U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

August 2011 Jeff Slowikowski, Acting Administrator

Underage Drinking 

Underage drinking is a widespread 

offense that can have serious physical, 

neurological, and legal consequences. 

Problematically, it has become quite 

commonplace. The Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

(OJJDP) works to eliminate underage 

consumption of alcohol and provide 

guidance for communities developing 

prevention and treatment programs. 

OJJDP created the underage drinking 

bulletin series to educate practitioners 

and policymakers about the problems 

youth face when they abuse alcohol and 

to provide evidence-based guidelines. 

The series presents findings from a study 

on preventing underage drinking in the 

Air Force and a literature review of the 

effects and consequences of underage 

drinking, best practices for community 

supervision of underage drinkers, legal 

issues surrounding underage drinking, 

and practice guidelines for working with 

underage drinkers. 

The series highlights the dangers of underage drinking. Hopefully, the information it provides will support communities 

in their efforts to reduce alcohol use by 

minors through the use of evidencebased strategies and practices. 

Reducing Drinking Among 

Underage Air Force Members 

in Five Communities 

Christopher Spera, Keita Franklin, Kazuaki Uekawa, John F. Kunz, Ronald Z. Szoc, 

Randall K. Thomas, and Milton H. Cambridge

Highlights

In 2006, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provided 

grants to five communities with local Air Force bases to implement the agency’s 

Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) initiative. This bulletin presents findings from an evaluation of EUDL activities in these communities. The study in this 

bulletin focused on comparing the rates of problem drinking in each of the EUDL 

communities to five control communities and the Air Force overall. The following 

are some of the key findings of the evaluation:

•	 Although all sites showed some success, sites that implemented their interventions early, had task forces on underage drinking at the program’s 

onset, collaborated with local partners, and followed guidance from the 

federal agencies sponsoring the evaluation had the best results.

•	 The two Arizona communities that implemented the EUDL initiative 

following the practices cited above saw the highest reductions in 

junior enlisted members at risk for problem drinking. 

•	 EUDL communities located in urban areas had more success finding 

alternative activities to drinking than communities in rural areas.

•	 The percentage of Air Force enlisted personnel at risk for a drinking 

problem decreased 6.6 percent from 2006 to 2008.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ojjdp.gov
2 Juvenile Justice Bulletin

Reducing Drinking Among Underage Air Force Members 

in Five Communities 

Christopher Spera, Keita Franklin, Kazuaki Uekawa, John F. Kunz, Ronald Z. Szoc, Randall K. Thomas, and Milton H. Cambridge

Preventing alcohol abuse by minors and young adults 

remains a challenge to most communities, particularly on 

military bases, where junior enlisted personnel face a highstress work environment. They may turn to heavy drinking 

in off-duty hours, particularly during times of combat or 

when they have returned home from a deployment (Ames 

et al., 2007). 

In the fall of 2006, the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) awarded discretionary 

grants to five communities1 in four states as part of the Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) initiative. States 

designed and implemented a set of interventions using an 

environmental strategies approach to reduce drinking and 

associated alcohol-related misconduct among active-duty 

Air Force members ages 18 to 25, with a focus on underage drinkers (ages 18 to 20). Each community partnered 

with a local Air Force base and worked with a community 

coalition to implement the initiative across the 3-year 

grant period. 

One year after the grants were awarded, the National 

Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), in 

collaboration with the U.S. Air Force and OJJDP, selected ICF International to evaluate the EUDL activities 

implemented in these five communities. The evaluation 

measured the effectiveness of the interventions on drinking behavior and associated alcohol-related misconduct by 

active-duty personnel. 

The study described in this bulletin sought to address the 

following overarching research question: Did the activities 

that each of the five communities implemented influence 

the rate of problem drinking as compared with rates in a 

comparison community and the Air Force as a whole? This 

bulletin presents findings from year 1 of the evaluation on 

self-reported drinking behaviors. 

Background 

The military has taken a number of steps to address the alcohol dependence problems of junior enlisted personnel. This 

section describes some reasons enlisted recruits may turn to 

alcohol and explains the Air Force’s policy on drinking. 

The Air Force faces problems associated with excessive 

drinking and alcohol-related misconduct among its personnel.2

 These include driving under the influence (DUI) 

incidents, domestic violence, and sexual assault (Hoge, 

Castro, and Messer, 2004; Rosen, 2007). In fact, an Air 

Force report indicated that 33 percent of suicides, 57 

percent of sexual assaults, 29 percent of domestic violence incidents, and 44 percent of motor vehicle accidents 

among Air Force personnel are alcohol related (U.S. Air 

Force, 2006).

Drinking Among Junior Active-Duty 

Members 

Despite the national minimum legal drinking age of 21, 

alcohol remains the drug of choice among adolescents, 

with 18- to 20-year-olds having the greatest incidence of 

alcohol dependence of any age group (U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, 2007). Most research on 

underage drinking focuses on college students (Goldstein 

and Flett, 2009; LaBrie, Lamb, and Pedersen, 2009). 

The junior enlisted ranks of the U.S. Air Force share 

many demographic similarities with college students. This 

population is composed predominantly of young men 

and women between 18 and 25 years old who come from 

urban, suburban, and rural communities across the United 

States. After basic training, they reside in dormitory-style 

housing that is similar to college facilities.

In other ways, junior enlisted active-duty members are 

quite different from their civilian counterparts. Most 

August 2011
notably, active-duty recruits experience intense levels of 

stress, particularly during wartime. They perform in jobs at 

a fast pace, often working long hours in combat environments. Researchers have found that working in a stressful 

and intense work environment, such as the military, is a risk 

factor for increased alcohol consumption (Bray et al., 2006). 

Air Force Policy on Underage Drinking 

The Air Force has a “zero tolerance” policy toward underage drinking and problem use of alcohol. When problems arise, the Air Force offers treatment and prevention 

options. An integral part of this prevention approach is 

the Culture of Responsible Choices (CoRC) program, a 

prevention and awareness campaign that emphasizes drinking as one of many lifestyle choices active-duty members 

make that could affect combat readiness (U.S. Air Force, 

2006). The program strives to prevent underage drinking 

and eliminate DUI incidents. It also provides guidance for 

drinking responsibly, suggesting one drink per hour, with 

a maximum of three drinks per night, for an average man 

weighing 175 pounds and an average woman weighing 

135 pounds. 

Environmental Strategies To 

Reduce Underage Drinking 

Underage and problem drinking can place a strain on the 

resources of any community. Key organizations—hospitals, 

law enforcement, and community service agencies—devote 

countless resources to the intervention in and treatment of 

incidents that irresponsible alcohol consumption causes. 

Community-based prevention programs, especially those 

that are environmental in nature, can help reduce underage and problem drinking.3

Environmental approaches have increased in popularity 

over the past 15 years and include interventions aimed at 

the whole community that ultimately have an impact on 

the individual drinker. As opposed to traditional prevention and treatment initiatives that focus on the individual, 

environmental approaches emphasize solving the problem 

at a macro-level, focusing on cultures, policies, establishments, or social networks that perpetuate attitudes or 

behaviors toward drinking.

Gruenwald and colleagues (2003) have identified three 

overarching principles of an environmental approach:

• Targeting media efforts toward policymakers.

• Creating collaborations within the community among 

various stakeholders such as neighborhood coalitions, 

religious organizations, and other social entities.

• Monitoring and limiting the supply of alcohol using 

various methods, including checking liquor establishments’ compliance with laws, increasing driving while 

intoxicated (DWI)/DUI checkpoints, and greater 

enforcement by police departments. 

Anecdotal evidence indicates that, with an increased focus 

from senior military leadership and the community at 

large, underage drinking and the associated consequences 

among active-duty members can decrease. Senior leadership at F.E. Warren Air Force Base first demonstrated 

this concept beginning in 2004 when they implemented 

environmental strategies (such as reaching out to community agencies inside and outside the gates, sending letters 

to local bars asking for policy compliance, and offering alternative activities) to curb drinking among junior enlisted 

personnel. Over a 2-year period, the intervention activities 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS FOR REDUCING 

UNDERAGE DRINKING 

A number of environmental programs have shown success 

in reducing underage drinking and related misconduct:

•	 The Saving Lives Project (Hingson et al., 2006), a 5-year 

Massachusetts program, resulted in a 39-percent reduction in fatal injuries from vehicle crashes among 16- to 

25-year-olds, as compared with the rest of the state. 

•	 The Community Trials Project in California and South 

Carolina, sponsored by NIAAA, which matched three 

experimental communities with three comparison 

communities, reduced nighttime crashes involving an 

alcohol-related injury by 10 percent, alcohol-related assault injuries by 43 percent, and community members’ 

self-reports of driving after “having too much to drink” 

by 49 percent (Holder et al., 2006; Treno and Lee, 2002). 

•	 The Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol 

Project in Minnesota and Wisconsin focused on getting 

citizens to actively pursue changes in local policies and 

practices. The project decreased the likelihood that 18- 

to 20-year-olds would purchase alcohol, frequent bars, 

and drive under the influence. It also decreased bar and 

restaurant sales of alcohol to minors (Wagenaar et al., 

2000). 

•	 The Safer California Universities Project, which used an 

environmental approach to mitigate drinking by college 

students (i.e., by increasing DUI checkpoints and compliance checks of liquor establishments, and breaking 

up student parties), led to a significant decline in several 

key outcomes, including alcohol consumption (California 

State University–Chico, 2007).

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 3
4 Juvenile Justice Bulletin

resulted in a 74-percent decline in alcohol-related incidents, 81 percent fewer cases of underage drinking, and 

45 percent fewer DWI cases among underage Air Force 

personnel (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, 2005). 

