DOI: 10.3886/icpsr35190
title: National Evaluation of the Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program - Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) and Youth Surveys, [United States], 1999-2005
title: Archival Version

description: The Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) Program was designed to reduce the number of alcoholic beverages sold to and consumed by minors under the age of 21 by distributing grants to state agencies to increase law enforcement activity with regard to the sale of alcohol to minors. The main elements of the National Evaluation of the Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program are: Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) Survey: a telephone survey of law enforcement agencies in a sample of communities in states receiving discretionary grants, and Youth Survey: a telephone survey of youth, age 16 to 20, in these same communities. Each of these data collection efforts was conducted once relatively early in the implementation of the program and annually for two years thereafter for each round. The evaluation involves a comparison of communities that are receiving the most intensive "interventions"--in this case, communities that received sub-grants under the three rounds EUDL discretionary grant program--with communities that are not receiving such intense interventions.
description: The purpose of this study is to provide timely, scientifically sound evidence on the implementation of the Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) Program and its effects on law enforcement activities, youth alcohol consumption, and alcohol-related problems in local communities. The overarching goals of the national evaluation of the program are to determine which state and local programmatic activities are being supported and evaluate the impact of the program in a sample of communities.
description: A draft instrument for each survey was developed and pre-tested, and based on the results of the pretest, several changes were made to the final questionnaire. The questionnaire of each survey had minor modification through data collection years. All four survey rounds were conducted by the University of South Carolina Survey Research Lab (SRL), by telephone interviews. All interviewing was done using the SRL's Sawtooth Ci3 computer-assisted telephone interviewing system from a central location on the University of South Carolina's Columbia campus.
description: The Law Enforcement Agency Dataset contains 140 variables and 830 cases. Variables included the priority the agency gives to driving under the influence, sale of drugs, possession of drugs, purchase or possession of alcohol by underage persons, furnishing alcohol to underage persons, sale of alcohol to intoxicated persons, public drunkenness, and sale of tobacco to underage persons. Data was also collected on the number of underage people cited, detained, or arrested for purchase, possession, or use of alcohol, and most common penalty for purchase, possession, or use of alcohol. Respondents were asked about participation in programs or activities to reduce underage drinking and alcohol purchase attempts, and compliance check activities including how location of check was chosen, consequences for businesses that fail compliance checks, and whether the checks involved a joint operation with another agency. Also recorded was number of businesses cited, fined, license suspended as a result of in-store observations, and other methods used to enforce state or local laws prohibiting furnishing alcohol to persons under the legal drinking age, and how active other groups such as city officials, state police, and the alcohol beverage commission were in working to influence enforcement practices. Respondents were also asked which agencies have contacted the department to check on level of enforcement regarding alcohol sales to underage persons, from which other organizations did the department request information on enforcement of laws related to underage alcohol use or sales, whether the department had received contracts or grants to support enforcement of laws related to underage alcohol use, and if officers were given paid overtime to support enforcement of laws related to youth alcohol use. Data also included number of full time employees, number of sworn personnel, sworn personnel working in field operations, percent of officers with at least a two-year college degree, education requirements for new officer recruits, whether sworn officers are provided with training on issues related to underage alcohol use, if there was a special unit for neighborhood crime prevention, and whether the department participated in the DARE program. Other information includes the respondent's position in the department, type of department, and year of data collection. The Youth Dataset contains 177 variables and 11174 cases. Variables include the age respondents first had a drink of alcohol, the last time they drank alcohol, the amount, place, who they were with, and how many of those people were under 21 the last time they drank alcohol. They were also asked the last time they drank alcohol: how they got home, how the alcohol was obtained, and if applicable the demographics of the person who provided the alcohol. Other variables included how much and how often they drank in a specific period of time, if they had ever provided alcohol to someone under 21, how difficult they thought it would be to obtain alcohol, if they had ever driven or ridden in a car after they or the driver had been drinking, and how many of their friends drank alcohol in the past 30 days and if they were under 21 years old. Data was also collected on number of times respondent attempted to purchase alcohol, if respondent had ever used a fake ID, if respondent had certain experiences after drinking such as being cited or arrested, and the influence of alcohol on behaviors such as fighting. Respondents were asked what punishment they would expect if they were caught drinking by parent/guardian, school, or police. Variables also include history of drug use for substances such as tobacco, cocaine, inhalants, marijuana, prescription pain killers, and oxycontin. Respondents were also asked about history of running away from home including age, reason, and counseling or social services received as a result. Demographic variables include age, gender, student status, race, household composition, parents' education levels, religious preference, employment status, marital status, height, and weight.
description: The data are not weighted.
description: Response Rates: Round 1 data collection 1999: 64 percent, 2000: 74 percent, 2001: 70 percent Round 2 data collection 2000: 65 percent, 2001: 67 percent, 2002: 91 percent Round 3 data collection 2002: 77 percent, 2003: 73 percent, 2004: 88 percent
description: The evaluation of the Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) program involves a comparison of communities that are receiving the most intensive "interventions"--in this case, communities that received sub-grants under the three rounds EUDL discretionary grant program--with communities that are not receiving such intense interventions. The states that received discretionary grants selected communities to receive sub-grants, using a variety of criteria which included "need," "readiness," "infrastructure," and "diversity." This non-random selection process resulted in a statistically biased sample such that, on average, the communities that were selected were different from communities that were not selected with respect to a number of measured and unmeasured characteristics. The rationale for selection procedures of comparison communities was to select communities that, as a group, were as similar as possible to the group of intervention communities. Propensity scores were used to identify matching comparison communities within each state. Variables used for matching communities within the first round of discretionary states included population size (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990, 1998), median income (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990, 1993), college population (adjusted for overall population) (Peterson's, 1999), and rate of arrests for liquor law violations (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997). Variables used for matching communities within states funded in each round of discretionary funding included population, median income, college population, arrest rates for liquor law violations, and arrest rate for public drunkenness. In the selection process, counties or cities that were "dry" (defined here as prohibiting all alcohol sales) were excluded. Priority was given to potential comparison communities that were not adjacent to intervention communities and had not received major federal or foundation grants to prevent substance abuse since 1993.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) DS2: Youth
description: Data set 1: Police chief (or a surrogate) and the sheriff (or a surrogate) within communities in the United States. Data set 2: Youth ages 16-20 within communities in the United States. Smallest Geographic Unit: None
description: computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI)