settings. 15.1% of the total population has an annual income below the federal poverty line, and 24.4% of children under age 18 live in poverty. The entire county has been designated as a medically underserved area by the federal government, with no pediatricians and only one psychiatrist in the entire county. The county is also a four-season vacation destination, containing over 76,000 acres of parks, lakes, and public forestland, and an average annual snowfall of 72 inches. Some estimates are that up to 50,000 persons may be vacationing in the county at any one time, exceeding the non-transient population of 30,097. Examining data collected in the needs assessment, the coalition selected the priority of reducing underage drinking in their community. The table below lists the intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community. The strategies selected focus on: enhancing law enforcement s abilities to address alcohol-related laws; publicizing the consequences of breaking alcohol-related laws; educating adults about social hosting laws; increasing responsible beverage server training for servers of alcohol at local community events; implement a best-practices responsible drinking and underage alcohol use prevention check-list for community organizations hosting alcohol-serving events to use when planning their event. 122

126 GARRETT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Contributing Factors Strategies Variables Low Perceived Risk Low perception of legal consequences of alcohol use Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment Social Availability Provision of alcohol to minors by friends, older siblings and other adults. As community celebrations/special events increase in #, resources to control/monitor alcohol sales become a concern. Publicize/promote alcohol law violations and the penalty imposed Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment Publicize/promote alcohol law violations and the penalty imposed Alcohol provision warning signs Be the Wall Campaign Educate adults about social access through newsletters, parent meetings, other venues Support responsible alcohol server training for local organizations that host events with alcohol Work with organizations to make policy changes Implement vendor component of Be the Wall campaign with organizations that host events where alcohol is served Strategy Implementation Garrett County initiated 93 new activities targeted at reducing underage drinking in the final fiscal year of MSPF for a total of 231 contributions. Activities include additional law enforcement resources to respond to underage drinking, Be the Wall materials distributed and/or displayed at a variety of events throughout the county, SPF sponsored trainings on a variety of topics such as Fraudulent IDs, Controlled Party Dispersal, Social Access and TIPS for Concessions and increasing media efforts to publicize the county TIPS hotline. Additionally, the Sherriff s Office added a button on the crime solvers website so that persons can click to report underage drinking activities. The local mini-grant communities partnered with local businesses to distribute Be the Wall materials to the public. 123

127 GARRETT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Low Perceived Risk Low perception of legal consequences of alcohol use Increase the number of citations/arrests for underage drinking 2012 Garrett County YRBS How much do you think people risk harming themselves (physically and in other ways) if they have five or more drinks of alcohol (beer, wine or liquor) once or twice a week? o 58.5% : Grade 8 o 49.3% : Grade 10 o 50.3% : Grade 12 Underage Possession of Alcohol In 2008 : 42 citations issued In 2009 : 56 citations issued In 2010 : 61 citations issued During this same 3-year period o o 1 DUI citation for a minor 25 warnings for possession of alcohol o Law enforcement hours: 28 hours Follow-Up Data 2013 Maryland YRBS How much do you think people risk harming themselves (physically and in other ways) if they have five or more drinks of alcohol (beer, wine or liquor) once or twice a week? o 68.7% : Grade 8 o 58.7% : Grade 10 o 63.8% : Grade 12 Underage Drinking Surveillance FY 2014 o hours dedicated to underage drinking o 1 underage drinking citation FY 2015 o hours dedicated to underage drinking o 23 youth and 15 adult citations for alcohol Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change (+) Positive change 124

128 GARRETT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Social Availability Provision of alcohol to minors by friends, older siblings and other adults. Increase the number of local law enforcement hours targeting underage drinking Underage Drinking Surveillance FY 2013: 28 hours dedicated to underage drinking FY 2011 Community Perception Survey 91.7% (22/24) of youth respondents indicated that friends over 21 buy for them BTW pre-survey, (n=35) No baseline data available to compare with follow-up Follow-Up Data Underage Drinking Surveillance FY 2014 o hours dedicated to underage drinking FY 2015 o hours dedicated to underage drinking FY 2014 BTW Surveys ONE most common source of alcohol for underage youth in their community. Adults, ( n=130) 52.3% selected young adults ages % selected over age % selected adult relatives (brother, sister, aunt, uncle, cousin) Results for Youth respondents are inconclusive as only 3 out of 16 youth surveyed report they drink alcohol Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change 125

129 GARRETT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Social Availability (Cont d) As community celebrations/special events increase in #, resources to control/monitor alcohol sales become a concern. The percentage of community-based events held by Special Event Licensees completing the Tips for Concessions training each fiscal year will increase by 3% from the FY 2012 baseline Percentage of Special Events with a liquor license hosted by TIPS-trained volunteers FY 2010: 14.3% FY 2011: 22.9% FY 2012: 31.3% Special events with a liquor license FY 2010: 35 events FY 2011: 34 events FY 2012: 29 events Follow-Up Data Percentage of Special Events with a liquor license hosted by TIPS-trained volunteers FY 2013: 33.3% (2% from 2012 baseline) FY 2014: 45.5% (14.2% from 2012 baseline) FY 2015: 56.5% (25.2% from 2013 baseline) TIPS Trainings FY 2014 o 4 TIPS trainings o 43 staff trained o 2 completed checklist events FY 2015 o 2 TIPS trainings o 32 persons from 8 organizations trained Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change 126

130 GARRETT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Social Availability (Cont d) As community celebrations/special events increase in #, resources to control/monitor alcohol sales become a concern. By June 30, 2015, increase/maintain community exposure regarding adult responsibility in addressing underage drinking by a)increasing/maintaining the number of venues where BTW social marketing is initiated/expanded and by b)increasing/maintaining the number of entities/organizations initiating/expanding the BTW social marketing campaign Compliance checks FY 2010: 88% attempted o 74% completed o 91% passed FY 2011: 79% attempted o 75% completed o 93% passed FY 2012: 88% attempted o 74% completed o 85% passed BTW Venues: 0 BTW Partners: 0 BTW Pre-Survey, (n=35) Persons their age would think driving while intoxicated is wrong or very wrong o 22.9% of youth responded Adults in their family would think driving while intoxicated is wrong or very wrong o 25.7% of youth responded Follow-Up Data Compliance checks FY 2013: 45% attempted o 45% completed o 83% passed FY 2014: 49% attempted o 47% completed o 95% passed FY 2015: % attempted, completed, and passed were not available FY 2014 o BTW Venues: 75 o BTW Partners: 34 FY 2015 o BTW Venues: 139 o BTW Partners: 75 Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change 127

131 Impact of Contributing Factors Garrett County s overall trend in contributing factors showed a moderately positive change. More resources for local law enforcement were dedicated to address underage drinking (number of patrols) which were associated to improvements in the contributing factors for the social availability and low perceived risk intervening variables. Additionally, positive change was concluded in the contributing factor which targeted in improving monitoring of alcohol sales by increasing TIPS trainings, compliance checks, and compliance rates. Concurrently, in the low perceived risk variable, Grades 8, 10, and 12 youth perceptions of the severity of consequences of drinking alcohol (five or more drinks) once or twice a week increased from 58.5%, 49.3%, 50.3% to 68.7%, 58.7% and 63.8%, respectively. Continued follow-up is desirable to assess for future sustained changes in the outcomes associated with Garrett County s continued implementation of underage drinking prevention efforts under the Partnership for Success (PFS) grant. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains Due to efforts with local organizations to make policy changes when hosting events with alcohol, Garrett College launched a new parent focused website. The site focuses on giving practical suggestions on how to discuss alcohol-related issues with their college-age child. The coalition feels the efforts directed to the TIPS hotline and underage drinking patrols are changing the community norms of Garrett County. There is a sense that the community believes that it is wrong for adults to provide alcohol to minors and because of alcohol violations issued that there are legal consequences too. The Drug Free Coalition has a strong partnership with the Garrett County Liquor Control Board and the local mini-grant communities were able to engage community partners and take ownership of the initiative. Garrett County is one of 10 jurisdictions in Maryland that will be eligible to receive funding through the Partnership for Success grant to continue underage and binge drinking prevention efforts. 128

132 Harford County MSPF Community: Bel Air MSPF Organization: Harford County Office of Drug Control Policy Coalition Name: Harford FACE-IT Prevention Coordinator: Joe Ryan MSPF Coordinator: Barbara Mason Local Evaluator: Patrick McCracken Needs Assessment Approval: August 6, 2012 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: October 18, 2013 Strategy Implementation Start: January 24, 2014 Harford County s development is a mix of rural and suburban. It is bordered by Baltimore County to the west, Cecil County to the east, Kent County to the south and Pennsylvania to the north. The population demographics of Harford County are 81.2% white, 12.7% African American, 2.4% Asian, 3.5% Hispanic/Latino. Bel Air (2010 population of 63,245) is the selected MSPF community for Harford County. The Bel Air community is primarily suburban with limited open rural areas. For the MSPF project Bel Air is defined by the zip codes of and The Harford FACE-IT Coalition serves as the MSPF Coalition. The coalition is a faith-based coalition with strong partnerships with non-profit and government agencies and over thirty-five congregations. Previously the coalition was the recipient of a DFC grant. Examining data collected in the needs assessment, the coalition selected the priority of reducing underage drinking, specifically targeting year olds in Bel Air. The table below lists the intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community. The strategies selected focus on enhancing law enforcement, increasing community knowledge through Alcohol.edu and media campaigns, and developing a social norms campaign. 129

133 HARFORD COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Social Availability Social and Community Norms Contributing Factors Lack of enforcement of alcohol related laws pertaining to underage drinking Lack of awareness among adults that there are consequences for providing alcohol to minors Parents providing a location or allowing underage persons to drink Youth perception that most everyone between the ages of drink alcohol Strategies Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to addressing underage drinking laws to increase number of citations Media Campaign Educate parents about the consequences of underage drinking laws Parents Who Host Lose the Most Campaign Alcohol.edu (parent version) Increase enforcement of hosting citations Social Norms Campaign Strategy Implementation Harford County focused on enhancing law enforcement capacity to address underage drinking laws. Liquor Control agents worked with law enforcement officials to conduct quarterly compliance checks on Compliance of underage drinking laws increased from 61% in January 2014 to 90% in April thirty businesses holding liquor licenses. Also, extra party patrols took place during high risk weekends (homecoming, proms, and graduations) at all Bel Air area high schools. Additionally, the coalition partnered with the local PTA s to bring the Parents Who Host Lose the Most campaign into school events and raise awareness with parents. The PTA s used their marketing skills to sell the initiative to their membership. 130

134 HARFORD COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Contributing Factors/ Objectives Lack of enforcement of alcohol related laws pertaining to underage drinking By 2014 increase police man hours dedicated to enforcing underage drinking laws from zero to 400 By 2014 increase the number of citations given to violators of Maryland underage drinking laws by 10% from 21 to 23 Baseline Data Compliance checks Zero police man hours dedicated to enforcing underage drinking laws Follow-Up Data Compliance checks FY 2014 o 104 compliance checks o Noncompliant: 24 checks o Compliant: 80 (77%) checks FY 2015 o 26 checks conducted o Noncompliant: 11 checks o Compliant: 15 (58%) checks Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change Social and Community Norms Youth perception that most everyone between the ages of drink alcohol Build partnerships with all high schools that serve Bel Air area youth for a social Norms campaign 2011 Private High School Adolescent Survey,(n=720) 46% of the 12th grades consumed alcohol in the past 30 days No comparable data available (?) Insufficient amount of data to FY 2015: Harford County Liquor Control Board refused to issue a liquor license for a community event due to safety concerns assess change 131

135 HARFORD COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Social Availability Lack of awareness among adults that there are consequences for providing alcohol to minors By the spring 2014, to increase adult participation in alcohol awareness programs by 10% from 500 parents to 550 parents in the Bel Air area schools By the spring of 2014 have the program Parents Who Host Lose the Most in all 5 high schools located in the Bel Air area Parents providing a location or allowing underage persons to drink Increase the number of hosting citations from 2 to MD Adolescent Survey/Youth Risk Behavioral Survey 39.2% of youth report that parents approve of underage youth drinking beer and 28.8% approve consuming hard liquor FY Public High School PTA and a private High School administration, both located in Bel Air requested assistance with underage drinking parties 2007 MD Adolescent Survey/Youth Risk Behavioral Survey 39.2% of youth report that parents approve of underage youth drinking beer and 28.8% approve consuming hard liquor Follow-Up Data Change in Contributing Factor No comparable data available (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change No comparable data available (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change FY Public High School PTA and a private High School administration, both located in Bel Air requested assistance with underage drinking parties 132