Based on these encouraging results, OJJDP funded EUDL 

programs in the five communities in this study and asked 

them to implement a similar set of interventions across a 

3-year period. Each community strove to create an environmental intervention where citizens and the military 

collaborated to reduce drinking on and off the local Air 

Force base.

Implementing EUDL Activities 

In October 2006, five demonstration sites received grant 

awards to implement EUDL activities in their communities. 

The sites selected were Phoenix, AZ/Luke Air Force 

Base; Tucson, AZ/Davis-Monthan Air Force Base; 

Honolulu, HI/Hickam Air Force Base; greater Sacramento, CA/Beale Air Force Base; and Great Falls, MT/

Malmstrom Air Force Base. The demonstration sites were 

awarded OJJDP funding for 3 years. They spent the first 6 

to 12 months of the funding period developing their community coalitions and creating a detailed work plan. Sites 

began implementing their interventions in the summer or 

fall of 2007, starting with Arizona and Montana; the last site 

(Hawaii) received approval of its work plan from OJJDP in 

January 2008. Intervention activities over the grant period 

are intended to increase awareness and educate active-duty 

recruits about the dangers of underage drinking.

Each demonstration community implemented a set of 

environmental strategies to reduce drinking among 18- to 

20-year-old (underage) active-duty Air Force members. 

Intervention activities at all sites included:

•	 Enforcement aimed at reducing the social availability 

of alcohol (e.g., shoulder-tap drinker identification 

operations, controlled party dispersal operations).

•	 Compliance checks using covert underage buyers to 

ensure that establishments were not selling alcohol to 

underage active-duty members.

•	 Enhanced impaired-driving enforcement (increased number and frequency of DUI checks in the community).

•	 Development of local policy and education of state 

legislators on underage drinking issues that might lead 

to changes in state policy.

•	 Community-based media campaigns to reduce 

underage drinking. 

•	 Alternative activities to drinking, such as sports, recreational, and arts activities. 

All communities received intensive training and technical assistance from the Underage Drinking Enforcement 

Training Center at the Pacific Institute for Research and 

Evaluation.4

 The center disseminated publications about 

best practices for reducing alcohol use with environmental 

approaches, hosted teleconferences, and helped communities develop work plans and implement intervention 

efforts. NIAAA funded the evaluation of the five demonstration sites. 

Evaluation Methods 

To evaluate the results of EUDL activities in the five communities, the research team at ICF International selected 

comparison communities, collected data, and analyzed 

results. Methods are described below. 

Selecting Comparison Communities 

Evaluators worked in conjunction with the federal partners 

(OJJDP, U.S. Air Force, and NIAAA) to select comparison 

communities based on: 

•	 Geography (i.e., urban or rural location). 

•	 The mission of the Air Force base.

•	 The population of the Air Force base and surrounding 

community.

•	 The rate of problem drinking among junior enlisted 

personnel at the initial survey in spring 2006. 

Detailed information about the demonstration sites and 

their comparison communities can be found in table 1. 

Data Collection 

Data for the current study were collected as part of the Air 

Force Community Assessment Survey, a biannual anonymous survey of active-duty personnel that was conducted 

in spring 2006 (pretest) and in spring 2008 (posttest) 

across all Air Force communities. This bulletin focuses on 

Community Assessment Survey data from junior enlisted 

members within the five demonstration sites and the five 

comparison communities (n = 2,008 in 2006 and 2,112 

in 2008), as well as in the Air Force overall (n = 11,964 in 

2006 and 12,993 in 2008) (see table 1). In both years, the 

research team selected a sample of active-duty members 

and invited them to complete the survey via the Web.5

 In 

2006, the final response rate across all bases for active-duty 

members was 48.5 percent; in 2008, it was 49.0 percent.

Data were weighted by rank, gender, deployment status, 

and base. Approximately 16.5 percent of junior enlisted 

personnel skipped the questions about alcohol use. Although data for all items could be analyzed by including 

only those individuals who fully completed the surveys, 
the researchers imputed the missing data so that they 

could analyze all cases.6

The researchers measured the rate of alcohol problems 

reported on the Community Assessment Survey using the 

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) developed by the World Health Organization (Babor et al., 

2001). AUDIT consists of 10 questions and has proven to 

be valid in detecting alcohol dependence in persons ages 

18–25 (Fleming, Barry, and MacDonald, 1991). Participants received a score between 0 and 40; a score of 8 or 

more signified individuals at risk for problem drinking. 

The research team then classified each participant as either 

a “problem drinker” or “not a problem drinker.” 

The calculation of the AUDIT percentages was based on 

the number of junior enlisted personnel with a score of 

8 or more, divided by the total number of junior enlisted 

personnel at the base. The research team averaged the 

percentages from each of the five imputed data sets to 

obtain the AUDIT percentages. They then conducted two 

sample proportion tests (i.e., z-tests) to evaluate the group 

differences in the percentages.

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 5

Source: Air Force Personnel Command.

