An Impact 

Evaluation 

of Underage 

Drinking 

Prevention

Projects

final report
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

An Impact Evaluation of Underage Drinking Prevention Projects

5. Report Date

November 2003

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Lacey, J. H., Wiliszowski, C. H., and Jones, R. K.

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Mid-America Research Institute

611 Main Street

Winchester, MA 01890

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTNH22-97-P-05206

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Office of Research and Traffic Records

400 7th Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period

Covered

Final Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Amy Berning was the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) for this project.

16. Abstract

This report presents the results of an impact evaluation of four community-based underage drinking

prevention projects stimulated by technical assistance coordinated by the National Association of

Governor’s Highway Safety Representatives (now called the Governors Highway Safety Association)

with funding provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The four programs

which were studied were located in: Chesterfield County, Virginia; Omaha, Nebraska; Salt Lake

County, Utah; and Travis County, Texas. The impact evaluation focused on the effect of the

programs on proxy measures of alcohol-related crashes among youth. 

17. Key Words

Underage drinking, alcohol-related crashes,

youth crashes, coalition, Cops in Shops.

18. Distribution Statement

This report is available from the National Technical

Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161,

(703) 605-6000, and is free of charge from the

NHTSA web site at www.nhtsa.dot.gov

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

i

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................... iii

1 - INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1

BACKGROUND ............................................. 1

SCOPE AND APPROACH ..................................... 4

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT ............................. 4

2 - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA ........................ 5

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION .................................... 5

EFFECTS .................................................. 6

3 - OMAHA, NEBRASKA ....................................... 9

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION .................................... 9

EFFECTS ................................................. 13

4 - SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH ............................... 15

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................... 15

EFFECTS ................................................. 17

5 - TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS .................................. 19

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................... 19

EFFECTS ................................................. 20

6 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................ 23

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................. 25
ii

FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Young Driversin Nighttime Injury Crashesin Chesterfield

County, Virginia, 1991-2000 ................................... 7

Figure 2-2: Young Drivers in Nighttime Injury Crashes in Entire State 

of Virginia, Excluding Chesterfield County, 1991-2000 ............. 8

Figure 3-1: Quarterly Counts of Nighttime Single-Vehicle Injury

Crashes Involving Young Drivers in Douglas and Sarpy Counties, 

Nebraska, 1990-1999 ...................................... . 13

Figure 4-1: Young Driversin Nighttime Crashes, Salt Lake County,

1992-1998................................................. 18

Figure 5-1: Young Drivers in Nighttime Injury Crashes, Travis County,

1993-1998 ................................................. 21

Figure 5-2: Young Driversin Nighttime Injury Crashes, Entire State

Excluding Travis County, 1993-1998 ............................ 22
1

The fifth program was no longer in existence at the time of the evaluation.

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarizes the results of a highway safety impact evaluation of

four underage drinking prevention programs in the United States. The National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), through the National Association of Governor’s Highway Safety Representatives (now called the Governors

Highway Safety Association [GHSA]) and with the cooperation of several Governor’s Highway Safety Programs (GHSPs), funded five underage drinking prevention programs around the country

1

 with the ultimate objective of reducing youth

alcohol-related crashes. This effort was implemented as a pilot test of whether the

perceived success of the Washington Regional Alcohol Program (WRAP) youth

activities could be replicated in other jurisdictions and to provide objective

evidence of their effectiveness.

The four programs that are evaluated here began in the mid-1990s. This report

briefly describes them and estimates their impact on surrogates of alcohol-related

crashes. The programs and their locations were:

■ Safe and Sober Youth (SASY) - Chesterfield County, Virginia

■ Project Extra Mile (PEM) - Omaha, Nebraska

■ Salt Lake City Underage Drinking Prevention Project (SLCUDPP) - Salt

Lake County, Utah

■ Travis County Underage Drinking Prevention Program (TCUDPP) - Travis

County, Texas

Three of the programs (SASY, PEM, and TCUDPP) emphasized public

information and education (PI&E) strategies, with the PEM program also including an active legislative component. Areas of major emphasis for these three

programs were:

SASY - Chesterfield County, Virginia

■ Raising public awareness of the dangers of underage drinking through

prevention and education efforts;

■ Providing an opportunity for increased communication and collaboration

on underage drinking initiatives;

■ Reducing underage youth access to alcohol; and

■ Developing and enhancing judicial alternative sentencing.
EVALUATION OF UNDERAGE DRINKING PREVENTION PROJECTS

iv

PEM - Omaha, Nebraska

■ Increasing awareness of youth drinking and driving issues and youth

alcohol laws by the general public;

■ Increasing enforcement of youth alcohol laws;

■ Educating the medical community treating the under 21 group on the issue

of underage drinking and drinking-driving.

■ Providing school staff, students, and school-related groups with current

information on youth alcohol issues, including drinking and driving and

youth alcohol laws; and

■ Maintaining an established, informed community coalition and providing

information to the community regarding the coalition’s mission and 

activities.

TCUDPP - Travis County, Texas

■ Identifying the link between underage drinking with more highly visible

social issues such as truancy, binge drinking, teen pregnancy, HIV 

exposure, and gangs/juvenile crime;

■ Developing education programs for high risk youth groups as well as in all

Travis County high schools and middle schools; and

■ Increasing community prevention and education efforts through media

resources.

None of these three programs was found to have an impact on surrogates of

alcohol-related crashes involving underage drivers. However, it is possible that the

available data were not sufficient for detecting such an impact in some of the

jurisdictions studied, especially in light of the small number of youth-involved

traffic crashes that occurred in some jurisdictions. Also, it is possible that other

positive effects not reflected in alcohol-related crashes may have occurred (for

example, better coordination between community partners, increased awareness of

the youth drinking problem, or reductions in youth drinking). The measurement of

such effects goes beyond analyses of archival crash data, for example, relying on

surveys of self-reported drinking practices and, sometimes, involving the analyses

of other data such as that contained in special studies of crash victims admitted to

hospital trauma centers. 