136 Impact of Contributing Factors The overall trend of the contributing factors for Harford County showed no significant change. However, there is some positive outlook with an improvement in law enforcement dedication to address underage drinking by increasing compliance checks on local liquor establishments in Harford County. However, insufficient amount of information was provided in the contributing factors associated with social availability and social and community norms to interpret whether change in these contributing factors occured. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains One of the biggest successes reported by Harford County was a local policy change. Because of the MSPF project, a policy was enacted that now allows law enforcement to make criminal charges against a server who serves alcohol to a minor. This is in addition to any civil fines that the Liquor Control Board places against the business owner. The coalition was not able to expand Alchol.edu into the local Bel Air high schools. The reach of the MSPF project was limited to law enforcement strategies implemented in Bel Air. 133

137 Howard County MSPF Community: Columbia Town Center MSPF Organization: HC DrugFree Coalition Name: Howard County Alcohol Coalition Prevention Coordinator: Joan Webb Scornaienchi MSPF Coordinator: Joan Webb Scornaienchi Local Evaluator: Marjorie Rosensweig Needs Assessment Approval: March 13, 2012 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: March 29, 2013 Strategy Implementation Start: May 23, 2013 Howard County (2010 population of 287,085) is located in the central region of Maryland. The county is bordered by Anne Arundel County to the southeast, Baltimore County to the northeast, Carroll County to the north, Montgomery County to the west and Prince George s County to the south. The ethnic makeup of the county according to the 2010 census is 62.2% White, 17.5% African-American, 14.4% Asian, 5.8% Hispanic or Latino. The Columbia Town Center and the surrounding area is the defined MSPF community for Howard County. Town Center is the geographic and business center of Columbia, which is the largest Census Designated Place in Maryland. The rough geographic boundaries are MD Route 29 to the east, Broken Land Parkway and Hickory Ridge Road to the south, Cedar Lane to the west and Harpers Farm Road through Wilde Lake Village to Governor Warfield and Little Patuxent Parkways to the north. HC Drug Free serves as the lead MSPF organization. The Howard County Alcohol Coalition, a subcommittee of the Howard County Alcohol and Drug Abuse Advisory Board is the MSPF coalition. Examining data collected in the needs assessment, the coalition selected reducing underage drinking as their priority. The table below lists the intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community. Howard County focused on strategies supporting enforcement practices, enhancing adjudication practices and increasing community knowledge via media campaigns. 134

138 HOWARD COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Social Availability Contributing Factors Lack of law enforcement resources Available Minimal or inconsistent judiciary consequences Provision of alcohol to minors by adult family members (including siblings) and/or of age friends/acquaintances Parents providing a location/allowing underage persons to drink Strategies Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws Promote the prosecution and adjudication with sanctions of alcohol law violations within the municipal court system Media campaigns: Be a Parent, Not A Friend Educate and advocate for specific outcomes with pre-approved materials using purchased media. In conjunction with other evidencebased strategies Media campaigns: Be a Parent, Not A Friend Educate and advocate for specific outcomes with pre-approved materials using purchased media: In conjunction with other evidencebased strategies Strategy Implementation Howard County started to implement strategies in Howard County worked closely with County s Alcohol Enforcement Officer to conduct special patrols at Merriweather Post Pavilion during shows frequented by young people. The MSPF initiative contributed directly to a substantial increase in the number of patrols from 0 to 21 and the number of citations from underage alcohol violations from 11 to 112. The coalition also launched the media campaign, Be a Parent Not a Friend which targeted social access of alcohol by adult family members and/or of-age friends during the final fiscal year of MSPF. Major campaign-related activities included launching a microsite where viewers were able to access videos developed and talking points for each video, distribution of flyers at liquor stores throughout the county, and the launch of the updated and revamped HC DrugFree website with the new feature of teen and parent blogs. 135

139 HOWARD COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Contributing Factors/ Objectives Lack of law enforcement resources available Increase patrol presence at 6 events at MPP per season beginning 2013 Increase number of citations for underage drinking at Merriweather Post Pavilion (MPP) by 5% by end of MPP season 2014 Baseline Data Zero patrols for underage drinking have been conducted HCPD has 1 Liquor Inspector and 1 Alcohol Enforcement Officer. Since 2011, HCPD lost funding from OJJDP s EUDL Grant for Liquor Enforcement and Alcohol Enforcement details Alcohol related citations o 11 alcohol related violations Fake IDs acquired through the internet CY 2009: 49 Fake IDs CY 2010: 392 Fake IDs CY 2012: 365 Fake IDs Follow-Up Data Underage Drinking Surveillance/ Patrols (MPP ) FY 2014 o 10 patrols FY 2015 o 11 patrols Alcohol - related citations FY 2014 o 16 Underage drinking FY 2015 o 30 Underage drinking o 16 Possession of alcohol o 8 Adult purchase for minors False IDs Citations FY 2014 o 18 False ID citations FY 2015 o 11 False ID citations Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change 136

140 HOWARD COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Contributing Factors/ Objectives Minimal or inconsistent judiciary consequences Increase number of underage drinking cases adjudicated that result in sanctions from 5 cases in FY 14 to 10 cases in FY 15 Baseline Data CY : (n= 11 cases for adjudication) for furnishing alcohol to minors at Merriweather Post Pavilion 4 cases were fined 1 case of community service 1 failure to appear 1 underage drinking case adjudicated in 2012 Follow-Up Data FY 2014: (n=36 cases for adjudication) 13.8% - Received some sort of legal consequence o 11.1% were fined (1 underage) 71.6% - were nolle pros 38.8% - were Stet (can still face a penalty at some point in time) Change in Contributing Factor (~) No change Social Availability Provision of alcohol to minors by adult family members (including siblings) and/or of age friends/acquaintances By June 2015, an increase of 5% (from September 2014 baseline) in the percentage of Youth Alcohol Survey 71% of youth said that the two most common ways for someone underage to obtain alcohol is by giving money to someone to purchase for them or being given the alcohol by someone they know FY 2015: (n=60 cases for adjudication) No legal consequences given or fined 75% of cases were nolle pros 20% were Stet No comparable data available (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change 137

141 HOWARD COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Social Availability (Cont d) Contributing Factors/ Objectives parents who endorse a no social hosting rule in their home Baseline Data Follow-Up Data Change in Contributing Factor By June 2015, an increase of 10% (from September 2014 baseline) of parents who are aware of the Be a Parent, Not a Friend Campaign Implement media campaign improving awareness of the consequences of providing alcohol to underage youth that reaches 50,000 households as indicated by circulation of the Columbia Flier and the Howard County Times Parents providing a location/allowing underage persons to drink Increasing number of parties reported to the iwatchhowardcounty application from 2 (in 2012) to 10 Be a Parent, Not a Friend Campaign: FY 2013 Pre-Campaign Survey, (n=118) o 52% were aware of the campaign o o 96.5% are aware of MD law regarding provisions of alcohol to underage youth 93% are aware of the MD law regarding allowing underage youth to drink in one s home Youth Focus Groups In 6 out of 11 focus groups conducted in conjunction with the Youth Alcohol Survey, youth mentioned parent provision as a problem Be a Parent, Not a Friend Campaign: FY 2015 Post-Campaign Survey, (n=104) o 90.4% were aware of the campaign o 100% responded Very likely or Likely if a $2,500 fine for each minor caught drinking alcohol at their home was implemented (+) Positive change No comparable data available (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change 138

142 Impact of Contributing Factors The overall trend of the contributing factors showed no significant change. Insufficient data was provided at the time of this report to interpret changes of several contributing factors (provision of alcohol to minors by adult family members and parents providing a location for underage drinking) associated with the intervening variables of social availability. However, there are minor improvements in law enforcement dedication to address underage drinking with increased hours of patrols from zero to eleven patrols as of FY 2015 as well as improved visibility of the Be a Parent, Not a Friend Campaign. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains Over the last two fiscal years, Howard County met with members of the judicial branch to discuss how to increase the penalties for sanctions of alcohol law violations but staff came to realize that their ability to affect prosecution and adjudication is limited by laws and procedures in place in the municipal court system. Additionally, due to the fact there was not an increase in prosecution and adjudication of underage alcohol violations, the MSPF coalition was unable to inform the community of what is likely to happen when they receive a violation since according to the data collected there was not a high perceived risk of legal consequence for violating underage drinking laws. Major successes for Howard County are the strong partnerships with high ranking officials within their community and the involvement of their MSPF Coordinator in the community. 139

143 Kent County MSPF Community: Kent County MSPF Organization: Kent County Health Department Coalition Name: Kent County Adolescent Substance Abuse Coalition Prevention Coordinator: Nora Becker (2012- Oct 2013)/ Lastosha Brooks (Mar Present) MSPF Coordinator: Ida Dacey Local Evaluator: Linda Roy Walls Needs Assessment Approval: June 4, 2012 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: December 18, 2012 Strategy Implementation Start: April 12, 2013 Kent County (2010 population of 20,197) is located on the northern third of Maryland s Eastern Shore and is bordered by the Chesapeake Bay to the west, Cecil County to the north, Caroline County to the east, and Queen Anne s County to the south. The ethnic makeup of the county according to the 2010 census is 80.1% White, 15.1% African-American, 0.8% Asian, 4.5% Hispanic or Latino. The entire county was selected as the MSPF community because Kent County is the smallest county in Maryland and the coalition believes strategies can be more manageable in terms of geographic location. The Kent County Adolescent Substance Abuse Coalition is an established coalition in the community that received ten years of DFC funding. The coalition is leading the MSPF efforts for the county. Examining data from the needs assessment, the coalition selected the priority of reducing underage drinking among year olds. The table below lists the intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community. Kent County has selected strategies that focus on supporting current enforcement practices and policies, education in the schools and increasing community knowledge through education and media campaigns. 140

144 KENT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Retail Availability Law Enforcement and Adjudication Low Perceived Risk Contributing Factors Third Party Sales to Minors (HEY MISTER) Third Party Sales to Minors (store lights, cameras, signage blocking visibility of parking lot from inside store, etc.) Alcohol Sales to Minors by Retail Outlets Resource Shortage for Law Enforcement Officers Youth Lack of Knowledge of Risks and Consequences About Alcohol Use Strategies Conduct alcohol age Hey Mister Operation compliance checks and issue citations to individuals who are buying alcohol for youth. Enhance opportunities for retailer responsibility pertaining to third party sales on their propertysuch as physical design changes (light, surveillance) Conduct alcohol age compliance checks and issue citations to retailers selling alcohol to youth Enhance Law Enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws Educate parents- about adolescent brain development research and other consequences and how to talk to their youth about alcohol risks - via newsletters (school, athletic, other club/group); parent meetings associated with youth clubs, groups and athletics; and/or other venues Implement evidence-based curriculum options for middle and /or high school students. 141

145 Strategy Implementation The Kent County Coalition started implementing strategies in The coalition focused on multiple strategies to reduce third party sales to minors. After conducting two sets of environmental scans of the local retail establishment, the coalition identified seven retailers with a history of third party sales and needing supplemented exterior design features. The MSPF Coordinator and Liquor Inspector presented surveillance cameras to five retailers and certificates of appreciation to all seven establishments. Additionally, the coalition partnered with the Chestertown Police Department, the Washington College Public Safety Office and the Kent County Sheriff s Office to conduct underage drinking enforcement operations. In total, 71 law enforcement agency operations were conducted over the two fiscal years of implementation. A communication plan to disseminate materials for parents to raise awareness and knowledge about the risks and consequences of alcohol was developed and implemented. Methods of communication included public service announcements, print advertisements, social media posts, brochures and inperson displays and presentations. 142