Table 1. Description of the Communities

Site Comparison Community

 Site 1: Great Falls, MT/Malmstrom Air Force Base

 Urban/Rural Rural Rural

 Mission Operational missile base Combat, support, and operations

 Population 3,379 2,148

 Problem Drinking in 2006 24.6% 20.8%

 Site 2: Honolulu, HI/Hickam Air Force Base

 Urban/Rural Urban Urban

 Mission Combat and support Combat and operations

 Population 3,738 2,067

 Problem Drinking in 2006 18.9% 22.3%

 Site 3: Phoenix, AZ/Luke Air Force Base

 Urban/Rural Urban Urban

 Mission Combat, operations, and training Combat and operations

 Population 4,782 3,604

 Problem Drinking in 2006 21.5% 17.5%

 Site 4: Sacramento, CA/Beale Air Force Base

 Urban/Rural Rural Rural

 Mission Combat, support, and operations Combat, support, operations, and training

 Population 3,172 3,151

 Problem Drinking in 2006 20.0% 17.8%

Site 5: Tucson, AZ/Davis-Monthan Air Force Base

 Urban/Rural Urban Urban

 Mission Combat, support, and operations Combat, support, and operations

 Population 6,005 4,727

 Problem Drinking in 2006 22.3% 21.4%
6 Juvenile Justice Bulletin

Analyzing Results From the

Demonstration Sites 

To determine the effects of the intervention, the authors 

questioned participants to examine whether the prevalence 

rate for problem drinking among junior enlisted personnel 

changed over time and differed among sites. Researchers 

analyzed each demonstration site separately, for the following reasons:

•	 Some demonstration sites started implementing their 

intervention earlier than others because their work plans 

were submitted to and approved by OJJDP earlier.

•	 Although each demonstration site conducted the 

same set of intervention activities, each community 

implemented the intervention based on the size of their 

respective populations (e.g., larger communities conducted more DUI checks).

•	 Each demonstration site had different characteristics.

•	 Demonstration sites started at different points on the 

AUDIT continuum, with some having higher drinking 

rates than others at baseline.

•	 Researchers selected each comparison community to 

best match a specific demonstration site in a one-onone comparison. 

Results 

Analysis of the AUDIT survey data showed early effects of 

the EUDL intervention on problem drinking in the five 

demonstration sites. The prevalence of problem drinking 

(AUDIT percentages) for the demonstration site, comparison site, and Air Force (overall) are reported below. These 

prevalence rates are compared over time, between 2006 

and 2008. The authors include p-values for communities 

where EUDL activities significantly lowered prevalence 

rates or problem drinking percentages.7

In the Air Force overall, the rate of individuals classified 

as problem drinkers dropped by 6.6 percent from pretest 

to posttest, with a rate of 20.4 percent in 2006 and 13.8 

percent in 2008. This decrease was statistically significant 

at the p < 0.001 level. 

Great Falls, MT/Malmstrom 

In the Great Falls, MT/Malmstrom Air Force Base community, the percentage of problem drinkers was not significantly different from either the comparison site or the Air 

Force overall in 2006. In 2008, the percentage of problem 

drinkers was 12.8 percent less than the comparison site 

(p < 0.01) but 5.5 percent more than the Air Force overall. 

When comparing the changes across time, the Great Falls, 

MT/Malmstrom Air Force Base community had a decrease of 5.3 percent in problem drinkers, compared with 

an increase of 11.3 percent for the comparison site and a 

decrease of 6.6 percent for the Air Force overall (see figure 

1). When comparing these decreases across time, the 

prevalence rate of problem drinking dropped in the Great 

Falls, MT/Malmstrom Air Force Base community to a 

larger degree than in the comparison community 

(p < 0.05).

Honolulu, HI/Hickam 

In the Honolulu, HI/Hickam Air Force Base community, 

the percentage of problem drinkers was not significantly 

different from either the comparison site or the Air Force 

overall in 2006. In 2008, the percentage of problem 

drinkers was 7.0 percent less than the comparison site 

(p < 0.05) and 4.3 percent less than the Air Force overall. 

When comparing the changes across time, the Honolulu, 

HI/Hickam Air Force Base community had a decrease of 

9.4 percent in problem drinkers (p < 0.05), compared with 

a decrease of 5.8 percent for the comparison site and 6.6 

percent for the Air Force overall (see figure 2). When 

comparing these decreases across time, the prevalence rate 

of problem drinking in the Honolulu, HI/Hickam Air 

Force Base community was not significantly different from 

the comparison site and the Air Force overall.
Juvenile Justice Bulletin 7

“Analysis of the AUDIT survey data showed early effects of the 

EUDL intervention on problem drinking in the five demonstration sites.”

Phoenix, AZ/Luke 

In the Phoenix, AZ/Luke Air Force Base community, the percentage of problem drinkers 

was not significantly different from either the 

comparison site or the Air Force overall in 2006. 