The fourth program (SLCUDPP - Salt Lake County, Utah) emphasized

enforcement of laws prohibiting sales of alcoholic beverages to underage youth,

supported by youth peer programs. Other areas addressed by this program were:

■ Developing better data collection systems;

■ Increasing public awareness of the issue of underage drinking; and

■ Encouraging public policy changes.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

v

This program had a possible impact that increased with time starting about a

year after program initiation. The number of nighttime crashes involving an

underage driver gradually decreased in the program’s jurisdiction (Salt Lake

County, Utah), with the decrease amounting to about 20 crashes per month (about

14%) at three years after program initiation (p=0.10).

These findings suggest that, to have an alcohol-crash impact on the target

group in the short-range future, PI&E alone is insufficient and that initiatives

aimed at reducing the availability of alcoholic beverages, and/or at deterring

driving after drinking, may be necessary. Similar findings with respect to drinkingdrivers in general have been reported elsewhere (Jones and Lacey, 2001; 

Wagenaar, Murray, and Toomey, 2000).

2

The fifth program was no longer in existence at the time of the evaluation.

1

1 - INTRODUCTION

This report is a highway safety impact evaluation of four underage drinking

prevention programs. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA), through the National Association of Governor’s Highway Safety

Representatives (now called the Governors Highway Safety Association

[GHSA]), and with the cooperation of several Governor’s Highway Safety

Programs (GHSPs), funded five underage drinking prevention programs around

the country2 with the ultimate objective of reducing youth alcohol-related crashes. 

This effort was implemented as a pilot test of whether the perceived success of the

Washington Regional Alcohol Program (WRAP) youth activities could be replicated in other jurisdictions and to provide objective evidence of their effectiveness. 

WRAP was initiated in 1982 and involved a partnership of public-sector and

private-sector organizations. This study also aimed to describe the implementation

process and to note any problems or issues that arose during that process.

An important aspect of the project was for GHSA to provide technical assistance to each of the sites, particularly in their needs assessment and strategic

planning process prior to implementation of actual programs. This technical

assistance was provided by persons who were involved in that process for WRAP. 

Each of the pilot programs was initially funded by grants from its state Governor’s

Highway Safety Programs. The five programs were located in Chesterfield

County, Virginia; Detroit, Michigan; Omaha, Nebraska; Travis County, Texas; and

Salt Lake County, Utah. 

BACKGROUND

Persons of ages 16-20 years have the highest risk of being killed in a traffic

crash of any age group (U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 2002). In

fact, in 1998, motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death for this age

group (U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 1999). Additionally, 19-yearolds constituted the single year age group with the highest number of traffic

fatalities (U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 2002). More 21-year-olds

died in alcohol-related crashes than any other age group. This applies both to

drivers and passengers. In addition, some 22% of the drivers of ages 16-20 years

in fatal crashes had a BAC (Blood Alcohol Concentration) of .01 or higher. More

19-year-olds died in lower BAC (between .01 and .09) alcohol-related crashes than

any other age. In fact, 17-, 18-, 19-, 20-, 21- and 22-year-olds were the top six

ages of people that die in lower-BAC crashes. Two legal approaches have been

widely used in the United States to address this problem. One has focused on
EVALUATION OF UNDERAGE DRINKING PREVENTION PROJECTS

2

regulating alcohol availability (raising the legal minimum drinking age), and the

other on deterrence (zero tolerance laws for youth drinking and driving).

In July 1984, Congress enacted P. L. 98-363, Section 6 of which set a national

minimum drinking age (MLDA) of 21. States that failed to adopt 21 as the

minimum drinking age as provided by law were subject to having a certain portion

of their federal highway construction funds withheld from apportionment. By

1988, all of the states had adopted a minimum drinking age of 21. In 1987, the

United States General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed and synthesized some

50 pertinent studies (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1987). It found that raising

the MLDA generally reduces alcohol-related crashes for the affected age groups. 

The amount of reduction attributed to the MLDA legislation varied. For example,

in four “sound” studies using data from several states, the reduction ranged from

5% to 28%. The GAO study also found that the available evidence supported the

claim that the higher MLDA also reduces alcohol consumption and driving after

drinking. NHTSA estimates that, cumulatively through 2000, over 20,000 lives

have been saved by minimum drinking age laws (U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 2001).

The concept of zero tolerance laws for youth is based on the following

proposition: since it is illegal for persons under 21 to drink (or depending on the

state, purchase or possess) beverage alcohol, it should also be illegal for them to

drive with any alcohol in their system. Unfortunately, until fairly recently, many

states’ drinking driving laws failed to acknowledge this, and the “legal limit”

remained at .08 or .10 for drivers of all ages. Now, chiefly due to Section 320 of

P. L. 104-59 (signed November 28, 1995), federal legislation establishing a

national zero tolerance standard of a blood alcohol concentration of .02 or greater

for an individual under the age of 21 and withholding penalties similar to the 1984

law encouraging MLDA laws, all states and the District of Columbia have zero

tolerance laws.

At least four prior studies examined the highway safety impact of zero tolerance laws, and one of these also considered issues related to publicizing the law. 

Blomberg (1992) evaluated a Maryland law that prohibited driving by persons

under age 21 with a BAC of .02 or more. The evaluation employed an interrupted

time series analysis of had been drinking (HBD) crashes as judged by the investigating officers. It also developed a public information and education (PI&E)

campaign and implemented the campaign in six Maryland counties about a year

after the law went into effect. The evaluation considered the impact of two

interventions, the law itself and the PI&E program publicizing the law and its

sanctions. The study found a statewide reduction in HBD crashes involving

drivers under age 21 of about 11% associated with the adoption of the law, but

found no statewide effect associated with the PI&E campaign. However, a

separate analysis of the interventions in just the six counties conducting the PI&E

campaign found positive effects for both interventions, 21% for the introduction of
INTRODUCTION

3

 One study state was California which had no plausible nearby state for comparison. Texas was

used as a comparison state for California.