146 KENT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Retail Availability Contributing Factors/ Objectives Third Party Sales to Minors Reduce the percentage by 10% (from 50% to 45%) of Grade 9 students who report that they access alcohol by getting someone to buy it for them as measured by the FY 14 Alcohol.edu survey. Note: In 2011, 100 Grade 9 students took the survey or 2/3 of the Grade 9 population of 151 Alcohol Sales to Minors by Retail Outlets Increase the number of licensed outlets targeted for compliance checks by 100% from 21 in 2011 to 42 in CY 2014 Increase the percentage of licensed outlets who pass compliance checks from 71.5% to 85% by CY 2014 Baseline Data 2011 Alcohol.edu Survey, (n=100) 50% of Grade 9 students obtain alcohol by having someone buy it for them Hey Mister Program (Sheriff s Office) FY 2010: 82 shoulder tap requests FY 2011: 19 shoulder tap requests FY 2012: Program ended due to funding Compliance Checks FY 2011: o 21 establishments checked (of 45 establishments) o Compliant: 15 (71%) checks FY 2012: o 5 establishments checked o Compliant: Zero (0%) checks Zero TIPS staff trained recorded Follow-Up Data Change in Contributing Factor No comparable data available (?) Insufficient amount of Hey Mister Program (Sheriff s Office) FY 2013: 9 shoulder tap requests o No citations FY 2014: 0 shoulder tap requests FY 2015: None conducted due to lack of underage personnel Compliance Checks (by MSP) FY 2013 o 48 compliance checks o 40 (83% )were compliant 8 were noncompliant FY 2014 o 50 compliance checks o 44 (88%) were compliant 6 were noncompliant data to assess change (+) Positive change 143

147 KENT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Contributing Factors/ Objectives Resource Shortage for Law Enforcement Officers Increase dedicated underage drinking (ages 12-20) patrols from 0 hours to at least 100 hours annually by FY 2015 Baseline Data There were no dedicated underage drinking patrols in 2011 or 2012 Follow-Up Data Underage Drinking Patrol (MSP, Kent Sheriff s Office, Chestertown PD) FY 2014 o 177 hours of patrols (26 operations) o 58 citations/arrests o 3 underage alcohol citations FY 2015 o 251 hours patrols (45 operations) o 39 underage drinking citations o 3 Fake IDs citations Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change Low Perceived Risk Youth Lack Of Knowledge of Risks and Consequences About Alcohol Use Expand education about underage drinking consequences from 26% in 2011 to at least 40% ( Grade 9 students in 2011 to 255 in 2015) of the Grade 9 population and from 0 to 80% of Grade 6 students Alcohol Education FY 2011: Alcohol.edu provided to Grade 9 only (26% of the school population) based on 2011 enrollment Discontinued after FY 2013 due to lack of funding Underage Drinking Law Enforcement Training FY 2013: 1 training; 5 Officers trained FY 2014: 1 training; 7 Officers trained FY 2015: 1 training; 9 Officer trained Alcohol Education FY 2014: Added Brain Power Challenge to Grade 6 curriculum FY 2015: Alcohol.edu for High School student reintroduced (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change 144

148 Impact of Contributing Factors The general trend of the contributing factors in Kent County showed a minor positive change. Insufficient data was provided at the time of this report to interpret changes in several contributing factors (third party sales to minors and lack of youth knowledge of consequences of underage drinking) associated with retail availability and low perceived risk. Positive change in addressing alcohol sales to minors was interpreted by the increased compliance checks conducted and improvement in compliance rates of licensed liquor establishments (71% to 88% were compliant). Concurrently, resources for underage drinking surveillance were improved and more patrol hours were dedicated from zero to 251 hours. Continued follow-up is needed to assess for future meaningful and sustained outcomes with Kent County s continued implementation of underage drinking prevention efforts under the Partnership for Success (PFS) grant. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains Kent County was unable to implement the Hey Mister campaign as a result of the lack of underage personnel to serve as buyers. During FY 15, the Kent County Sheriff s Office partnered with the Health Department to initiate an Explorers Program. The recruitment for the program was delayed until the second half of the fiscal year but by June there were two candidates interested. The Sheriff feels that the newly active Explorers Program will have an impact on recruiting high school students and ultimately will provide underage buyers for the Hey Mister campaign to reduce third party sales. Kent County is one of 10 jurisdictions in Maryland that will be eligible to receive funding through the Partnership for Success grant to continue underage and binge drinking prevention efforts. 145

149 MSPF Community: Wheaton MSPF Organization: Collaboration Council Coalition Name: TBD Prevention Coordinator: Ben Stevenson II MSPF Coordinator: Meg Baker Local Evaluator: Erin Artigiani Needs Assessment Approval: N/A Strategic Plan Part I Approval: N/A Strategy Implementation Start: N/A Montgomery County Montgomery County (2010 population of 971,777) is situated just north of Washington D.C. and bordered by Howard County to the northeast, Frederick County to the northwest, Prince George s County to the southeast, Loudon County, Virginia to the west and Fairfax County, Virginia to the southwest. The ethnic makeup of the county according to the 2010 census is 57.5% White, 17.2% African-American, 13.9% Asian and 17% Hispanic or Latino. Montgomery County completed their jurisdictional assessment and selected Wheaton as their MSPF community. The Collaboration Council serves as the lead MSPF organization for Montgomery County. The MSPF community coalition has started the MSPF process with the community and is currently collecting local data to complete the community needs assessment. Strategy Implementation Montgomery County did not implement strategies during the MSPF initiative. Challenges, Successes, and Capacity Gains Montgomery County made marginal progress during the MSPF initiative. They hired a local evaluator, started building a new coalition, and developed a local youth and adult survey for their Needs Assessment. The Collaboration Council has been successful in recruiting the necessary people and establishing relationships in the Wheaton area with the YMCA, Park & Rec., Street Outreach Network, Mid County Service Center Director and school personnel to form a group to complete the needs assessment There have been a few challenges in survey implementation. The survey was not translated into Spanish in time to accommodate a partnership with the MoCo Street Outreach Network and a soccer event with youth in the Wheaton community. Additionally, the timing of the completion of the survey tool late in the school year made it difficult to utilize potential youth groups to complete the survey. Through a continuing collaboration with their local evaluator, Montgomery County was able to submit a needs assessment in April,

150 Prince George s County MSPF Community: Suitland and surrounding communities MSPF Organization: Suitland Technology Education Engagement Resource Center (STEER) Coalition Name: SPF Community Coalition Prevention Coordinator: Pat Ramseur MSPF Coordinator: Thandi Hicks-Harper, Ph.D. Local Evaluator: Najah Ishman Needs Assessment Approval: N/A Strategic Plan Part I Approval: N/A Strategy Implementation Start: N/A Suitland and the surrounding communities (2010 population of 25,825) is the defined MSPF community for Prince George s County. Suitland is located in the upper southern area of Prince George s County. It is a community inside of the Capital Beltway bordering Washington, D.C. s highest crime and drug infested neighborhoods Wards 7 and 8. Bounded by Southern Avenue to the west, the Capital Beltway to the east, Marlboro Pike to the north and Suitland Parkway to the south, the Suitland community serves as the epicenter for the Coalition s efforts. Three neighboring communities, including District Heights, Forestville and Capitol Heights, also inside of the beltway, are in addition targeted by the Coalition. The ethnic makeup of Suitland is 91.9% African-American, 2.6% White, 0.3% Asian and 4.7% Hispanic or Latino. The Suitland Technology Education Engagement Resource Center serves as the lead MSPF Organization for Prince George s County. A subcommittee of the current Suitland Coalition, a former Drug Free Coalition, will serve as the MSPF coalition for the Suitland community. The coalition is collecting data and currently working on their community needs assessment. Strategy Implementation Prince George s County did not implement strategies during the MSPF initiative. Challenges, Successes, and Capacity Gains There was no progress made during the past year with Prince George s County. The SPF Community Coalition submitted three versions of a community needs assessment. The submitted assessments did not follow the community Needs Assessment outline and did not include countywide and local level data. The coalition received detailed feedback on their latest version of the community needs assessment and the health department is requiring the completion of the needs assessment. The status of MSPF in Suitland moving forward is unclear. The MSPF coordinator position is vacant and the local evaluator was not actively involved in developing the community needs assessment. Community readiness and support continued to be a challenge this year. Underage drinking was not seen as a priority in the community which made the needs assessment process difficult. 147

151 Queen Anne s County MSPF Community: Queen Anne s County MSPF Organization: Queen Anne s County Department of Health Prevention Office Coalition Name: Drug-Free/ SPF Coalition Prevention Coordinator: Kathy Wright MSPF Coordinator: Kathy Wright Local Evaluator: Linda Walls Needs Assessment Approval: June 4, 2012 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: October 12, 2012 Strategy Implementation Start: January 14, 2013 Queen Anne s County (2010 population 47,798) is bordered by the Chesapeake Bay to the west, Talbot County to the south, Caroline County to the east and Kent County to the north. The ethnic makeup of the county according to the 2010 census is 88.7% White, 6.9% African-American, 1.0% Asian and 3.0% Hispanic or Latino. The Queen Anne s County Department of Health Prevention Office serves as the lead MSPF Organization for Queen Anne s County. Queen Anne s County Drug Free Coalition is an established coalition in the county that previously received DFC funding. The coalition is leading the MSPF efforts for the county. Examining data collected in the needs assessment, the coalition selected reducing underage drinking as their priority. The table below lists the intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community. The strategies selected focus on enhancing law enforcement and adjudication practices, developing new policies and procedures and increasing community knowledge through media campaigns and outreach. 148

152 QUEEN ANNE S COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Social Availability Contributing Factors Resource Shortages for Officers Soft or inconsistent consequences for alcohol use by ages Alcohol is readily available at community celebrations, recreational activities, and in the homes of youth Strategies Conduct alcohol age compliance checks and issue citations to retailers selling alcohol to youth Enhance Law Enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws Promote the prosecution & adjudication with sanctions of alcohol law violations within the municipal & circuit court systems-school Promote the prosecution & adjudication with sanctions of alcohol law violations within the municipal & circuit court systems - includes Juvenile Services, the State s Attorney s Office, and Circuit/ District Courts Develop Policies and Procedures to enforce underage drinking access at community events Educate Parents Media Campaign: Educate and advocate for specific outcomes with pre-approved materials using purchased media in conjunction w/other evidence-based strategies. Note: The approved campaign materials are Be The Wall 149

153 Strategy Implementation Queen Anne s County started implementing strategies in early Queen Anne s county partnered with the Maryland State Police to conduct compliance checks in all 79 licensed retailers in the county. As a result of increased compliance check operations, the Queen Anne s County revoked the liquor license of a local establishment after repeatedly selling to the Maryland State Police Cadet despite numerous fines and purchasing a license card reader. Partnerships were also established with the Maryland State Police and Sheriff s office to conduct saturation patrols. The local law enforcement agencies notified the media about the results of posts as well as posts on the coalition s Facebook page. In order to reduce alcohol availability at community celebrations and recreational events, the Liquor Board incorporated the one-day license holder s recommendations handout created by the coalition into their license permitting process. The coalition also implemented the Be the Wall social marketing campaign to address the lack of parent s knowledge of alcohol availability in the home. Campaign materials were saturated throughout the county through a variety of media types (billboards, newspaper advertisements, Facebook posts, PSAs, in-person presentations). 150

154 QUEEN ANNE S COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Contributing Factors/ Objectives Resource Shortages for Officers Increase by 50% (from 108 hours to no less than 162 hours annually) by FY 2014 the number of enforcement hours dedicated to underage drinking saturation patrols Soft or inconsistent consequences for alcohol use by ages Increase by 50% (from 10 citations in 2010 to 15 citations) by FY 13 - the number of juveniles who are arrested for alcohol citations Baseline Data Underage Drinking Surveillance FY 2010 o 108 hours of patrols o 10 alcohol citations to underage youth o Budget cuts have reduced the number of law enforcement officers by 4 in Queen Anne s County No compliance checks recorded due to lack of dedicated supplemental funding sources Underage Alcohol-related citations FY 2010 o 10 alcohol citations to underage youth Follow-Up Data Underage Drinking Surveillance FY 2014 o hours dedicated FY 2015 o 422 hours dedicated Compliance checks FY 2014 o 30 compliance checks o 3 were noncompliant FY 2015 o 240 compliance checks Underage Alcohol-related citations FY 2013 FY 2013 o 32 underage drinking citations FY 2014 o 32 underage alcohol possession citations o 14 arrested for alcohol-related offenses FY 2015 o 23 alcohol-related cases Teen Court: 27 alcohol-related charges o All sentenced to jury duty/ community service and mandatory alcohol assessment Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change (+) Positive change 151