In 2008, the percentage of problem drinkers was 

7.7 percent less than the comparison site 

(p < 0.05) and 5.9 percent less than the Air Force 

overall (p < 0.001). When comparing the changes 

across time, the Phoenix, AZ/Luke Air Force 

Base community had a decrease of 13.6 percent 

in problem drinkers (p < 0.001), compared with 

a decrease of 1.9 percent for the comparison site 

and 6.6 percent for the Air Force overall (see figure 3). When comparing these decreases across 

time, the prevalence rate of problem drinking 

dropped in the Phoenix, AZ/Luke Air Force 

Base community to a larger degree than in the 

comparison community (p < 0.05) and the Air 

Force overall (p < 0.05).

Sacramento, CA/Beale 

In the Sacramento, CA/Beale Air Force Base 

community, the percentage of problem drinkers 

was not significantly different from either the 

comparison site or the Air Force overall in 2006 

or 2008. When comparing the changes across 

time, the Sacramento, CA/Beale Air Force 

Base community had a decrease of 8.1 percent 

in problem drinkers (p < 0.05), compared with 

a decrease of 9.3 percent for the comparison 

site and 6.6 percent for the Air Force overall 

(see figure 4). When comparing these decreases 

across time, the prevalence rate of problem 

drinking in the Sacramento, CA/Beale Air 

Force Base community was not significantly 

different from the comparison site and the Air 

Force overall.

Figure 1. Changes in the Prevalence of Problem Drinkers in the Great 

Falls, MT/Malmstrom Air Force Base Community 

2006

Percentage of Junior Enlisted Personnel

Identified as Problem Drinkers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2008

Malmstrom (Demonstration Site) Comparison Site

+11.3%* (n=181)

Air Force Average

-5.3%* (n=159)

-6.6%** (n=12,993)

 *p < .05. **p < .001.

Figure 2. Changes in the Prevalence of Problem Drinkers in the 

Honolulu, HI/Hickam Air Force Base Community 

Percentage of Junior Enlisted Personnel

2006

Identified as Problem Drinkers

0

5

10

15

20

25

2008

Hickam (Demonstration Site) Comparison Site

-5.8%* (n=271)

Air Force Overall

-6.6%** (n=12,993)

-9.4%* (n=148)

 *p < .05. **p < .001.
8 Juvenile Justice Bulletin

Tucson, AZ/Davis-Monthan 

In the Tucson, AZ/Davis-Monthan Air Force Base 

community, the percentage of problem drinkers was not significantly different from either the 

comparison site or the Air Force overall in 2006 

and 2008. When comparing the changes across 

time, the Tucson, AZ/Davis-Monthan Air Force 

Base community had a decrease of 9.8 percent in 

problem drinkers (p < 0.01), compared with a decrease of 11.2 percent for the comparison site and 

6.6 percent for the Air Force overall (see figure 5). 

When comparing these decreases across time, the 

prevalence rate of problem drinking in the Tucson, 

AZ/Davis-Monthan Air Force Base community 

was not significantly different from the comparison 

site and the Air Force overall.

Discussion 

The current study describes the early effects of 

EUDL interventions in five Air Force communities. 

The evaluation shows that the percentage of Air 

Force junior enlisted personnel at risk for a drinking 

problem has decreased significantly overall—by 6.6 

percent from 2006 to 2008. In 2006, approximately one in five junior enlisted active-duty members 

(20.4 percent) were at risk for an alcohol problem; 

in 2008, only one in seven (13.8 percent) were at 

risk. 

This sizeable decrease may be attributed, in part, 

to the Air Force’s implementation of the CoRC 

program. The decrease in the rate of persons at 

risk for problem drinking may also be the result of 

decreased numbers of deployments within the Air 

Force from 2006 (during the height of the war in 

Iraq) to 2008 (O’Bryant and Waterhouse, 2008). 

Fewer deployments and less stress associated with 

deployment may have decreased the risk for activeduty members to resort to problem drinking. Finally, although researchers have found that military 

members report drinking accurately on anonymous 

surveys (Bell et al., 2003), the EUDL and CoRC 

programs have brought increased attention to the 

dangers of drinking since 2006, which may have reduced the number of junior enlisted personnel willing to report problem drinking behaviors in 2008.

Although the percentage of junior enlisted personnel at risk for problem drinking has decreased 

at all five sites over the past 2 years, some of the 

most promising early findings come from the two 

Arizona communities. Problem drinking in the 

Phoenix, AZ/Luke Air Force Base community 

decreased 13.6 percent, and decreased 9.8 percent 

Figure 3. Changes in the Prevalence of Problem Drinkers in the 

Phoenix, AZ/Luke Air Force Base Community 

Percentage of Junior Enlisted Personnel

2006

Identified as Problem Drinkers

0

5

10

15

20

25

2008

Luke (Demonstration Site) Comparison Site

-1.9% (n=186)

Air Force Average

-6.6%* (n=12,993)

-13.6%* (n=1,292)

 *p < .001.