4 A community-based program conducted by Wagenaar and associates (1999) in the mid-1990s, is

a notable exception. The program, called Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA),

was a randomized 15-community trial of a community-organizing intervention designed to reduce

the accessibility of alcoholic beverages to youths under the legal drinking age. The communities

were located in Minnesota and Wisconsin. An evaluation by of the effect of the CMAC program on

alcohol-related crashes is described by Wagenaar, Murray, and Toomey (2000). The authors

observed net declinesin the intervention communitiesfor all traffic crash indicators, but the decline

in alcohol-related crash surrogates was notsignificant, possibly because (asthe authors noted) of the

small numbers of such crashes involving the target group.

3

the law and a further 30% for the PI&E. These findings were strengthened by

survey results regarding the awareness of the law by the target group of drivers.

Hingson, Heeren, and Winter (1994) performed a before-and-after study of 12

states in which such laws became effective during the 1983-1991 period. In their

study, the percentage change in nighttime single-vehicle fatal crashes involving the

target group in each state was compared with that in another nearby state.3 The

effects of enforcement level and PI&E were not considered in the evaluation. The

authors found that eight of the twelve law states experienced a positive effect and

concluded that “if all states adopted .00 or .02 percent limits for drivers ages 15-

20, at least 375 fatal single vehicle crashes at night would be prevented each year.”

A third evaluation was a multi-state impact analysis of zero tolerance laws

(Voas, Tippetts, and Fell, 1999). The study involved a regression analysis of data

from NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for the years 1982 -

1997. The measure of effectiveness used in the analysis was the ratio of alcoholinvolved target-age drivers in fatal crashes to non-alcohol involved target-age

drivers in fatal crashes. Again, the effects of enforcement level and PI&E were not

considered in the evaluation. The study found that such laws were associated with

a 24% reduction in the proportion of underage drinking drivers in fatal crashes.

Most recently, Lacey, Jones, and Wiliszowski (2000) examined the effect of

zero tolerance laws in four states and found reductions ranging from none to 40%

attributable to the adoption or major changes in zero tolerance laws.

Thus, even though MLDA and zero tolerance laws have been shown to be

effective in reducing alcohol-related crashes among youth, such crashes remain a

significant problem for those under 21. It has been hypothesized that the broad

ranges of effectiveness observed for both MLDA and zero tolerance laws have

been partly attributable to lack of comprehensive community-based activities to

effectively address underage drinking and limited enforcement of these laws4. 

The perceived success of the Washington, DC area program in mobilizing

community activity to address this problem led NHTSA and GHSA to initiate this

pilot program to test the transferability of its approach to other communities. The

basic approach involves developing broad-based community coalitions to address

the problem, having the coalitions focus their efforts on specific areas of need by
EVALUATION OF UNDERAGE DRINKING PREVENTION PROJECTS

5

The time series analyses used the ARIMA method developed byBox and Jenkins in the 1970s, and

incorporated in the SAS® statistical package as PROC ARIMA.

4

conducting a comprehensive needs assessment, developing a strategic plan based

on addressing identified needs, and implementing that plan. The model calls for a

project coordinator in the community to staff coalition activities and coordinate

implementation.

The pilot sites were provided technical assistance and training by GHSA,

particularly in the needs assessment and strategic planning phases. This technical 

assistance was provided by professionals who had been involved in underage

drinking prevention coalition activities in the Washington, DC area. As an

outgrowth of that activity, they developed ten volumes of “How To” Guides on

Underage Drinking Prevention (Beer and Leonard, 2001) which provide a detailed

description of the process to be undertaken in implementing an underage drinking

prevention program in a community.

SCOPE AND APPROACH

The focus of this project was to determine the effects on youth alcohol-related

crashes of implementing a community-based underage drinking prevention program based on the model above.

Through interaction with program participants in each of the four jurisdictions

where a program was implemented, a brief description of the elements of each

program was developed. Crash data were obtained from the state level custodians

of those data for each of the jurisdictions, and interrupted time series were conducted to assess the effect each program may have had on proxy measures of

alcohol-related crashes5. 

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

A separate chapter is provided for each case study as follows:

■ Chapter 2 - Chesterfield County, Virginia

■ Chapter 3 - Omaha, Nebraska

■ Chapter 4 - Salt Lake County, Utah

■ Chapter 5 - Travis County, Texas

Each of these four case study chapters contains a description of the program

implemented in each site and a crash analysis. The project’s conclusions are

presented in Chapter 6, and a bibliography of references is provided at the end of

the report.
5

2 - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Chesterfield County underage drinking prevention program was called

Safe and Sober Youth (SASY) and was housed within a non-profit agency called

Children At Risk Today (CART). CART was organized in 1990 in an effort to

provide assistance to troubled youth. Its primary efforts had historically been to

raise funds to provide scholarships for at-risk youth to participate in a therapeutic

outdoor program. In the decade of the 1990s, over 500 such scholarships were

awarded. It was felt that housing the underage drinking prevention project under

the umbrella of this organization would be a natural extension of its goals. With a

grant from the Governor’s Highway Safety Program, staff were hired and project

activities initiated. Drawing from the board of CART and other individuals in the

community, a 22 member advisory board was convened and they embarked on

developing a program.

Following the model provided by NAGHSR, a community assessment was

conducted and a strategic plan was developed. 

The assessment indicated that though existing laws were adequate, underage

drinking remained a significant problem in Chesterfield County. Focus groups

indicated that alcohol was readily available to youth and that peer pressure and

lack of parental supervision led to underage drinking.

A strategic plan was developed and its primary goals included: 

■ Raise public awareness of the dangers of underage drinking through

prevention and education efforts;

■ Provide an opportunity for increased communication and collaboration

on underage drinking initiatives;

■ Reduce underage youth access to alcohol, and;

■ Develop and enhance judicial alternative sentencing.

SASY initiated a number of activities in pursuit of these objectives, primarily in

the area of educational efforts. An innovative and salient activity was conducted in

conjunction with the granting of initial driver licenses to youth. In Virginia, initial

driver licenses are issued to youth on a monthly basis by a judge in a courtroom. 