155 QUEEN ANNE S COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Social Availability Contributing Factors/ Objectives Alcohol is Readily Available at Community Celebrations and Recreational Activities Increase by 100% (from 6 to 12) by FY 14 - the number of one-day license venues where underage alcohol access is closely monitored Alcohol is Accessible in the Home of Youth Distribute at least 500 crossexposed messages per month (baseline = 0) targeted to county households with family members ages via public service announcements, flyers, informational articles, posters, or social media. Saturated and repeated messages will focus on liability and consequences for permitting or not monitoring alcohol access in the home by underage persons Baseline Data One-day licenses: CY 2010: 67 licenses issued CY 2011: 55 licenses issued An estimated 6 or 10% of venues (in 2011) had extended practices in place to reduce access to under drinking Zero media messages about alcohol access in the home 2012 Community Perception survey All adults said alcohol is easy to access at home Police focus groups Parents believe, it is safer to host teens at home in a controlled environment, rather them drink away from home Follow-Up Data One-day licenses: FY 2014: 102 licenses issued FY 2015: 67 licenses issued No comparable data available Be The Wall Youth and Adult Survey results not available for this reporting period Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive Change (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change 152

156 Impact of Contributing Factors The general trend of the contributing factors (CFs) in Queen Anne s County associated with this priority showed mild positive change. Insufficient amount of follow-up data was provided at the time of this report for the Social Availability s CFs. Further follow-up in the social access of alcohol in the home is needed to assess for possible meaningful results in the future. Contributing factors associated with law enforcement variable showed positive change by the increase resources dedicated to underage drinking surveillance (108 hours to 422 hours of patrol) as well as increase compliance checks implemented from zero to 240 compliance checks conducted. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains Queen Anne s County coalition aimed to collect data on school and legal consequences from alcohol law violations and provide recommendations. During the time of MSPF, policy change at the Maryland State Department of Education regarding school suspensions and adolescent treatment no longer being a public service impacted data collection and therefore policy recommendations. Despite these setbacks, the formation of the committee was a positive by-product in establishing the importance of collecting data and the partnerships of the public agencies and law enforcement. The Queen Anne s County coalition is a very strong coalition filled with active and committed members. The success of their strategies is due to the engagement of their coalition and partnerships in the community with multiple agencies. 153

157 St. Mary s County MSPF Community: St. Mary s County MSPF Organization: St. Mary s Hospital Coalition Name: Community Alcohol Coalition Prevention Coordinator: Matt Reisdorff MSPF Coordinator: Jenna Muliken (Sep May 2014)/ Kendall Hiser (Apr 2014-present) Local Evaluator: Marjorie Rosensweig Needs Assessment Approval: May 18, 2012 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: June 14, 2012 Strategy Implementation Start: August 1, 2012 St. Mary s County (2010 population of 105,151) is the southernmost tip of the Western Shore of Maryland, bordered by the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay. The ethnic makeup of the county according to the 2010 census is 78.6% White, 14.3% African-American, 2.5% Asian and 3.8% Hispanic or Latino. MedStar St. Mary s Hospital serves as the lead MSPF Organization for St. Mary s County. The Community Alcohol Coalition was established in 2012 to carry out the MSPF process and efforts in the community. Examining data collected from the needs assessment, the coalition selected reducing underage drinking and reducing binge drinking among year olds as their priorities. The table below lists the intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community for each priority. St. Mary s County selected strategies that focus on increasing community knowledge through media campaigns and information dissemination, developing new standards and procedures and increasing merchant training for the priority to reduce underage drinking. The strategies selected to decrease binge drinking in the county focus on developing a social norms campaign, increasing perception of risk through media campaigns and encouraging businesses to adopt new policies. 154

158 ST. MARY S COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Social Availability Retail Availability Contributing Factors Parents and Adult Provisions of Alcohol to Minors Compliance and Regulations ID Issues Employees Strategies Educate parents via newsletters, parent meeting associations, PTA, youth clubs, group athletics and other venues. Educate parents through school newsletters, PTA meetings and other venues about underage drinking in the community and effective measures to reduce access to alcohol. Parents Who Host Lose The Most Don t Be A Party to Teenage Drinking Campaign Develop municipal standards and procedures for awarding, renewing, suspending and revoking alcohol licenses. Establish evidence based practices for local retailers including all staff RBS trained, annual review of ID check procedures and identifying intoxicated patrons with law enforcement. Establish evidence based practices for local retailers including all staff RBS trained, annual review of ID check procedures and identifying intoxicated patrons with law enforcement Priority: Reduce the number of young adults, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Contributing Factors Strategies Variables Social and Community Norms Young Adults Perception of Binge Drinking as a Social Norm Social Norms Campaign for responsible alcohol use. Low Perceived Risk Low Perceived Risk of Physical Harm Encourage businesses to adopt policies that decrease personal risk and support responsible alcohol use. Media Campaign Encourage businesses to adopt policies that decrease personal risk and support responsible alcohol use. 155

159 Strategy Implementation St. Mary s County started to implement strategies in St Mary s County developed and disseminated the Can You Afford It campaign, a comprehensive campaign that delivered messages to raise awareness of underage and binge drinking and provision of alcohol to minors from parents and adults. Messages were delivered through social media, bus wraps, billboards, newspaper ads and articles, coasters, posters and on materials distributed at events. In the final year of MSPF, St. Mary s County Alcohol Coalition enhanced their Parent Education Strategy by creating a standardized education presentation and a guided discussion with the State developed Don t be a friend, be a parent video. The coalition partnered with the Alcohol Beverage Board, the St. Mary s County Licensed Beverage Association and local licensed vendors to develop a standard consequence matrix for liquor license violations. The matrix was designed to have standards In May 2014, a Standardized Consequences Matrix for liquor license violations was approved by St. Mary s Alcohol Beverage Board and added to their FY 15 Rules and Regulations and procedures in place for awarding, renewing, suspending and revoking alcohol licenses. The Matrix was added to the FY 15 Rules and Regulations in May During FY 15, coalition members attended Liquor Board meetings and monitored the application of the Matrix. Additionally, the coalition initiated a Retail Recognition Program and held RAST and Fake ID trainings. 156

160 ST. MARY S COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Intervenin g Variables Social Availability Contributing Factors/ Objectives Parents and Adult Provisions of Alcohol to Minors Successfully educate 1,000 parents of youth about the issues and consequences surrounding social accessibility of alcohol to minors through a public communications campaign and attendance at 15 community outreach events By 06/2015, 15% decrease in youth-reported social access to alcohol from parents/guardians and non-parent adults (09/2014 baseline) By 06/2015, 5% increase in awareness of Maryland laws regarding adult provision of alcohol to minors (baseline 09/2014; outcome 05/2015) By 06/2015, increase the percentage of parents who think it is wrong or very wrong for underage youth to drink alcohol (baseline 09/2014) Baseline Data 2014 STM County Adult Survey, (n=83) Primary source of alcohol o 27.3% from paying someone o 24.2% from home o 79.5% from nonrelated adults 81.9% Adults who know they can t provide alcohol to minors (other than their immediate family) in their private residence 2014 STM County Youth Survey, (n=3477) Primary source of alcohol o High School 27.3% from paying someone 24.2% from home 14.1% from nonrelated adults o Middle School 36.7% from home 15.4% from paying someone 14.4% from underage person 2011 PRIDE Youth Survey,(n=189) Of students who have used alcohol, the primary locations where they tend to use the alcohol are at their own home or a friend s home Youth Focus Group: High number of youth reported receiving alcohol at home from parents or friends Follow-Up Data 2015 STM County Adult Survey, (n=67) Primary source of alcohol question was omitted from post-program survey 89% Adults who know they can t provide alcohol to minors (other than their immediate family) in their private residence 2015 STM County Youth Survey results is not available Survey is scheduled for distribution for FY No comparable data available Change in Contributing Factor (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change 157

161 ST. MARY S COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Retail Availability Contributing Factors/ Objectives Compliance and Regulations Have and maintain a standard consequence matrix for liquor license violations adopted by the St. Mary s County Alcohol Beverage Board Fake ID Issues Decrease incidence of teens using fake IDs or someone else s ID by 10% by June 2014 as measured by establishment owner surveys Baseline Data STM Alcohol Beverage Board FY 2012: Lack of consequences by local Alcohol Beverage Board witnessed by coalition members watching monthly meetings 2011/2012 Teen Focus Groups Teen indicated easy access to alcohol through illegal IDs St. Mary s Sheriff s Office FY 2012: revealed high usage of fake IDs 2014 STM County Youth Survey, (n=4001) How easy is it for people your age to obtain a fake ID? o 41.3% Somewhat difficult o 29% Somewhat easy How easy is it for people your age to purchase alcohol in STM County with a fake ID? o 34.9% Somewhat difficult o 29.7% Somewhat easy Follow-Up Data STM Alcohol Beverage Board FY 2014: Developed the Standard Consequence Matrix. Matrix adopted by STM Alcohol Beverage Board Fake ID Confiscation (STM Sheriff s Office) FY 2014 o 8 key informants (n=12) reported collecting fake IDs o 2 Fake IDs collected FY 2015; (n=20) o 10 key informants reported collecting fake IDs o 10 Fake IDs collected 2015 STM County Youth Survey results is not available Survey is scheduled for distribution for FY Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change (+) Positive change 158

162 ST. MARY S COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Retail Availability (Cont d) Contributing Factors/ Objectives Employees Increase the number of employees trained by the Alcohol Beverage Board for responsible alcohol sales by 25% by June 2014 as reported by the Alcohol Beverage Board Baseline Data FY 2012: St. Mary s County Sheriff s Office Reported lack of concern for regulations by bar and liquor store employees at some establishments Follow-Up Data Employee Trainings FY 2013: 58 staff trained FY 2014: 67 staff trained FY 2015: 103 Staff trained o Of those, 55 were RAST and 48 Fake ID trained Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change 159

163 ST. MARY S COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Variables Social and Community Norms Low Perceived Risk Contributing Factors/ Objectives Young Adults Perception of Binge Drinking as a Social Norm Decrease by 5% the number of students reporting drinking 5 or more drinks at a sitting at least once in the past two weeks (baseline 2013 CORE; outcome 2015 CORE) Low Perceived Risk of Physical Harm By June 2015, increase by 5% the number of students who think they risk harming themselves (physically or in other ways) if they take four or five drinks nearly every day By June 2015, increase by 5% the number of students who think they risk harming themselves (physically or in other ways) if they take one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day Baseline Data 2014 NCHA II Survey 97.5% of respondents were within the binge drinking priority target age of o 62.3% were under 21 o 35.2% were age /2012 Teen Focus Groups Teens report binge drinking as a frequent social norm Youth unaware of binge drinking definition 2014 CORE Survey 54% of respondents who feel there is great risk in binge drinking 2014 STM County Adult Survey, (n=83) How wrong do you think alcohol use by persons under age 21? o 85.5% Very wrong or wrong o 14.5% A little bit or not at all wrong How wrong do you think providing alcohol to persons under age 21? o 96.4% Very wrong or wrong o 3.6% A little bit or not at all wrong Follow-Up Data 2015 CORE and NCHA surveys were not administered No comparable data available 2015 CORE survey was not administered No comparable data available 2015 STM County Adult Survey, (n=64) How wrong do you think alcohol use by persons under age 21? o 79% Very wrong or wrong o 21% A little bit or not at all wrong How wrong do you think providing alcohol to persons under age 21? o 92.2% Very wrong or wrong o 7.8% A little bit or not at all wrong Change in Contributing Factor (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change 160