Figure 4. Changes in the Prevalence of Problem Drinkers in the 

Sacramento, CA/Beale Air Force Base Community 

Percentage of Junior Enlisted Personnel

2006

Identified as Problem Drinkers

0

5

10

15

20

25

2008

Beale (Demonstration Site) Comparison Site

-6.6%*** (n=12,993)

Air Force Average

-8.1%* (n=248)

-9.3%** (n=183)

 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 5. Changes in the Prevalence of Problem Drinkers in the 

Tucson, AZ/Davis-Monthan Air Force Base Community 

2006

Percentage of Junior Enlisted Personnel

Identified as Problem Drinkers

0

5

10

15

20

25

2008

Davis-Monthan (Demonstration Site) Comparison Site

-6.6%** (n=12,993)

Air Force Average

-9.8%* (n=269)

-11.2%* (n=175)

 *p < .01. **p < .001.
Juvenile Justice Bulletin 9

in the Tucson, AZ/Davis-Monthan Air Force Base community over the past 2 years, compared with a decrease of 

6.6 percent for the Air Force overall. These decreases in 

the percentage of individuals at risk for problem drinking 

represent promising relationships between the intervention 

and anonymous self-report data on drinking for junior 

enlisted personnel. 

To better understand and explore why the early results 

seem to be so promising in these two Arizona communities, the authors reviewed the work plans and meeting 

minutes that the coalitions that implemented the interventions in both communities prepared. From a review of this 

information, a few unique themes emerged:

•	 Arizona and Montana were the first states to develop 

their coalition(s), receive OJJDP approval of their work 

plan(s), and begin implementing their intervention 

activities. 

•	 The two Arizona communities used guidance from 

the Underage Drinking Enforcement Training 

Center (www.udetc.org/Publications.htm), input from 

the federal partners (OJJDP, NIAAA, and the U.S. 

Air Force), and “best practice” guidelines from the 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2006; http://store.samhsa.gov/home). This 

guidance helped them build state-based coalitions to 

promote community prevention using a social network 

analysis.8 Other communities did not use this guidance. 

•	 Arizona had an existing underage drinking state task 

force before the EUDL/Air Force grant project began. 

Thus, the state had an existing network to build on. 

•	 Both Arizona communities hired an outside local partner, Pima Prevention Partnership, to help them implement their activities. 

•	 Both Arizona communities are in urban areas (Phoenix and Tucson), so they identified and offered more 

alternate activities to drinking compared with sites in 

more rural areas, where the possibilities for alternative 

activities may be limited. 

•	 Both Arizona communities have received strong support from base-level leadership on the EUDL project. 

The wing commanders and senior officers at both 

Arizona Air Force bases were vocal and visible in their 

support. 

The Great Falls, MT/Malmstrom Air Force Base site also 

showed a significant decrease in risk for problem drinking 

when compared with a comparison community of equal 

size, but not when compared with the Air Force overall. 

The lack of significant difference in risk rates for the base 

and the Air Force overall may have to do with the fact that 

the Air Force was not an optimal comparison for this community. For most typical Air Force communities, using the 

Air Force average as the benchmark for the demonstration 

sites may be optimal because averaging all Air Force communities accounts for any variance and measurement error 

across sites. However, for a site such as Great Falls, MT/

Malmstrom Air Force Base, a small city within a larger 

rural area, comparisons with the Air Force average may be 

misleading. The best benchmark, in fact, might be another 

community that has an Air Force base with a similar mission and that is in an area with a similar small city/rural 

profile (e.g., the comparison site). 

Although these early findings are promising for EUDL 

within communities containing a large population of 

active-duty Air Force members, the authors remain cautious when interpreting these findings. Future results may 

help researchers better understand how all five sites fared. 

First, given the quasi-experimental nature of the study, the 

researchers could not establish cause-and-effect relationships or indicate that the interventions are the sole cause 

of the drop in the rate of problem drinkers.9 Prevalence 

rates should be measured over time to see if the effects 

reported in this bulletin remain stable or change. Second, because CoRC has been implemented across the Air 

Force, the communities in this study were implementing 

both CoRC and EUDL. Therefore, the authors could not 

fully tease out the effects from CoRC versus the effects 

from EUDL. Finally, the findings presented in this bulletin focus solely on rates of problem drinking and do not 

include data on alcohol-related misconduct, such as DUIs, 

underage-drinking incidents, traffic accidents, emergency 

department visits, and domestic violence. The researchers 

are collecting these types of outcome data as part of the 

evaluation. When these data are available, the team will 

compare them with the findings obtained in this study to 

determine the extent to which they can corroborate these 

early evaluation findings.
10 Juvenile Justice Bulletin

Endnotes 

1. In this bulletin, “community” is defined as the geographic area of the larger civilian community in which the 

U.S. Air Force Base lies; therefore, it includes both the 

base and the surrounding civilian community. 

2. Researchers have documented the increased risk of excessive alcohol use among military members following 

deployment and exposure to combat. See, for example, 

Fear and Wessely (2009) and Dervaux and Laqueille 

(2008). 