Parents are required to attend. This occurred on the third Monday of every month

in Chesterfield County. SASY saw this as an opportunity to present information

about the dangers of alcohol to youth and their parents. In cooperation with the

Juvenile Justice System, Chesterfield County Police and Fire Departments, Allstate

Insurance, the Alcohol Beverage Control Board and the Virginia State Police, they

offered information about the dangers of underage drinking, the importance of safe
EVALUATION OF UNDERAGE DRINKING PREVENTION PROJECTS

6

driving, and serious consequences associated with unhealthy behaviors. Their

presence was adopted as a regular part of the Judicial License Presentation.

Another major SASY effort was the coordination of a county-wide prom/

graduation program. Whereas before the SASY initiative, alcohol- and drug-free

proms had been the province of individual schools and were conducted on a hit-ormiss basis, all nine high schools in the county began participating annually. To

promote this level of activity, SASY, with the help of the school system, mailed

over 9,500 newsletters to parents of teenagers promoting the program, and SASY

helped to establish a county-wide coordinating committee.

SASY also coordinated and conducted numerous high school assembly

programs, including one with a member of the U.S. Congress as a presenter, and

another with a brain-damaged victim of an alcohol-related crash. In addition, they

developed a speakers’ bureau to provide presentations to groups such as the

Chamber of Commerce, Rotary Clubs, and school groups.

Program personnel also developed and produced a quarterly publication

entitled VOICE, Children At Risk Today. Though its title was associated with the

umbrella organization rather than with SASY, much of the content dealt with

underage drinking prevention and highway safety. Approximately 2,500 copies of

this newsletter were distributed quarterly. 

In an effort to support enforcement of underage drinking laws, SASY regularly

sponsored events and awards recognizing individual law enforcement officers who

made this form of enforcement a priority.

One of the overall project objectives was to encourage each of the sites to

identify additional funding sources. SASY applied for and received grants from

the Allstate Foundation and the local Rotary Club; however, its main source of

funding support remained through the Governor’s Highway Safety Program. 

Of course, another long-term objective was to have these programs serve as a

model for other jurisdictions. In that regard, a neighboring county incorporated

the SASY program into their Juvenile Justice Presentations.

EFFECTS

Crash data for the impact analysis were provided by the Virginia Department

of Motor Vehicles. The data covered the years 1991 - 2000. The measure of

youth-involved, alcohol-related crashes was the number of drivers under the age of

21 years in nighttime injury crashes in Chesterfield County. (There were too few

alcohol-related fatal crashes for a time-series analysis.) The totality of all other

counties in the state was used as a comparison.

Time series of monthly counts of these crashes were analyzed using the

ARIMA analysis method. To make the series stationary as required by ARIMA,

12-span differencing was used. Logarithmic transformations were used to improve

the fit to the data. Step function and ramp intervention functions at times near to

January, 1997 (the date of the initiation of significant program activity) were
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Jan-91Jan-92Jan-93Jan-94Jan-95Jan-96Jan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00

Month

Crashed Drivers

Data

Model

Figure 2-1: Young Driversin Nighttime Injury Crashesin Chesterfield County,

Virginia, 1991-2000

examined in the analysis. No statistically significant changes were found in this

impact measure, either in Chesterfield County or the remainder of the state

(Figures 2-1 and 2-2, respectively). The t-ratio was about +1.6 (p.0.1), both for

Chesterfield County and the rest of the state, indicating a slight increase in young

drivers in nighttime injury crashes in both areas.

We note that positive effects not reflected in alcohol-related crashes or their

surrogates may have occurred in Chesterfield County (for example, reductions in

youth drinking). However, the measure of effectiveness used here does not permit

an analysis of such other effects. Also, the small number of youth-related crashes

in Chesterfield County made it difficult to detect significant changes in such

crashes.
EVALUATION OF UNDERAGE DRINKING PREVENTION PROJECTS

8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Jan-91Jan-92Jan-93Jan-94Jan-95Jan-96Jan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00

Month

Crashed Drivers

Data

Model

Figure 2-2: Young Drivers in Nighttime Injury Crashes in Entire State of

Virginia, Excluding Chesterfield County, 1991-2000
9

3 - OMAHA, NEBRASKA

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Omaha, Nebraska program is called Project Extra Mile (Metropolitan

Omaha, Douglas and Sarpy Counties) Underage Drinking Prevention Project. 

Project Extra Mile was initially housed within a long standing community substance abuse awareness and prevention program called PRIDE-Omaha, Inc. It was

initially funded through a grant from the Nebraska Office of Highway Safety. 

Then primary funding was provided through grants from the Department of

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). 

In October 1997, Project Extra Mile was incorporated as a separate non-profit

organization with a board of directors. As such it could independently solicit funds

and received $25,000 from a foundation to conduct a concentrated advocacy effort

during the legislative session. They also applied regularly for other funds, including from the United Way and local foundations, and received private donations

from individuals and groups that constituted a small portion of their funding. 

Started in November 1995, the first project year was spent conducting a

comprehensive needs assessment, as well as organizing a coalition to help develop

and implement the strategic plan. 

A full-time project coordinator was hired and began work on accomplishing

the project’s objectives. The coalition was formed engaging representatives of

community groups such as the Omaha Community Partnership, the Human

Services Round Table, the public schools, law enforcement, clergy, alcoholic

beverage retailers, the judiciary, public health, parents, youth and others.

The needs assessment included conducting intercept surveys in shopping malls

and theaters which revealed that nearly 60% of youth reporting drinking alcoholic

beverages. Focus groups were conducted among both youths and adults. The

youths participating indicated a lack of a clear and consistent message not to drink

from both parents and other authority figures. They also indicated that alcohol

was readily available. There was also a sense of lack of accountability for youth

and adults for not complying with the law. Examination of available data indicated

that alcohol-related crashes among youth were a problem and there was diminished

enforcement of underage drinking laws.

The coalition was organized into four workgroups covering specific subject

areas. These are public policy, enforcement and adjudication of youth alcohol

laws, public information and education, and reducing access and availability. The

coalition met on a monthly basis and the four work groups met separately, as

needed.
EVALUATION OF UNDERAGE DRINKING PREVENTION PROJECTS

10

The mission statement of the program was “To create a community consensus

that clearly states that underage alcohol use is illegal, unhealthy, and unacceptable.”