164 Impact of Contributing Factors Saint Mary s County s overall trend of their contributing factors (CFs) showed no significant change. Insufficient amount of information was provided in the contributing factors associated with social and community norms, social availability and low perceived risk to interpret whether change in these contributing factors was observed. Follow-up survey results in these contributing factors were not available at the time of this reporting period. However, an improvement was seen in the contributing factors related to retail access. St. Mary s Alcohol Beverage Board adopted a Standard Consequence Matrix developed by the coalition to address the compliance and regulations for liquor license violations. Additionally, there is an increased number of employees RAST trained since FY Continued follow-up is needed to assess for potential meaningful outcomes with St. Mary s County s continued implementation of underage and binge drinking prevention efforts under the Partnership for Success (PFS) grant. Challenges, Successes, Capacity Gains The St. Mary s County Alcohol Coalition has forged strong partnerships with local businesses, area schools and colleges, retailers, St. Mary s County Sheriff s office, St. Mary s Alcohol Beverage Board and media outlets. St. Mary s County Public Schools permitted and facilitated surveying all public school middle and high school youth to evaluate MSPF in the county. St. Mary s County is one of 10 jurisdictions in Maryland that will be eligible to receive funding through the Partnership for Success grant to continue underage and binge drinking prevention efforts. 161

165 Somerset County MSPF Community: Somerset County MSPF Organization: Somerset County Local Management Board Coalition Name: Prevention Works in Somerset County Prevention Coordinator: Viola Smith (July 2013-Present) MSPF Coordinator: Jade Mason (Feb Dec 2013) / Jalissa Worthy (present) Local Evaluator: Corey J. Bowen, Ph.D. (Feb 2012/ Aug 2013)/ Linda Walls (Sep 2013 June 2014) Needs Assessment Approval: March 21, 2012 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: December 18, 2012 Strategy Implementation Start: March 22, 2013 Somerset County (2010 population of 26,470) is the southernmost county of Maryland s Eastern Shore. The county is bordered by Virginia to the south, Wicomico County to the north and Worcester County to the east. The ethnic makeup of the county according to the 2010 census is 53.5% White, 42.3% African- American, 0.7% Asian and 3.3% Hispanic or Latino. The Somerset County Local Management Board serves as the lead MSPF Organization. Prevention Works in Somerset County is the coalition in the county to carry out the MSPF process and efforts in the county. Examining data collected from the needs assessment, the coalition selected reducing underage drinking and reducing binge drinking among year olds as their priorities. The table below lists the intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the community for each priority. The strategies selected to reduce underage drinking focus on enhancing law enforcement practices and policies, increasing knowledge and perception of risk through media campaigns. The strategies to reduce binge drinking focus on capacity building with University of Maryland Eastern Shore. Building capacity was needed before binge drinking environmental strategies could be selected and implemented. At the start of this fiscal year, a decision was made to refocus the resources to address the priority on reducing underage drinking and the priority of binge drinking among 18-25year olds would be addressed at a later time. 162

166 SOMERSET COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Low Perceived Risk Social Availability Contributing Factors Retail Sales Compliance Law Enforcement Resource Shortages Low Perception of Legal Repercussions Low Perception of Health Risks/Physical Dangers Somerset County adults and community provide alcohol to youth Lack of Parental Monitoring in Home Strategies Enhanced Law Enforcement Capacity to address alcohol laws Party Patrols and Shoulder Tap Operations Media Campaign (Educate Youth) Media Campaign (Educate Youth) Parents Who Host Lose the Most Campaign (PWH) Parents Who Host Lose the Most Campaign (PWH) Strategy Implementation Somerset County began implementing strategies in Somerset County used a multi-faceted approach to enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws in the county. The coalition partnered with the Princess Anne and Crisfield Police Departments and Somerset County Sherriff s Department to conduct compliance checks and party patrols. In the final year of MSPF, 95% of the county s 42 liquor establishments were visited yielding only a 7.5% failure rate (three failures). News stories of the efforts were posted to support the law enforcement efforts. Additionally, the coalition disseminated the Parents Who Host Lose the Most media campaign. Messages were saturated in the community via billboards, yard signs, and bus signs and by distributing materials in the community. 163

167 SOMERSET COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Contributing Factors Retail Sales Compliance Reduce first round compliance check failures by 25% by FY 2014 and reduce second round compliance check failures by 50% by FY 2014 Law Enforcement Resource Shortages Increase party patrols from 6 in FY 14 to 18 in FY 15 Increase shoulder tap operations from 0 in FY 14 to 5 in FY 15 Baseline Data Compliance Checks: From FY , funding has been reduced by half for law enforcement FY 2010 o 33 compliance checks o o 5 separate rounds of checks 8 (24%) were noncompliant; 5 out of 8 failed in Princess Anne FY 2011 o Data is unreliable due to program transition FY 2012 o 55 compliance checks o 8 (15%) failed in first round of checks o 5 (9%) failed in second round of checks ; 6 of the 11 failed in Princess Anne Underage Drinking Surveillance (MSP, PAPD, Sheriff s Office) FY 2013: None reported Follow-Up Data Compliance Checks (MSP, Princess Anne Police, Sheriff s Office) FY 2013: None reported due to lack of funding to implement FY 2014 o 31 compliance checks o Compliant: 26 (84%) o Noncompliant: 5 (16%) failed 3 (21%) failed in first checks (n=14) 2 (12%) failed in second checks (n=17) FY 2015 o 40 compliance checks o Compliant: 37 (92.5%) o Noncompliant: 3 (7.5%) Underage Drinking Surveillance (MSP, PAPD, Sheriff s Office) FY 2014: 179 patrol hours o 2 adult DUIs o 6 adult civil citations o 1 underage possession citation FY 2015: patrol hours o 11 juvenile citations for alcohol o 2 juvenile DWI arrests o 27+ party responses Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive Change 164

168 SOMERSET COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Low Perceived Risk Contributing Factors Low Perception of Legal Repercussions Increase number of calls to Maryland State Police reporting underage parties from 0 to 10 by FY 2015 Baseline Data 2011 Youth Alcohol Survey, (n=28) 39% of youth feel their peers do not understand the legal risks of underage drinking/possession 17.9% think a few people their age could get into trouble for alcohol 21.4% think no one their age would get in trouble for alcohol MSP, PAPD, Sheriff s Office FY 2012: 0 TIPS calls recorded Follow-Up Data FY 2013: None reported for this reporting period FY 2014: No comparable data available FY 2015: Comparable data not available TIPS Hotline FY 2013: No comparable data available FY 2014: o 7 hotline calls o 3 DUI arrests o 22 reports of underage drinking or loud parties FY 2015: Comparable data not available o Maryland State Police reported that the TIPS line had been deactivated due to technology problems with the line Change in Contributing Factor (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change 165

169 Low Perceived Risk (Cont d) Low Perception of Health Risks/Physical Dangers Increase awareness by distributing flyers, informational articles, and pamphlets regarding the physical dangers of underage alcohol consumption to 1,300 youth by FY Youth Alcohol Survey, (n=28) 50% felt their peers did not understand the physical dangers of alcohol consumption 50% of youth think alcohol is dangerous for them FY 2013: None reported for this reporting period (536 informational materials disseminated) FY 2014: No comparable data available FY 2015: Comparable data not available (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change 166

170 SOMERSET COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Social Availability Contributing Factors Somerset County adults and community provide alcohol to youth By FY 15, expose 3% of Somerset County households with awareness on the consequences of providing alcohol to underage youth (baseline=0) Baseline Data 2011 MD Eastern Shore CORE Youth and Adult Alcohol Survey -- Youth (n=28); Adult (n=79) had alcohol given to them by their parents o 24% of adults report o 10 % of youth report peers alcohol is available to youth in many homes o 49% of adults state o 32% of youth state think many parents are hosting parties o 25% of adults o 14% of youth 2012 UMES Health Fair Survey, (n=122) Minors are given alcohol o 33% of think by parents Youth consume alcohol at a: o 44% - family member s house o 92% - friend s house 55% responded that youth party at home 71% reported that youth attend college parties Follow-Up Data FY 2013: None reported for this reporting period (536 informational materials disseminated) FY 2014: No comparable data available (distributed PHWLTM campaign materials) FY 2015: Somerset Adult Survey (n=45) 77.5% (n=31) respondents are very aware of the risks/consequences for providing alcohol to underage youth Change in Contributing Factor (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change 167

171 SOMERSET COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Social Availability (Cont d) Contributing Factors Lack of Parental Monitoring in Home By FY 15, increase awareness by distributing crossexposed messages to 300 households with family members ages via flyers, informational articles, and brochures containing information on monitoring alcohol in the home (baseline=0) Baseline Data 2011 MD Eastern Shore CORE Youth and Adult Alcohol Survey Adults (n=80); Youth (n=28) think parents do not monitor alcohol supply o 15% of adults o 28% of youth think youth steal alcohol from the home o 46% of adults o 28% of youth think peers 2012 UMES Health Fair Survey, (n=122) 62% believe youth steal alcohol from the home Follow-Up Data FY 2013: None reported for this reporting period (536 informational materials disseminated) FY 2014: No comparable data available FY 2015: Somerset Adult Survey (n=45) 22% (n=10) respondents report regularly (at least once per week) monitoring the alcohol in their home Change in Contributing Factor (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change 168

172 Impact of Contributing Factors The general trend of the contributing factors in Somerset County showed a minor positive change. Insufficient amount of data was provided at the time of this report and contributing factor changes were inconclusive for the low perceived risk and social availability intervening variables. Thus, further followup is needed to re-assess for potential meaningful results with future implementation. While there was inconclusive findings in the contributing factors for low perceived risk and social availability, law enforcement resources dedicated to underage drinking have improved through their increased compliance checks of liquor establishments and underage drinking patrols. Compliance rates of licensed establishments have improved since the contributing factors enactment. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains The Core Leadership team transitioned the MSPF Coalition from the Prevention Works! Coalition to the Somerset County Drug and Alcohol Abuse Council. This new lead coalition strengthened collaboration with key partners including law enforcement agencies, two high school prom committees, the Local Management Board, and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore Alcohol/Drug Prevention Office in the final fiscal year of MSPF. Shoulder tap operations did not occur due to the lack of police staff resources and the Maryland State Police Tips Line became deactivated which prevented usage and awareness of the tips line. Members of the coalition developed youth and adult surveys to evaluate the MSPF efforts but were only able to collect 7 youth surveys and 45 adult surveys. 169

173 Talbot County MSPF Community: Talbot County MSPF Organization: Talbot Partnership for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Prevention Coalition Name: Check Yourself Coalition Prevention Coordinator: Paula Lowry MSPF Coordinator: Beth Williams Local Evaluator: Linda Walls Needs Assessment Approval: June 4, 2012 Strategic Plan Part I Approval: March 28, 2013 Strategy Implementation Start: May 21, 2013 Talbot County (2010 population 36,262) is located on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and is bordered on the west by the Chesapeake Bay, on the north by Queen Anne s County, on the east by Caroline County, and on the south by Dorchester County. The ethnic makeup of the county according to the 2010 census is 81.4% White, 12.8% African-American, 1.2% Asian and 5.5% Hispanic or Latino. The Talbot Partnership serves as the lead MSPF organization for Talbot County. The Check Yourself Talbot Coalition is a subcommittee of the Talbot Partnership. Data collected in the needs assessment helped the community to select the priority of reducing past month binge drinking and identify young adults (ages 18-25) in Talbot County as the target population. The Check Yourself Talbot Coalition selected Law Enforcement and Adjudication, Retail Availability, and Social/Community Norms to focus on for the strategic plan to reduce binge drinking among young adults ages Check Yourself Talbot considered the community s readiness and capacity to address the top three intervening variables prioritized during the needs assessment. The table below lists the three intervening variables, three contributing factors and the strategies that were selected by the coalition. As can be seen from the table, Talbot County focused on monitoring adjudication of alcohol law violations, supporting and enhancing current enforcement practices and policies and media campaigns to change attitudes and perceptions of binge drinking. 170

174 TALBOT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of young persons, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking. Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Retail Availability Social and Community Norms Contributing Factors Inconsistent judicial practices arrestees are found not guilty or are not prosecuted People over-consume alcohol in licensed outlets. People over-consume alcohol at one-day licensed events Young adults age have limited access to responsible drinking education. Young adults ages perceive that binge drinking is normal and cool. Drinking (in large quantities) is culturally acceptable- part of hunting, fishing, boating, festival culture in Talbot County Strategies Promote the prosecution and adjudication with sanctions of alcohol law violations within the municipal and circuit court systems. Emphasize appropriate policies and practices to eliminate over-serving for sellers/ licenses/ community event servers in a law enforcement led class Emphasize appropriate policies and practices to eliminate over-serving for sellers/ licenses/ community event servers in a law enforcement led class Conduct a media/educational campaign (evidence-based) in conjunction with other evidence-based strategies. Conduct a media/educational campaign (evidence-based) in conjunction with other evidence-based strategies. Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws reinforced with media advocacy 171