3. An environmental approach is one that emphasizes 

macro- or system-level entities such as policy influences, 

establishments that serve alcohol, and cultures or social 

networks that perpetuate attitudes or behaviors toward 

drinking. Changes at the macro level—such as decreasing 

access to alcoholic beverages by those younger than age 

21—produce changes in an individual’s behavior. 

4. The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation is 

OJJDP’s technical and training assistance provider for this 

initiative. 

5. The sample was stratified by rank, gender, and deployment status within each Air Force base.

6. Multiple imputation is a statistical technique that estimates missing values by examining actual values entered 

by other respondents to the same survey items. The 

technique replaces missing values with several (typically 

from 3 to 10) simulated versions. Researchers analyze each 

complete data set simulated by standard methods and then 

combine the results to produce estimates and confidence 

intervals that incorporate statistical uncertainty. See Rubin 

(1987) for more information. 

7. The “p-value” is an estimate of the probability that the 

results are due strictly to chance rather than any effects 

of the intervention program. By convention, a p-value of 

.05, representing 5 percent, is used as a threshold. Most 

researchers accept that p-values less than or equal to .05 

indicate that the results are due to program effects and not 

random variation. 

8. The term “social network analysis” encompasses a number of related concepts. As used by the Arizona demonstration sites, the analysis views a community of individuals 

and organizations as interactive and interdependent. The 

analysis provides a guide for communities to form coalitions that better reflect the intentions of the community 

and the people connected to it. 

9. The term “quasi-experimental” refers to research that 

has most of the characteristics of a true experiment. In 

most applied field studies, two experimental requirements 

that frequently cannot be met are a researcher’s control 

over the independent variables and random assignment of 

individuals to different experimental groups. In the EUDL 

demonstration sites described here, the independent 

variables are those activities constituting the EUDL program. However, the participants (i.e., Air Force personnel 

younger than age 21) cannot be assigned to a “drinking 

group” and a “nondrinking group” for ethical, legal, and 

practical reasons. 

References

Ames, G.M., Cunradi, C.B., Moore, R.S., and Stern, 

P. 2007. Military culture and drinking behavior among 

U.S. Navy careerists. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

68:336–344.

Babor, T.F., Higgins-Biddle, J.C., Saunders, J.B., and 

Monteiro, M.G. 2001. AUDIT: The Alcohol Use Disorders 

Identification Test: Guidelines for Use in Primary Care, 2d ed. 

Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 

NOTES 

The current study was funded under contract no. GS–23F–

806–2H, HHSN267200700003T to ICF International by 

the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 

(NIAAA), in collaboration with the U.S. Air Force (USAF) 

and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The three federal agencies collaborated on 

this project through a memorandum of understanding 

starting in February 2006. Data presented in this article 

were collected under a separate contract (no. GS–23F–

0115K, FA7014–07–F–A043) to ICF International to 

conduct the Air Force Community Assessment Survey, 

funded by the Air Force Medical Operations Agency, Office of the Surgeon General. The findings, thoughts, and 

opinions expressed in this article solely represent the views 

of the authors and do not represent the views of NIAAA, 

USAF, OJJDP, or ICF International.

Correspondence may be sent to Christopher Spera at 

cspera@icfi.com. 
Juvenile Justice Bulletin 11

Bell, N.S., Williams, J.O., Senier, L., Strowman, S.R., and 

Amoroso, P.J. 2003. The reliability and validity of the selfreported drinking measures in the Army’s Health Risk Appraisal Survey. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research

25:826–834.

Bray, R.M., Hourani, L.L., Olmstead, K.L.R., Witt, M., 

Brown, J., Pemberton, M.R., Vandermaas-Peeler, R. 

2006. 2005 Department of Defense Survey of Health-Related 

Behaviors Among Active Duty Military Personnel. Research 

Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

California State University–Chico. 2007. Safer California 

Universities Study: A Multi-Campus Alcohol Prevention Study. 

Berkeley, CA: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Prevention Research Center. Available online: www.

csuchico.edu/cadec/CaliforniaSaferSite/index.shtml.

Dervaux, A., and Laqueille, X. 2008. Military combat 

deployment and alcohol use. Journal of the American Medical 

Association 300(22):2606–2607.

Fear, N.T., and Wessely, S. 2009. Combat exposure increases risk of alcohol misuse in military personnel following deployment. Evidence Based Mental Health 12(2):60.

Fleming, M.F., Barry, K.L., and MacDonald, R. 1991. 

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) 

in a college sample. International Journal of the Addictions

26:1173–1185.

Goldstein, A., and Flett, G. 2009. Personality, alcohol 

use, and drinking motives: A comparison of independent 

and combined internal drinking motives groups. Behavior 

Modification 33:182–198.

Gruenwald, P.J., Holder, H.D., and Treno, A.J. 2003. 

Environmental approaches to prevention. In Principles of 

Addiction Medicine, 3d ed., edited by A.W. Graham, T.K. 

Schultz, M.F. Mayo-Smith, R.K. Ries, and B.B Wilford. 