Specific goals that were identified in the first project year were:

■ To increase awareness of youth drinking and driving issues and youth

alcohol laws by the general public;

■ To educate the medical community treating the under 21 group on the

issue of underage drinking and drinking-driving.

■ To provide school staff, students, and school-related groups with current

information on youth alcohol issues, including drinking and driving and

youth alcohol laws; and

■ To maintain an established, informed community coalition and provide

information to the community regarding the coalition’s mission and 

activities.

 In the next project year, the coalition developed a strategic plan that identified

specific activities for each workgroup to undertake. In subsequent years, the

coalition moved forward on addressing these specific objectives. They are 

summarized by workgroup below.

PI&E Workgroup

The charge of the Public Information and Education (PI&E) workgroup was to

provide for increased public awareness of both the tragic and harmful consequences of underage drinking, as well as of the laws that govern the use of alcohol

by persons under age 21. Specific strategies implemented included:

■ Development/production of a 10-minute video to communicate the work of

the coalition; 

■ Development/production of three 30-second television PSAs for use in

Omaha and Lincoln markets;

■ Development/distribution of several 15-second PSAs to air on radio

stations during times of high interest;

■ Distribution of a monthly newsletter to 2,500 statewide (media, policymakers, law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, school principals, 

community groups and others);

■ Designed/mailed oversized postcards to parents of more than 23,000 high

school students (three separate message postcards in a 12-month period,

working with school districts to have access to their mailing labels);

■ Developed a project brochure (disseminated more than 4,000 copies); and

■ Designed and distributed (through coalition members) a retailer 

encouragement card that asked retailers to always check the ID of 

underage customers.
OMAHA, NEBRASKA

11

Other activities were: monthly community coalition and work group meetings,

news conferences/media events, speakers bureau, letters to the editor/news

releases highlighting enforcement efforts, etc.

Access and Availability Workgroup

The objective of this workgroup was to reduce the access and availability of

alcohol by persons under age 21 through efforts to limit both retail and social

availability. Specific strategies included:

■ Monitoring hearings of the Liquor Control Commission;

■ Surveying liquor license holders in the metro area regarding 

education/training issues;

■ Sending merchant letters to retailers encouraging them to not advertise

beer at Halloween using the holiday characters that appeal to youth 

(national Hands Off Halloween campaign);

■ Enlisting the support of retailers by their display of signs indicating 

participation in the Hands Off Halloween campaign; and

■ Holding a news conference to highlight the community’s support of advertising restraint by retailers during Halloween and subsequent holidays.

Enforcement Workgroup

This workgroup concentrated on efforts to increase the enforcement of youth

alcohol laws and the subsequent adjudication (disposition) of those cases. The 

strategy involved collaboration with all 11 metropolitan Omaha law enforcement

agencies to conduct multi-jurisdictional compliance checks and other enforcement

efforts at least three times per year. These compliance checks involved underage

persons attempting to purchase beverage alcohol. If the establishment sold

beverage alcohol to the underage persons, law enforcement officers served

citations. The number of businesses that sold alcohol to youth dropped from 41%

in February, 1997, to 18% in April, 2000. Awareness of the need for enforcement

by local agencies seemingly was raised, in that minor in possession of alcohol

citations in Omaha increased by 23% in 1999.
EVALUATION OF UNDERAGE DRINKING PREVENTION PROJECTS

12

Policy Workgroup

Efforts were directed at improving existing laws and reducing the loopholes in

current laws to produce a more effective, consistently applied statute. Specific

strategies included:

■ Coalition members advocated successfully for a law to give the Liquor

Control Commission (LCC) the option to not allow liquor license holders

the ability to buy-out suspensions through payment of a cash penalty for

repeatedly selling alcohol to minors.

■ Advocated for increased administrative penalties for retailers selling to

minors; the LCC administratively doubled the length of suspension for

violators in March, 1997.

■ Worked with a senator to enact a Use and Lose law for youth under 21

who use or consume alcohol. This law was designed to apply driver

license penalties for persons convicted of underage drinking, even if they

were not driving at the time of the citation.

■ Held a legislative breakfast for Omaha state senators and candidates at

which issues about underage drinking were discussed.

■ Met with local, state, and federal officials to increase the awareness and

sensitivity to the issue of underage drinking.

Youth In Action

The objective was to provide opportunities for youth to be involved in environmental prevention and change through coalition activities as well as specifically

youth-directed efforts. Specific strategies included:

■ Youth participation in compliance checks/enforcement efforts as persons

attempting to purchase beverage alcohol;

■ Youth testifying at legislative hearings;

■ Twenty-five percent of the Board of Directors were youth (4 of 16);

■ Youth involvement in meetings with local, state, and federal officials;

■ Youth meeting with the Governor to successfully request the establishment

of a task force to look at underage drinking issues;

■ Conducting multiple training sessions to teach youth about environmental

issues; and

■ Youth involvement in speakers bureau and media interviews.
OMAHA, NEBRASKA

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

90-Q1 91-Q1 92-Q1 93-Q1 94-Q1 95-Q1 96-Q1 97-Q1 98-Q1 99-Q1

Quarter

Crashes

Data

Model

Start Program

Figure 3-1: Quarterly Counts of Nighttime Single-Vehicle Injury Crashes

Involving Young Drivers in Douglas and Sarpy Counties, Nebraska, 1990-1999

EFFECTS

Crash data from the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles were used in the

impact analysis. The data covered the years 1990 - 1999. The measure of youthinvolved, alcohol-related crashes was the number of nighttime single-vehicle injury

crashes involving drivers under the age of 21 years in Douglas and Sarpy Counties. 

The totality of all other counties in the state was used as a comparison.

Time series of quarterly counts of these crashes were analyzed using the

ARIMA analysis method. To make the series stationary as required by ARIMA, 4-

span differencing was used. A logarithmic transformation was used to improve the

fit to the data. Step function and ramp intervention functions at times near to

January, 1997 (the date of the initiation of significant program activity) were

examined in the analysis.