175 Strategy Implementation Talbot County began implementing strategies in The Check Yourself Coalition launched and disseminated the media campaign, the Domino Strategy. Campaign messages were shared via cinema ads, cable ads, social media posts, newspaper advertisements and press releases. Additionally, the coalition created an original PSA with a local communications agency. During the final year of MSPF, the coalition compiled toolkits for the area bars which included Domino Strategy materials as well as practical follow-up to TIPS training for managers and servers. They also expanded the coalition s collaboration with the Easton Business Alliance. This collaboration led to Check Yourself Talbot participating in Alliance-sponsored activities as well in helping that the coalition is seen as a credible organization to local restaurants/pubs where they display Domino Strategy materials in their establishments. In addition to the successful marketing campaign, Talbot County conducted Saturation Patrols and TIPS classes. 172

176 TALBOT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of young persons, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Variables Law Enforcement and Adjudication Contributing Factors/ Objectives Inconsistent judicial practices arrestees are found not guilty or are not prosecuted Reduce by 10% (from 56% in 2011 to 50.4% in 2015) the number of alcohol-related court cases that are not prosecuted or found not guilty as measured by Court Watch statistics Baseline Data Talbot County Court of alcohol related cases were not guilty or Nolle Prosequi o Apr-Jun 2011: 48% (n= 111 cases) o Oct-Dec 2011: 65% (n= 35 cases) An average of 56% of cases was not prosecuted Follow-Up Data Talbot County Court FY 2013 o 10 cases prosecuted o All (100%) pleaded guilty FY 2014 o 59 cases prosecuted o 59% of cases were guilty o 27% of cases were not guilty FY 2015: No data; Did not do any court watch Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive Change 173

177 TALBOT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of young persons, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Variables Retail Availability Contributing Factors/ Objectives People over-consume alcohol in licensed outlets. By 2015, 100% of participants completing Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) training within six months of hiring, or receiving recertification, will receive emphasized education on observing patrons for visible signs of intoxication prior to serving them additional alcohol Baseline Data Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) training is required for every server and this includes a component of the training on over-serving. Liquor inspector has reported observing up to 17 persons visibly intoxicated in a recent six-month period in Talbot County. Follow-Up Data RBS Training FY 2013: 12 trainings o 124 staff trained with an emphasis on over-serving FY 2014: 32 trainings o 309 staff trained with an emphasis on over-serving FY 2015: 42 trainings o 503 staff trained with an emphasis on over-serving Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change People over-consume alcohol at one-day licensed events By 2015, increase participants completing Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) training (Baseline = 0) to at least five one day license holders to receive emphasized education on observing patrons for visible signs of intoxication prior to serving them additional alcohol Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) training is not required for people who serve alcohol at one day licensed events, but patrons who appear overly intoxicated have been observed at these events. RBS Training FY 2013: None reported FY 2014: 40 volunteers from oneday events completed training FY 2015: 86 volunteers from oneday events completed training (+) Positive change 174

178 TALBOT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of young persons, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Variables Social and Community Norms Contributing Factors/ Objectives Young adults age have limited access to responsible drinking education By 2014, increase the number of media impressions (Baseline = 0) designed to inform and educate young adults about binge drinking consequences and responsible drinking Baseline Data 2012 Community Perception Worksheets, (n=24) 91.7% respondents said young people think binge drinking is cool Zero media impressions recorded Follow-Up Data FY 2013, FY 2014: No comparable data available 2015 Talbot Community Alcohol Use Survey 53% (n=71) report counting their drinks most of the time or always 60% (n=80) report eating before and while drinking most of the time or always 45% (n=60) report alternating alcoholic drinks with non-alcoholic drinks and water most of the time or always 27% (n=35) report choosing drinks based on alcohol content most of the time or always 46% (n=58) report consuming 2-3 drinks on average FY 2013: None reported FY 2014 o 80 market messages; 233,025 estimated media impressions FY 2015 o 125 market messages; 462,956 estimated media impressions Change in Contributing Factor (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change (+) Positive change 2015 Talbot Community Alcohol Use Survey 49.2% (n=64) reported seeing the message Drink Responsibly 43.8% (n=57) reported seeing the message Check Yourself Talbot 41.5% (n=54) reported seeing the message Party with a Plan 175

179 TALBOT COUNTY Priority: Reduce the number of young persons, ages 18-25, reporting past month binge drinking Variables Social and Community Norms (Cont d) Contributing Factors/ Objectives Young adults ages perceive that binge drinking is normal and cool By 2014, collect surveys on 10% of young adults to measure perception on peer alcohol consumption and consequences of binge drinking Drinking (in large quantities) is culturally acceptable- part of hunting, fishing, boating, festival culture in Talbot County Increase the percentage from 20% in 2012 to 50% in 2015 of community events and seasonal activities where alcohol is served or consumed being monitored by law enforcement to prevent underage access (18-20 year olds), over serving, and intoxication by year olds Baseline Data FY 2012 There are no coordinated marketing messages in Talbot County to emphasize binge drinking consequences or responsible drinking No baseline surveys to measure perception on peer alcohol consumption and consequences Saturation Patrols FY 2012: 20% of outdoor festivals and seasonal events have a law enforcement presence. The Natural Resources Police reported significant budget cuts resulting in personnel reductions from 17 to 4 in the mid-shore area Follow-Up Data FY 2013, FY 2014: No comparable data available 2015 Talbot Community Alcohol Use Survey o 46.2% (n=60) report drinking alcohol is the norm in Talbot County, but not drinking to get drunk o 48.5% (n=63) report drinking alcohol to get drunk is the norm in Talbot County Saturation patrols FY2013 (St. Michael s PD) o 1 patrol (6 total hours) FY 2014 o 24 saturation patrols (249 hours) 2 open container citations 125 traffic stops 70 traffic violations o Sheriff s Office & Easton Town PD 28 DUI/DWI 4 underage possession citations 10 open container citations FY 2015 o 27 saturation patrol operations (162 hours) 4 DUIs; 181 traffic stops 35 traffic violations; 1 CDS arrest Change in Contributing Factor (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change (+) Positive Change 176

180 Impact of Contributing Factors The general trend of the contributing factors (CFs) in Talbot County associated with this priority shows a moderately positive change. Law enforcement and adjudication s CFs saw a minor improvement through the coalition s monitoring of alcohol-related court cases to assess the inconsistency of judicial practices associated with alcohol-related violations. More alcohol-related cases were prosecuted from 48% (n=11) to 59% (n=35). Additionally, to address the local and seasonal activities where alcohol are served more readily, law enforcement patrols increased from 1 patrol in FY 2013 to 27 patrols in FY Concurrently, CFs associated with retail availability noted improvements in number of RBS trainings and those who were trained from 12 trainings in FY2013 to 42 trainings in FY 2015 and from zero one-day event volunteers trained reported in FY 2013 to 86 one-day event volunteers trained in FY 2015, respectively. Media Contributing factors targeting youth access to responsible alcohol education and youth perception of binge drinking as cool and normal showed insufficient amount of data at the time of this report to assess its change. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains The partnership with the Easton Business Alliance allowed the coalition to expand their efforts and increase their visibility in the community. CheckYourself Talbot booths provided water at the Wine Fest and Brew Fest in St. Michaels. The coalition was invited to the Battle of the Bands event where they distributed waters and koozies with party with a plan tips and provided responsible drinking tips throughout the event. Members of the coalition collected 136 surveys to evaluate the impact of the Domino Strategy and changes in their contributing factors. 177

181 Washington County MSPF Community: Hagerstown region MSPF Organization: Teen Have Choices Coalition Name: Drug Free Washington County Prevention Coordinator: April Rouzer MSPF Coordinator: Lisa Fairburn Local Evaluator: Erin Artigiani Needs Assessment Approval: July 17, 2013 Strategic Plan Approval: February 26, 2014 Strategy Implementation Start: N/A The Hagerstown region (2010 population of 93,303) is made up of the zip codes 21740, 21741, and Hagerstown is the county seat of Washington County located in Western Maryland. The community is within close proximity of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Virginia. Washington County is located in the Appalachian Mountains and much of the county lies in the broad Hagerstown Valley. The county is bordered to the north by Pennsylvania, to the south by the Potomac River and the States of Virginia and West Virginia, to the west by Allegany County and to the east by Frederick County. The ethnic makeup of the county according to the 2010 census is 85.1% White, 9.6% African-American, 1.4% Asian and 3.5% Hispanic or Latino. Teen Have Choices serves as the lead MSPF organization for Washington County. Drug Free Washington County is a new coalition that was formed with a special focus on underage drinking prevention. Data helped the community to select the priority of reducing underage drinking. The table below lists the three intervening variables, contributing factors and strategies that were selected by the coalition. The strategies selected focus on enhancing law enforcement and adjudication practices, development and promotion of a TIPS line, changing youth perception and increasing community knowledge through media campaigns and outreach 178

182 WASHINGTON COUNTY Priority: Reducing the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors Strategies Law Enforcement/ Adjudication Social Availability Social and Community Norms Lack of Law Enforcement Resources Availability of unsupervised drinking and other drinking locations Youth perception that underage drinking is common Conduct saturation patrols during high risk seasons and events. Conduct compliance checks. Set up, promote, and monitor TIPS Line Youth Led Media Campaign Strategy Implementation Washington County began implementation in the final year of MSPF. Due to staff turnover and the dissolution of the Coalition s lead agency, the details of the implementation activities were not reported. 179

183 WASHINGTON COUNTY Priority: Reducing the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Law Enforcement/ Adjudication Social Availability Contributing Factors/ Objectives Lack of Law Enforcement Resources Increase the percentage of alcohol establishments in compliance in the Hagerstown region by 5% from 90% to 95% Increase the number of saturation patrols conducted during high risk seasons (e.g. homecoming, prom times, etc.) from 0 to 4 Availability of unsupervised drinking and other drinking locations Increase number of calls/ s/texts to a Tips line for use by county residents to report underage drinking from 0 to 5 per quarter Baseline Data Compliance Checks FY 2012: o Nearly 1/3 of the establishments out of compliance in FY 2012 were in Hagerstown o Within the Hagerstown region, 10% of the establishments checked were out of compliance FY 2013: o Nearly 2/3 of the establishments were found to be out of compliance in the Hagerstown region in first half of FY 2013 Saturation Patrols In 2011, there were 54 alcohol-related arrests of individuals under the age of 21 o 48 of these arrests (89%) were for DUI From 2009 to 2011 the number of DUI cases resulting in PBJ or other increased steadily (16% PBJ, 51% other ) TIPS line Reported youth usually obtained the alcohol they drink from someone else giving it to them at a private party or event o 16% of 10th graders o 1 in 4 parents Follow-Up Data No comparable data available No comparable data available No comparable data available Change in Contributing Factor (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change 180

184 WASHINGTON COUNTY Priority: Reducing the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Social and Community Norms Contributing Factors/ Objectives Youth perception that underage drinking is common Increase percentage of youth who believe that their peers don t drink from 15% to 25%, as measured by the Washington County MSPF Public School survey Baseline Data Fall 2014 Parent Survey, (n=98) 3/4 th believe that 50% or more of teens their age have: o Had 1 or 2 drinks (77%) o Been drunk at least once (72%) 2014 Youth Survey Middle school students surveyed said underage drinking in their county is: o 50% believed it is very common o 40% believed it is somewhat common College students surveyed believe that underage (under 21) drinking is: o 82% believed it is very common College students surveyed on binge drinking among adults aged 18 to 25: o 73% believed it is somewhat common o 27% believe that it is very common Less than 1/2 of the students surveyed thought that it was very likely that a teen that drank several times a month or more would experiences consequences such as suspension from school, arrest, physical and/or mental harm to self or others, or difficulty achieving life goals Follow-Up Data No comparable data available Change in Contributing Factor (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change 181