Chevy Chase, MD: American Society of Addiction 

Medicine.

Hingson, R., McGovern, T., Howland, J., Heeren, T., 

Winter, M., and Zakocs, R. 2006. Reducing alcoholimpaired driving in Massachusetts: The Saving Lives 

Program. American Journal of Public Health 86:791–797.

Hoge, C.W., Castro, C.A., and Messer, S.C. 2004. Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care. New England Journal of Medicine

351:13–22.

Holder, H.D., Gruenwald, P.J., Ponicki, W.R., Treno, 

A.J., Grube, J.W., Saltz, R.F., Roeper, P. 2006. Effect of 

community-based interventions on high-risk drinking 

and alcohol-related injuries. Journal of the American Medical 

Association 284:2341–2347.

LaBrie, J., Lamb, T., and Pedersen, E. 2009. Changes in 

drinking patterns across the transition to college among 

first-year college males. Journal of Child and Adolescent 

Substance Abuse 18:1–15.

O’Bryant, J., and Waterhouse, M. 2008. U.S. Forces in Iraq. 

Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional 

Research Service.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

2005. F.E. Warren Air Force Base tackles underage and 

hazardous drinking. Success Stories: News from the Field. 

Calverton, MD: Underage Drinking Enforcement Training Center. Available online: www.udetc.org/documents/

success_stories/WY0205.pdf. 

Rosen, L. 2007. Rape rates and military personnel in 

the United States. Violence Against Women 13:945–960.

Rubin, D.B. 1987. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse 

in Surveys. New York, NY: J. Wiley and Sons.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2006. Focus on Prevention. Rockville, MD: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Available online: http://store.samhsa.gov/home. 

Treno, A.J., and Lee, J.P. 2002. Approaching alcohol 

problems through an environmental lens. Alcohol Research 

and Health 26:35–40.

U.S. Air Force. 2006. Establishing a Culture of Responsible 

Choices (CoRC). Washington, DC: U.S. Air Force. Available online: www.afcrossroads.com/websites/corc_docs/

CoRC_CONOPS_Feb_2006.pdf.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2007.

Results From the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: 

National Findings. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Office of Applied Studies.

Wagenaar, A.C., Murray, D.M., Gehan, J.P., Wolfson, M., 

Forster, J.L., Toomey, T.L., Jones-Webb, R. 2000. Communities mobilizing for change on alcohol: Outcomes 

from a randomized community trial. Journal of Studies on 

Alcohol 61:85–94.
12 Juvenile Justice Bulletin

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Acknowledgments

Christopher Spera, Ph.D., Keita Franklin, Ph.D., Kazuaki Uekawa, Ph.D., John F. 

Kunz, M.A., Ronald Z. Szoc, Ph.D., and Randall K. Thomas are all with ICF International. Milton H. Cambridge, Ph.D., is Air Staff Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws 

Point of Contact for the Mental Health Division, Air Force Medical Operations Agency 

(AFMOA) North, Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Air Force. 

The authors thank the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and its 

leadership, specifically Sharie Cantelon, Kellie Dressler, and Janet Chiancone. We thank 

the U.S. Air Force, led in this project by Dr. Milton Cambridge and Col. Terry Stottler. 

In addition, we thank the following U.S. Air Force members: TSgt. James Bridwell, 

Maj. Rachel Foster, Maj. Nicole Frazer, retired Col. Evan Hoapili, Maj. David Linkh, 

Maj. Mark Martello, Col. Fred Stone, and Lt. Col. Jay Stone. We thank the National 

Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, led on this project by Dr. Michael Hilton, 

Roger Hartman (retired), and Dr. Ralph Hingson. Thanks to Bill Patterson, Mary 

Gordon, Holly Torske, and Johnnetta Davis-Joyce from the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation for their excellent technical support to the grantees. Within ICF 

International, we thank the following members for their methodological work (e.g., 

sampling, weighting, imputation): Bryan Higgins, Laura Leach, Jo Prabhakaran, Boris 

Rachev, Marissa Shuffler, and Michael Yang. Thanks to Drs. Richard Heyman, Jeffery 

Snarr, and Amy Smith-Slep from the State University of New York at Stony Brook for 

their consultation on the multiple imputation tasks. We thank Alan Schreck and Allan 

Porowski for their earlier work on the Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws project.

This bulletin is adapted from the following article: C. Spera, K. Franklin, K. Uekawa, 

J.F. Kunz, R.Z. Szoc, R.K. Thomas, and M.H. Cambridge. 2010. Reducing drinking 

among junior enlisted Air Force members in five communities: Early findings of the 

EUDL program’s influence on self-reported drinking behaviors. Journal of Studies on 

Alcohol and Drugs 71:373–383.

This bulletin was prepared under a grant from the 

National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and in collaboration with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 

U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

*NCJ~232616*

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the 

Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Community 

Capacity Development Office; the National 

Institute of Justice; the Office for Victims 

of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender 

Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 

Registering, and Tracking (SMART).

NCJ 232616