 Figure 3-1 shows the data and the modeled series fitted to the data. None of

the intervention functions produced any significant effect (t = -0.06) on nighttime

single-vehicle injury crashes involving the under 21 year old drivers.

Several other surrogates of alcohol-related crashes involving the target group

of drivers were also examined (that is, injury, nighttime injury, and police-reported

alcohol-related) with essentially the same result with respect to impact. Again, we

note that positive effects not reflected in alcohol-related crashes or their surrogates

may have occurred (for example, reductions in youth drinking and development of
EVALUATION OF UNDERAGE DRINKING PREVENTION PROJECTS

14

a community-based organization to address the problem). However, the measure

of effectiveness used here does not permit an analysis of such other effects, for

example, the increase in compliance rates.
15

4 - SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The initial project coordinator for the Salt Lake County Underage Drinking

Prevention Project (UDPP) was an employee of the Utah Department of Health. 

She had experience working in other areas of highway safety so the Highway

Safety Office asked her to coordinate the UDPP along with her other responsibilities. Program activities began in December 1995 with the formation of a coalition

and the beginning of a needs assessment. Originally the UDPP coalition was

established as a subcommittee of the Alcohol Policy Coalition. The project was

initially labeled the Utah Safe and Sober Youth Coalition (UT SASY Coalition)

and a needs assessment was conducted, the strategic plan developed and initial

program activities were organized under that arrangement. 

During this process it was recognized that because the Alcohol Policy Coalition is well known in Utah for advocating for highly controversial .04 BAC

legislation, it sometimes hampered the UT SASY Coalition in gaining cooperation

for some of its programs. The association also made it more difficult for the

program to develop its own identity and name recognition with the public and

other potential partners. Eventually, the UT SASY Coalition became a freestanding group. When the project coordinator left the Department of Health in 1999,

the Utah Office of Highway Safety took over management of the activity and it

was renamed the Save Our Youth Coalition. 

The project initially was intended to be confined to Salt Lake County. However, with many coalition members being in state government, stimulation and

coordination of activity in other parts of the state also became part of the coalition

and coordinator’s charge. Nonetheless, the primary focus of activities was in Salt

Lake County.

Since the coalition operated out of a state agency, the program could not

solicit or accept financial donations. Thus, donations to the program had to be inkind, limiting the avenues the coalition could pursue to garner additional assistance. The Safe and Sober Youth Coalition did not receive any monetary funding

other than what they received from the Highway Safety Office in Utah and from

the US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Those funds covered part of the coordinator’s salary, as well as

funded mini-grants to implement the Cops in Shops program (overtime for the

police officers). 

The Community Coalition generally met monthly. Initial meetings focused on

discussing a needs assessment, then developing a strategic plan, implementing

Cops in Shops, holding focus groups about underage drinking with underage

persons, and developing a mini-grant program in the schools for Teen Court

activities.
EVALUATION OF UNDERAGE DRINKING PREVENTION PROJECTS

16

The needs assessment indicated that alcohol was the drug of choice for young

Utahans, and that underage drinking was a serious problem, with nearly 40% of

youth reporting that they had used alcohol. They found that this was because of

general acceptance by society, the perception that it was not a serious problem,

and a lack of law enforcement of underage drinking laws.

As a part of the strategic plan, the Coalition decided upon a mission statement

and agreed on some general items that needed to be done in Utah. 

Strategies that were identified were: 

■ To increase coordination and collaboration of existing youth groups; 

■ To develop better data collection systems; 

■ To increase public awareness about the issue of underage drinking; 

■ To increase enforcement of existing laws, and;

■ To encourage public policy changes.

The two areas in which major activities were conducted were in enforcement

and youth peer programs. 

Enforcement

Cops in Shops was the primary program in this area. Cops in Shops was a

program where officers in civilian clothes were stationed in retail outlets. If they

observed underage persons attempting to purchase beverage alcohol, they issued

appropriate citations. Generally, the officers worked during their normal off-duty

time and were paid overtime. 

Five law enforcement agencies in the Salt Lake area originally agreed to

participate in the Cops in Shops program, and then 19 additional law enforcement

agencies requested information on the program. The other law enforcement

agencies received information from the Century Council on how to run the

program and received training from officers who were running Cops in Shops

operations. Each law enforcement agency operated Cops in Shops differently,

according to what worked for that agency. The coalition sponsored meetings

between the agencies so they could compare progress and offer helpful suggestions

to each other and to programs just beginning operation. 

Officers reportedly enjoyed working in this program and store managers

generally were grateful to have the officers. It was reported that, previously, store

managers dreaded seeing police officers arrive for sting operations, but with the

Cops in Shops program, the youth were being punished instead of the store

owners. The law enforcement agencies viewed Cops in Shops as a vital program

that placed them in contact with the stores and youthful offenders. A law was

passed before the project began that allowed officers to cite youths for attempting

to purchase alcohol. (It was considered a misdemeanor punishable with a fine.) 
SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH

17

Many officers were surprised at the numbers of youths purchasing alcohol (one

officer made 27 contacts in 2 1⁄2 hours). The program was an “eye-opening

experience” for law enforcement as well as store management. They discovered

many of the managers did not want their clerks selling to underage youth, but they

could not or just did not keep tabs on their clerks very well; and when officers

pointed out some of their problem clerks, managers were grateful and could then

deal with those clerks. The Cops in Shops program originally generated a lot of

media publicity, but that faded, and although positive statistics and information

were been provided to the media, coverage was minimal. 

Youth Peer Programs

The major youth group initiative of the project was working with Peer Leadership Teams. The advisor to those teams was able to get the Salt Lake area school

districts to agree to schedule all activities and promotions jointly. For the first

time, during the 1997-1998 school year, the four school districts coordinated

similar activities during the same weeks. 

The normal graduation, ribbon week, and December anti-drunk driving month

activities were already in place. The Highway Safety Office provided mini-grant

money to promote the activities and conduct projects. There were forty-four

junior and senior high schools in the area, and one year, 20 schools received minigrants. Another component of the youth involvement program was the formulation of Teen Courts in which peers meted out appropriate punishments to

underage youth who were found to have been drinking alcoholic beverages.