185 Impact of Contributing Factors The overall trend for the change in contributing factors is inconclusive. Insufficient amount of follow-up data was provided prior to the publication of this report to assess any changes in the contributing factors for Washington County. Future follow-up is needed to assess for any potential meaningful results with its implementation. Challenges, Successes, Capacity Gains Washington County developed a school survey that was conducted with middle and high school students enrolled in family life/pe/health classes in the Hagerstown area. The partnership with the Washington County Public Schools facilitated the administration of the survey in schools. Unfortunately, due to administrative changes and staff turnover, the results of this survey have not been released at the time of this report. Staff turnover slowed the progress of the MSPF process in Washington County and delayed the start of implementation to the final year of the project. 182

186 Wicomico County MSPF Community: San Domingo, Mardela Springs, Sharptown and Hebron (Jan Mar 2014)/ Wicomico County (Mar present) MSPF Organization: Wicomico County Health Department Coalition Name: Drug Free Wicomico Prevention Coordinator: Cynthia Shifler MSPF Coordinator: Tanja Quinton Local Evaluator: Marvin Tossey Needs Assessment Approval: December 6, 2012 Strategic Plan Approval: N/A Strategy Implementation Start: N/A Wicomico County is located in the lower eastern shore and is bordered by Dorchester County to the northwest, Somerset County to the southwest, and Delaware to the north and Worcester County to the southeast. The ethnic makeup of the county according to the 2010 census is 68.7% White, 24.2% African-American, 2.5% Asian and 4.5% Hispanic or Latino. Wicomico County is starting the MSPF process over after switching MSPF communities from San Domingo, Mardela Springs, Sharptown and Hebron to the entire county. They are in the beginning steps of the collecting data and completing the community needs assessment. Strategy Implementation Wicomico County did not implement strategies during the MSPF initiative. Challenges, Successes, and Capacity Gains The Nanticoke Community Alliance had difficulty in choosing environmental strategies that were a good fit with the MSPF communities of San Domingo, Mardela Springs, Sharptown and Hebron. Ultimately, the size and characteristics of the MSPF community led to the decision to switch the MSPF community to the entire county. Wicomico County selected Drug Free Wicomico, a well-established coalition with strong partners in the community and access to local data, as the new coalition that will begin the MSPF process for the entire county. Wicomico County submitted a needs assessment, but it was not approved. 183

187 Worcester County MSPF Community: Worcester County MSPF Organization: Drug and Alcohol Abuse Council Coalition Name: Drug and Alcohol Abuse Council MSPF Subcommittee (SPF Process Team) Prevention Coordinator: David Baker MSPF Coordinator: Lois Twilley Local Evaluator: Linda Walls Needs Assessment Approval: April 12, 2013 Strategic Plan Approval: October 30, 2013 Strategy Implementation Start: January 10, 2014 Worcester County (2010 population of 51,454) is located on the southernmost tip of the Eastern Shore of Maryland and is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the east, Somerset County to the south, Delaware to the north, and Wicomico County to the west. The ethnic makeup of the county according to the 2010 census is 82.0% White, 13.6% African-American, 1.1% Asian and 3.2% Hispanic or Latino. The Drug and Alcohol Abuse Council serves as the lead MSPF Organization for Worcester County. A sub-committee, the SPF Process Team, was established to focus on the assessment process and to make recommendations to the Council. This committee will draw from the Council and other community representatives. The Council has historically been involved in a variety of prevention activities including providing educational programs in the schools, conducting an annual awards event, conducting a poster contest, providing funding to youth focused alternative activities (i.e. after prom parties, Play It Safe campaign), monitoring drug and alcohol use in the County, and advocating for policy change when appropriate. Data helped the community to select the priority of reducing underage drinking with an emphasis on binge drinking among year olds. The table below lists the two intervening variables and five contributing factors that were selected by the coalition. The strategies selected focus on enhancing law enforcement practice, developing new policies and procedures, increasing compliance checks and increasing community knowledge through media campaigns and outreach. 184

188 WORCESTER COUNTY Priority: Reducing the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors Strategies Law Enforcement and Adjudication Resource Shortages for Law Enforcement Agencies Alcohol Sales to Minors by Licensed Alcohol Outlets Enhance law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws. Party Patrols and Saturation Patrols Conduct alcohol age compliance checks and issue citations to retailers selling alcohol to youth Social Availability Youth Access to Alcohol in the Homes Due to Poor Monitoring/Supervision by Parents and a Permissive Attitude Youth Access to Alcohol Due to Poor Supervision/ Monitoring at Community Events Social Marketing Campaign Determine root causes for alcohol access in the homes through provision and administration of a youth access survey Develop municipal standards and procedures and awarding, renewing, suspending and revoking alcohol licenses. RBS Training (Establishment and One-Day Events) Strategy Implementation Implementation of strategies in Worcester County began in Strategies mostly focused on enhancing law enforcement capacity and commitment to address alcohol laws. The Sherriff s Office conducted party patrols targeting the months of May and June to coincide with high school graduation and graduation celebrations. A total of 21 operations were conducted during MSPF. In FY 15, 13 parties were disbanded and 35 minor in possession of alcohol citations were issued. Worcester County Law Enforcement agencies also conducted compliance checks in 97 different establishments, 49% of the total 198 licensed establishments in the county. The Worcester County Health Department hosted a recognition breakfast for retailers with an excellent record of not selling to minors during compliance checks and for law enforcement agencies. During the final year of implementation, Worcester County monitored community events for underage sales and provided RBS training to servers who staff community events and alcohol retail servers (41 trained). 185

189 WORCESTER COUNTY Priority: Reducing the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Law Enforcement and Adjudication Resource Shortages for Law Enforcement Agencies Increase the number of party/saturation patrols to target underage drinking (FY 2014 goal: increase by 3-5 operations up from 3 during FY 2013); (FY 2015 goal: increase by 3 operations, up from 3 during FY 2014) Saturation patrol FY2012 & FY 2013: Law enforcement agencies report a significant loss of funding for alcohol related enforcement in 2012 and 2013 and there are anticipated further funding cuts for FY 2014 Juvenile arrests FY 2010: Number of juvenile arrests dropped from 410 in 2007 to 246 in 2010 Follow-Up Data Saturation patrol FY 2014: o At least 1 patrol with 14 citations reported. FY 2015: o 10 saturation patrols Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive Change Alcohol Sales to Minors by Licensed Alcohol Outlets Increase the success rate of retails not selling to minors from 82% in CY 2013 to 84% in CY 2014 Sales to minors FY 2011: 34 sales to minors reported Sales to minors (Board of License Commissioners ) FY 2015 o 15 alcohol licensees sold to cadet o 7 vendors have letters of reprimand in their business file o 11 licensee received a fine o o 2 suspensions of license to sell 2 alcohol retailers denied license requests (+) Positive Change 186

190 WORCESTER COUNTY Priority: Reducing the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Law Enforcement and Adjudication (Cont d) Alcohol Sales to Minors by Licensed Alcohol Outlets (Cont d) Maintain 30% of licensees having a compliance check occur by FY 14 Compliance Checks CY 2012: 73% success rate of retails not selling to minors Follow-Up Data Compliance Checks (Ocean City Police, WC Sheriff s Office) CY 2013 o 103 checks o Compliant: 82% success rate FY 2014 o 36 checks Noncompliant: 3 checks Compliant: 33 (91.7%) of checks FY 2015 o Sept 2014: 231 checks Compliant: 203 (88%) checks o Nov 2014: 19 checks Compliant: 13 (68%) checks o Dec 2014: Compliant: 76% of checks Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive Change 187

191 WORCESTER COUNTY Priority: Reducing the number of youth, ages 12-20, reporting past month alcohol use Variables Contributing Factors/ Objectives Baseline Data Social Availability Youth Access to Alcohol due to Alcohol providing to minors Increase the number of one-day licenses that include provisions for supervision/monitoring underage drinking at community events from 0% to 100% in FY 2014 Youth Access to Alcohol Due to Lack of Parental Monitoring of Alcohol Supple in the Home At least 30% of Worcester County parents responding to a survey are familiar with the social marketing campaign message 2012 Environmental Scans Community events where alcohol is served generally do not include strategies to reduce youth access such as server training, arm band, or beer gardens Youth Council Focus Group, (n=15) & Detention Center Focus Group, (n=13) Youth reported easy access at community events, typically sponsored by non-profit organizations as fundraisers 2012 Youth Council Focus Group, (n=15) & 2012 Detention Center Focus Group, (n=13) Youth reported easy access and parents not caring if teens consume at family events or in the home Follow-Up Data One-day License events FY 2015 o 58 one-day license events sponsors received recommendation on underage drinking prevention Change in Contributing Factor (+) Positive change No comparable data available (?) Insufficient amount of data to assess change 188

192 Impact of Contributing Factors The general trend of the contributing factors in Worchester County showed a moderately positive change. The social availability s contributing factors revealed some positive changes by increasing licensing at one-day events. Concurrently, insufficient amount of data is available at the time of this report to assess whether there was a change in parental perception in youth social access to alcohol at home after implementation of social marketing campaigns in Worchester County. Improved law enforcement dedication to address underage drinking is seen in the increased surveillance (i.e. number of saturation patrols and number of compliance checks conducted) and improved compliance rates among licensed alcohol outlets. Continued follow-up is optimal to assess for future meaningful outcomes with Worchester County s continued implementation of underage drinking prevention efforts under the Partnership for Success (PFS) grant. Successes, Challenges and Capacity Gains Worcester County developed Compliance Check Guidelines for local law enforcement when conducting alcohol compliance checks. The Worcester County Sherriff s Office and the Ocean City Police Department reviewed the procedures and the guidelines have been adopted by all local law enforcement agencies. Additionally, heightened consequences were issued by the Board of License Commissioners regarding licensed establishments who repeatedly sell to minors and alcohol license density is under consideration. The coalition conducted two rounds of community surveys on youth and adults to gather data on access and perceptions of underage drinking and to evaluate the impact of MSPF in Worcester County. Worcester County is one of 10 jurisdictions in Maryland that will be eligible to receive funding through the Partnership for Success grant to continue underage and binge drinking prevention efforts. 189

193 DISCUSSION Changes in priorities and NOMS due to MPSF implementation: In 2012, MSPF strategy implementation began in four jurisdictions while the majority of jurisdictions began implementation in This allowed for only two years of strategy implementation for most jurisdictions in Maryland. Therefore, the reductions in past month alcohol use of youth ages, 12-20, and alcohol-related crashes among youth and young adults, ages 16-25, over the past five years cannot be exclusively attributed to MSPF implementation. As noted earlier, prior to the start of MSPF, data indicated a downward trend of past month alcohol use of youth, ages In addition, there are multiple initiatives in the State addressing underage drinking, binge drinking and alcohol-related crashes, making it difficult to attribute changes in priorities and NOMS solely to MSPF implementation. Outcome Evaluation Questions: 1. What was the effect of MSPF on service capacity and other infrastructure objectives? Service capacity was greatly enhanced because of the MSPF initiative. Due to MSPF, the State increased the number of trained prevention professionals by adding the position of MSPF Coordinator in most jurisdictions. Additionally, jurisdictions were able to hire local evaluators to assist in data collection and analysis. 2. What was the effect of the intervention on the participants? The effect of MSPF on participants varied. Jurisdictions that participated in the SPF model gained valuable skills in using data and a planning model to drive prevention practice in their community. The State has chosen to integrate the SPF model into other prevention projects, and the skills that participants gained during MSPF implementation will be transferrable to future projects. 3. Did the MSPF project achieve its intended goals? The greatest success of the MSPF initiative was enhancing the State s prevention capacity. Success of the goals related to the three priorities varied. There was a reduction in past month s use among year olds, but the reduction cannot exclusively be attributed to MSPF. 4. What program/contextual factors were associated with outcomes? Contextual factors that influenced outcomes included the readiness and partnerships of key stakeholders within the community. Additionally, the strength of the leadership team was strongly associated with outcomes. The jurisdictions with positive outcomes partnered with the business community and the school system. Examples include Allegany County collaborating with local alcohol retailers to develop the Cooperating Alcohol Agreement, Talbot County partnering with the Talbot Business Alliance to promote responsible drinking strategies at community events, and Baltimore City and Calvert County partnering with after school programs to address social norms related to underage drinking. 190