EFFECTS

Crash data from the Utah Department of Transportation were used in the

impact analysis. The data covered the years 1992 - 1998. The measure of youthinvolved, alcohol-related crashes was the number of drivers under the age of 21

years involved in nighttime crashes in Salt Lake County. It was not possible to use

another county as a comparison, because similar programs were implemented in

other counties later in the period during which the Salt Lake County program was

operating. Again, nighttime crashes were used as a surrogate for alcohol-related

crashes in order to obtain a large enough number of crashes for a meaningful

analysis.

Time series of monthly counts of these nighttime-crash involved drivers were

analyzed using the ARIMA analysis method. The series was found to be stationary

without any differencing or transformations. Step function and ramp intervention

functions at times near to January, 1996 (the date of program initiation) were

examined in the analysis.

The step function intervention produced no effect at any time near to January,

1996. However, the ramp function indicated a gradually increasing reduction of 
EVALUATION OF UNDERAGE DRINKING PREVENTION PROJECTS

18

0

50

100

150

200

250

Jan-92

Jul-92

Jan-93

Jul-93

Jan-94

Jul-94

Jan-95

Jul-95

Jan-96

Jul-96

Jan-97

Jul-97

Jan-98

Jul-98

Months

Drivers

Data

Model, Program

Model, No Program

Start Program

Figure 4-1: Young Drivers in Nighttime Crashes, Salt Lake County, 1992-1998

about 0.6% per month starting at January 1997, and reaching a maximum reduction of 14% (about 20 crashes per month) at December 1998. This effect did not

meet the traditional requirement for statistical significance (p=0.05), but was

significant at roughly the 0.10 level (t = -1.64). The data and the model fitted to

the data are shown in Figure 4-1 below.
19

5 - TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program was housed in the County Attorney’s Office. During the initial

project year of the Underage Drinking Prevention Program (UDPP), program staff

conducted a community assessment and developed a strategic plan.

The Travis County Underage Drinking Prevention Program evolved out of a

comprehensive community traffic safety program (CTSP), which for the period

1992-1996 had dealt with DWI, occupant protection and bicycle safety issues. 

The anti-DWI component of the CTSP targeted both underage and legal age

drinkers. The new Travis County UDPP focused solely on underage drinking

prevention. Funding for both of those programs (CTSP and UDPP) came from the

Texas Governor’s Highway Safety Program. In 1996, during the final year of

funding for the CTSP, the new Travis County Underage Drinking Prevention

Program emerged at the same time as the comprehensive community traffic safety

program. The new program was housed in the Travis County Attorney’s Office

because the CTSP was located in that office. The CTSP had been set up there

because that office handled the prosecution of DWI cases, which was the most

serious CTSP concern. During 1996, both programs were operating simultaneously with staff members performing double duties. In 1997, the new Travis

County UDPP became the primary focus of that office. UDPP program staff, at

the time of this study, included a full-time program coordinator, one full-time

assistant, one part-time community educator who handled community presentations and an information booth at community events (covered by county funds),

and one part-time clerk. The program continued with funding from the Texas

Governor’s Highway Safety Program.

Because there was an existing program, there were some issues modifying it to

fit the overall model being tested. One area which required a great deal of attention was creating the Task Force. There were many support groups in existence

such as the Safe Kids Coalition dealing with community involvement, health issues

and children (which helped meet the criteria of receiving funds to begin with), but

not a task force specifically for underage drinking prevention. So, during the first

year, a UDPP task force was created comprised of county-wide social service

agencies, law enforcement and other interested agencies and individuals that

included the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas Department of

Health, City of Austin Emergency Medical Services (EMS), Texas Alcoholic

Beverage Commission and several school districts. 

A needs assessment concluded that underage drinking was clearly a problem in

the Austin area as indicated by alcohol-related traffic crashes involving youth. A

Texas school survey indicated over a quarter of youth had driven a car after
EVALUATION OF UNDERAGE DRINKING PREVENTION PROJECTS

20

drinking and nearly one fifth reported heavy drinking. Another indicator cited was

that University students were promoting designated driver programs.

A task force mission statement was developed “To create a community

consensus that underage drinking is illegal, unhealthy, and unacceptable.” Program objectives and tasks are outlined below:

■ Identify the link between underage drinking with more highly visible social

issues such as truancy, binge drinking, teen pregnancy, HIV exposure, and

gangs/juvenile crime.

■ Develop education programs for high risk youth groups as well as in all

Travis County high schools and middle schools.

■ Increase community prevention and education efforts through media

resources.

The program provided community education through a 45 minute video

presentation entitled, “Why Risk It?” that was shown at schools, halfway houses,

recreation centers, fairs, etc. This presentation was developed in 1992 under the

CTSP program. Promotional items such as key chains, small notepads, and pencils

were distributed. In addition, a television show entitled “Focus on Youth and

Alcohol” was produced monthly and shown on the local access cable channel. The

show host was the UDPP coordinator and underage drinking prevention was the

primary focus of the show. New shows were produced monthly and aired several

times during the month. UDPP also worked with NHTSA and the Texas Department of Transportation on their campaigns at the high risk times of the year

(Christmas and New Year’s, Spring Break, Project Graduation, etc.). 

A major focus of the program was to make presentations in the schools about

issues surrounding underage drinking. During the school year, a part-time educator gave presentations throughout the school district.

Another service the program provided was scheduling community service work

for violators of the Texas underage drinking zero tolerance laws for youth and

drinking driving.

Due to their location in Austin, the state capital, project staff and task force

members were visible to state legislators when they were debating a youth zero

tolerance law. UDPP staff also worked closely with the Texas Alcoholic and

Beverage Commission.

EFFECTS

Crash data from the Texas Department of Transportation were used in the

impact analysis. The data covered the years 1993 - 1998. The measure of youthinvolved alcohol-related crashes was the number of drivers under the age of 21

years involved in nighttime injury crashes in Travis County. And, as a comparison,

we examined the number of drivers under the age of 21 years involved in nighttime
TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan-93

Jul-93

Jan-94

Jul-94

Jan-95

Jul-95

Jan-96

Jul-96

Jan-97

Jul-97

Jan-98

Jul-98

Month

Drivers

Data

Model

Start Program

Figure 5-1: Young Drivers in Nighttime Injury Crashes, Travis County, 

1993-1998

injury crashes in the remainder of the State. All nighttime crashes could not be

used as a surrogate for alcohol-related crashes because they included propertydamage-only crashes which had been defined at a higher level of damage in July

1996. An intervention near that point would show a spurious decrease in nighttime crashes statewide.

Time series of monthly counts of these nighttime-injury crashes involving

young drivers were analyzed using the ARIMA analysis method. A step-function

intervention at January, 1996 (when the project activities were begun) was used in

the analysis. The model for Travis County used a logarithmic transformation of

the dependent variable, while the model for the remainder of the State did not. 

Neither model showed any change at the intervention point (Figure 5-1 and Figure

5-2). The t-ratio for Travis County was -0.11, and the t-ratio for the remainder of

the State was +0.26. (A t-ratio of about 2 is required for statistical significance at

the 0.05 level.) As with the impact evaluations in the other sites, positive effects

not reflected in alcohol-related crashes or their surrogates may have occurred in

Travis County. However, the measure of effectiveness used here does not permit

an analysis of such other effects.
EVALUATION OF UNDERAGE DRINKING PREVENTION PROJECTS

22

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Jan-93

Jul-93

Jan-94

Jul-94

Jan-95

Jul-95

Jan-96

Jul-96

Jan-97

Jul-97

Jan-98

Jul-98

Month

Drivers

Data

Model

Figure 5-2: Young Driversin Nighttime Injury Crashes, Entire State Excluding

Travis County, 1993-1998
23

6 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Four underage drinking prevention programs that began in the mid-1990s were

examined, and their impact on surrogates of alcohol-related crashes estimated. 

The programs and their locations were:

■ Safe and Sober Youth (SASY) - Chesterfield County, Virginia

■ Project Extra Mile (PEM) - Omaha, Nebraska

■ Salt Lake City Underage Drinking Prevention Project (SLCUDPP) - 

Salt Lake County, Utah

■ Travis County Underage Drinking Prevention Program (TCUDPP) - 

Travis County, Texas

Three of the programs (SASY, PEM, and TCUDPP) emphasized public

information and education (PI&E) strategies, with the PEM program also including an active legislative component and an enforcement component. None of these

programs was found to have any impact on surrogates of alcohol-related crashes

involving underage drivers.

The fourth program (SLCUDPP) emphasized enforcement of laws prohibiting

sales of alcoholic beverages to underage youth, supported by youth peer programs. 

A possible increasing impact, starting about a year after program initiation, was

found for that program. The number of nighttime crashes involving an underage

driver gradually decreased in the program’s jurisdiction (Salt Lake County, Utah),

with the decrease amounting to about 20 crashes per month (about 14%) at three

years after program initiation (p=0.10).

These findings suggest that, to have a highway safety impact on the target

group in the short-range future, PI&E alone is insufficient and that initiatives

aimed at reducing the availability of alcoholic beverages, and/or at deterring

driving after drinking, may be necessary. Similar findings with respect to drinkingdrivers in general have been reported elsewhere (Jones and Lacey, 2001; Wagenaar, Murray, and Toomey, 2000). 

We note that positive effects other than reduced crashes may have occurred in

the three jurisdictions that had no significant effect on the crash measures examined here. Such effects include, for example, reductions in youth drinking and

development of a community-based organization to address the problem. Further

research will be needed to determine the extent of any such other effects. Also, it

is possible that the available data were not sufficient for detecting a traffic-crash

impact in some of the jurisdictions studied, especially in light of the small number

of youth-involved traffic crashes that occurred in some jurisdictions. 

25

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beer, P and Leonard, T. (2001). Underage drinking prevention: community how

to guide on coalition building, needs assessment & strategic planning,

evaluation, prevention & education, enforcement, public policy, media

relations, self sufficiency, and resources. DOT HS 809 209. Washington, DC:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Blomberg, RD. (1992). Lower BAC limits for youth: Evaluation of the Maryland

.02 law. DOT HS 807 859. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration. 

Hingson, R; Heeren, T; and Winter, M. (1994). Lower blood alcohol limits for

young drivers. Public Health Reports 109(6): 738-744. 

Jones, RK and Lacey, JH. (2001). Alcohol and highway safety 2001: A review of

the state of knowledge. DOT HS 809 283. Washington, DC: National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration. 

Lacey, JH; Jones, RK; and Wiliszowski, CH. (2000). Zero tolerance laws for

youth: Four states’ experience. DOT HS 809 053. Washington, DC: National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA. (1999). Traffic safety facts 1998.

DOT HS 808 806. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA. (2001). Traffic safety facts 2000.

DOT HS 809 323. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA. (2002). Youth fatal crash and

alcohol facts: 2000. DOT HS 809 406. Washington, DC: National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1987). Drinking-age laws: An evaluation

synthesis of their impact on highway safety. Washington, DC: U.S. General

Accounting Office. 

Voas, RB; Tippetts, AS; and Fell, J. (1999). The United States limits drinking by

youth under age 21: Does this reduce fatal crash involvements? In: 43rd

Annual Proceedings, Association for the Advancement of Automotive 

Medicine. September 20-21, 1999. Barcelona, Spain. 
EVALUATION OF UNDERAGE DRINKING PREVENTION PROJECTS

26

Wagenaar, AC; Gehan, JP; Jones-Webb, R; Toomey, TL; Forster, JL; Wolfson, M;

and Murray, DM. (1999). Communities mobilizing for change: Lessons and

results from a 15-community randomized trial. Journal of Community 

Psychology 27(3): 315-326. 

Wagenaar, AC; Murray, DM; and Toomey, TL. (2000). Communities mobilizing

for change on alcohol (CMCA): Effects of a randomized trial on arrest and

traffic crashes. Addiction 95(2): 209-217. 
DOTHS 809 670

November 2003