194 5. What individual factors were associated with outcomes? Individual factors associated with outcomes include acceptance of the SPF model, understanding the importance of developing a strong, data-driven needs assessment and strategic plan, the ability and willingness to collect local level data, understanding comprehensive environmental strategies, and the ability to identify and implement innovative approaches to the problem of underage and binge drinking. 6. How durable were the effects? At this point, the durability of the effects of SPF is difficult to assess since the project just concluded. However, some jurisdictions have the capacity and have identified methods to sustain the efforts of SPF. A sustainable outcome of MPSF is the addition and enhancement of local community coalitions addressing underage and binge drinking. Coalitions are continuing their efforts. Lessons Learned Upon reviewing Maryland s experience with implementing SPF, we identified the following lessons learned regarding the elements of the project. We envision future discussion about these issues as Maryland incorporates the Strategic Prevention Framework into other prevention initiatives and expands substance abuse prevention in the State. There is a benefit to following a structured and comprehensive planning model such as the Strategic Prevention Framework. Strong and active MSPF Coordinators contributed to successful implementation of the steps of the Strategic Prevention Framework. Strategies were more likely to be implemented with fidelity and had support from community partners when the MSPF coordinator was involved. Active coordinators impacted the awareness of MSPF and strategy implementation in the community. Identifying and partnering with community stakeholders for implementation of strategies contributed to the success of strategy implementation. Strong stakeholders included county schools, local colleges and universities, county liquor board, and local business community. It is important to have a complete MSPF leadership team with active team members in all phases of the project. A strong MSPF leadership team had more impact than a strong coalition. Many communities found it difficult to identify and implement strategies that were not traditional prevention strategies (i.e., Individual prevention education, information dissemination, awareness campaigns). There is a need for additional trainings on understanding comprehensive strategies that target identified needs of the community and how to implement them in the local communities. A majority of communities during the needs assessment phase did not allow the data to drive the process. Data were collected to support coalitions ideas of what the local factors contributing to the problem were versus collecting unbiased data that would actually reveal the true local conditions. This impacted the selection of contributing factors and strategies. 191

195 The MSPF project has broadened and strengthened many community-based coalitions and expanded the expertise of community-based prevention efforts by attracting stakeholders from many different disciplines to engage in alcohol use reduction efforts in Maryland communities. The acceptance of the Strategic Prevention Framework varied among the jurisdictions. Successful jurisdictions embraced the model from inception and followed the SPF steps effectively. A number of challenges to the attainment of the MSPF project s goals and the sustainability of the program in the long term have been recognized and compiled by the State Evaluation Team. These challenges are indicators of issues that need to be addressed, as the State continues to adopt the SPF process in other prevention projects. o There is a general lack of county level and sub-county level data across the State. The lack of local data makes it difficult for communities to identify areas of concern and to properly evaluate strategies and programs to address these areas. o There is a need to enhance the State prevention Infrastructure at the State level. The Prevention Office at the Behavioral Health Administration is understaffed. The lack of personnel impacts the accountability of the jurisdictions and inhibits effective local level changes due to the MSPF project. o There is a need to increase State-level capacity and partnership building to enhance the State prevention infrastructure and sustain State-level changes. o There is a need to identify strong local evaluators who understand their roles and responsibilities in the SPF model. Future success is dependent on finding local evaluators that are experienced in survey development and analysis, program evaluation, and technical writing. 192

196 CONCLUSIONS The evaluation data collected for Maryland s SPF SIG indicate that during the project period the State was able to fulfill the requirements of the grant through 1) following the five-step planning model at the State and community levels, 2) enhancing Maryland s prevention framework through substantial capacity gains at the community levels, 3) implementing environmental strategies that addressed local contributing factors in MSPF communities, and 4) SPF-SIG coupled with other State and local initiatives having positively contributed to the reduction in underage drinking and alcohol related crashes. 193

197 APPENDICES 194

198 Appendix A. Summary Table of Strategies Strategy Counties Implementing Count (employees trained) Responsible Beverage Allegany 204 Server (RBS) Training Anne Arundel 212 Baltimore 33 Carroll 77 Dorchester 19 Garrett 43 St. Mary s 228 Talbot 433 Total 1249 Strategy Counties Implementing Count (number of checks) Allegany 837 Anne Arundel 108 Baltimore City 40 Baltimore 98 Carroll 256 Compliance Checks Cecil 628 Dorchester 36 Frederick 230 Harford 104 Kent 98 Queen Anne s 150 Somerset 31 Washington N/A Worcester 370 Total 2212* Strategy Counties Implementing Count (hours or operations) Allegany hrs Anne Arundel hrs Baltimore 13 operations Calvert 18 operations Law Enforcement* Caroline 235 hrs Cecil 121 operations Charles 47 operations Dorchester 17 operations (71.5hrs) Frederick hrs Garrett 922 hrs Howard 21 operations Queen Anne s hours Somerset 179 hrs Talbot 255 hrs Worcester 11 operations Total 5251 hrs; 182 operations * Hours or number of operations dedicated to underage drinking surveillance 195

199 Appendix B. MSPF Coalition Member Survey What is the name of your coalition? Answer Options % N Frostburg Community Coalition 11.8 % 28 Northern Lights against Substance Abuse 4.6 % 11 Baltimore County Underage Drinking Coalition 5.5 % 13 Greenmount East Drug Free Coalition 0.8 % 2 Calvert County Underage Alcohol Abuse Reduction Team 0.4 % 1 Drug Free Caroline Coalition 4.6 % 11 Carroll County Coalition against Underage Drinking 5.9 % 14 Cecil County MSPF Community Coalition 5.5 % 13 Charles County Substance Abuse Advisory Coalition 4.6 % 11 Dorchester County Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol 2.9 % 7 Frederick County Alcohol Prevention Initiative 4.6 % 11 Garrett County Drug Free Communities Coalition 6.3 % 15 Harford FACE-IT 0.4 % 1 Howard County Alcohol Coalition 6.7 % 16 Kent County Adolescent Substance Abuse Coalition 3.8 % 9 Montgomery County Coalition 2.5 % 6 Prince George's SPF Community Coalition 0.8 % 2 Queen Anne's Drug Free/SPF Coalition 8.4 % 20 St. Mary's Community Alcohol Coalition 7.1 % 17 Prevention Works in Somerset County 1.3 % 3 Talbot Partnership for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Prevention 2.1 % 5 Drug Free Washington County 3.8 % 9 Drug Free Wicomico 3.4 % 8 Worcester Drug and Alcohol Abuse Council MSPF Subcommittee 2.1 % 5 What is your role in your MSPF coalition? Check all that apply. Answer Options % N Chair 3.8 % 9 Co-Chair 2.9 % 7 MSPF Coordinator 8.4 % 20 Member 73.1 % 174 Sub-Committee Chair 1.7 % 4 Sub-Committee Member 7.6 % 18 Other (please specify) 11.3 % 27 What Sector/ Organization do you represent? Answer Options % N Youth Groups/ Representatives 0.4 % 1 Parents/ Family/ Caregiver Groups 7.1 % 17 Business Community 4.6 % 11 Media 2.5 % 6 Schools 11.8 % 28 Youth-Serving Organizations, other than Schools 5.9 % 14 Law Enforcement Agencies 14.3 %

200 State Departments of Justice 0.4 % 1 State/ Local Jails and Prisons 1.3 % 3 Faith Based Organizations 1.7 % 4 Civic or Volunteer Organizations 1.3 % 3 Health Care Professionals 8.0 % 19 Other State/ Jurisdiction Government Agencies (Public Health, Public Safety, 22.7 % 54 Social Services, etc.) Local Agencies (Mayor's Office, City Council,etc.) 2.9 % 7 Other (please specify) 15.1 % 36 How long have you been a member of this MSPF coalition? Answer Options % N Less than one year 19.3 % 46 1 to 4 years 57.1 % to 8 years 12.6 % 30 Greater than 8 years 10.9 % 26 How did you become involved with this MSPF coalition? Check all that apply. Answer Options % N I am representing my organization/agency 68.1 % 162 I heard about this MSPF coalition at community events 5.0 % 12 I heard about this MSPF coalition through the media 4.6 % 11 I am interested in the coalition's goals/work 24.4 % 58 A coalition member invited me 23.9 % 57 Other (please specify) 11.3 % 27 Please indicate your level of satisfaction with your coalition's planning and implementation abilities Answer Options Very Dissatisf ied Dissatisf ied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied Process used to identify community needs Clarity of the vision for where the coalition should be going Planning process used to prepare coalition's objectives Follow through on coalition's activities Efforts to promote collaborative action Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following aspects of your coalition's leadership & membership Answer Options Very Dissatisf ied Dissatisf ied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied Strength and competence of coalition leadership Commitment of coalition to build and sustain a diverse membership Opportunities for coalition members to take leadership roles Balance of power between leaders and N/A N/A N N 197

201 members Extent to which coalition members are involved in decision making Comments 26 Please indicate the sectors/ organizations that actively participate in your coalition. Check all that apply. Answer Options % N Youth Groups/ Representatives 60.4 % 131 Parents/ Family/ Caregiver Groups 63.1 % 137 Business Community 70.5 % 153 Media 41.0 % 89 Schools 81.1 % 176 Youth-Serving Organizations, other than Schools 49.3 % 107 Law Enforcement Agencies 95.9 % 208 State Departments of Justice 31.8 % 69 State/ Local Jails and Prisons 24.4 % 53 Faith Based Organizations 44.2 % 96 Civic or Volunteer Organizations 51.6 % 112 Health Care Professionals 69.6 % 151 Other State/ Jurisdiction Government Agencies (Public Health, Public Safety, Social Services, etc.) 73.3 % 159 Local Agencies (Mayor's Office, City Council, etc.) 52.1 % 113 Other (please specify) 8.3 % 18 Please indicate your level of satisfaction with regard to overall involvement in your coalition Answer Options Participation of influential people from key sectors and organizations Collaboration with local communities/ coalitions Help given to communities to become better at addressing underage drinking issues Very Dissatisfi ed Dissatisfi ed 198 Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied N/A Please indicate your level of satisfaction with regard to your coalition's communication Answer Options Very Dissatisfi Dissatisfi Neutral Satisfied ed ed Use of the media to promote awareness of the coalition's goals, actions, and accomplishments Communication between coalition members and MSPF Coordinator Communication among members of the coalition Very Satisfied N/A N N

202 Communication between coalition and the broader community Working relationships established with elected officials Please indicate your level of agreement with regard to your ownership of the coalition Answer Options Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree 199 Strongly Agree My abilities are used effectively I am usually clear about my role in the coalition My time is well spent in the coalition I am satisfied with what the coalition has accomplished I feel that I have a voice in what the coalition decides I really care about the future of the coalition Please indicate your level of satisfaction with regard to your coalition's progress and outcomes Answer Options Very Dissatisfi Very Dissatisfi Neutral Satisfied ed Satisfied ed N/A N Coalition's efforts to sustain itself over time Progress in meeting coalition's objectives Success in generating resources for the coalition Capacity of members to give support to each other Capacity of the coalition and its members to advocate effectively Coalition's contribution to reducing alcohol use among youths and young adults N/A Please indicate your level of agreement with regard to your coalition's institutionalization Answer Options Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree Coalition is included in other collaborative efforts Coalition's sphere of influence includes state agencies, private agencies, N/A N N

203 and governing bodies Coalition has access to power within legislative and executive branches of agencies and the government Coalition activities are incorporated within other agencies or institutions

204 Appendix C. Additional Data Charts Alcohol consumption by race, gender and sexual orientation (%) Blac Hispani Whit Femal Mal Heterosexua GLB k c e e e l Maryland United States Source: Youth Risk Behavior Survey, Past 30-Day Alcohol Use among Maryland High School Students a 68.8 Percent days 1 or 2 days Days 3 to 5 days 6 to 9 days 10 to 19 days 20 to 29 days All 30 days a Percentage of Maryland high school students reporting at least one drink of alcohol on one or more of the past 30 days Source: Youth Risk Behavior Survey,