The project identified factors influencing U.S. federal alcohol policy formation and especially the role of research. It explored the applicability of John Kingdon's “Policy Stream” model involving three interacting policy streams: problem recognition, policy alternatives, and politics. Each stream is necessary but insufficient for policy formation, and coupling streams in “windows of opportunity” is a key to moving legislation. Federal alcohol-policy cases studied included excise taxes, alcohol promotion policies, federal agency reauthorization, and federally mandated health warnings. Data sources included key-informant interviewing with snowball sampling and archival data. We qualitatively analyzed government documents, scientific journals, print and electronic media, trade magazines, and newsletters. Sixty-four in-depth interviews were completed with public health activists, alcohol industry representatives, researchers, journalists, and people in executive and legislative branches of the government. We summarize methods used and challenges overcome, and provides an overview of the project's activities, with results detailed elsewhere in this special issue.
AnglinL.JohnsonS.GiesbrechtN. & GreenfieldT. K. (2000). Alcohol policy content analysis: A comparison of public health and alcohol industry trade newsletters. Drug and Alcohol Review, 19, 203–212.
2.
BaborT. F. (1992). Beyond the invisible college: A science policy analysis of alcohol and drug research [working paper]. Farmington, CT: Department of Psychiatry, University of Connecticut School of Medicine.
3.
BeauchampD. E. (1981). The paradox of alcohol policy: The case of the 1969 alcohol act in Finland. In MooreM. H. & GersteinD. R. (eds.), Alcohol and public policy: Beyond the shadow of prohibition (pp. 225–254). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
4.
BruunK.EdwardsG.LumioM.MäkeläK.PanL.PophamR. E.RoomR.SchmidtW.SkogO.-J.SulkunenP. & ÖsterbergE. (1975). Alcohol control policies in public health perspective. Helsinki: The Finnish Foundation for Alcohol Studies.
5.
BruunK. E. (1973). Social research, social policy and action. In The epidemiology of drug dependence: Report of a conference (pp. 115–119). Copenhagen: World Health Organization.
6.
CahalanD. (1991). An ounce of prevention: Strategies for solving tobacco, alcohol and drug problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
CohenM.MarchJ. & OlsenJ. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.
8.
EdwardsG.AndersonP.BaborT. F.CasswellS.FerrenceR.GiesbrechtN.GodfreyC.HolderH.LemmensP.MäkeläK.MidanikL. T.NorstomT.ÖsterbergE.RomelsjöA.RoomR.SimpuraJ. & SkogO.-J. (1994). Alcohol policy and the public good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
EdwardsG. & HolderH. (eds.) (1995). Alcohol and public policy: Evidence and issues. New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
FarrellS. (1985). Review of national policy measures to prevent alcohol-related problems. Geneva: Division of Mental Health, World Health Organization.
11.
GiesbrechtN. (2000). Roles of commercial interests in alcohol policies: Recent developments in North America. Addiction, 95 (Suppl. 4): S581–S595.
12.
GiesbrechtN.ConleyP.DennistonR.GliksmanL.HolderH.PedersonA. (1990). Research, action and the community: Experiences in the prevention of alcohol and other drug problems. CSAP Monograph No. 4 (ADM) 89–1651. Washington, DC: Office for Substance Abuse Prevention.
13.
GiesbrechtN.GreenfieldT. K.AnglinL. & JohnsonS. (2004). Changing the price of alcohol in the United States: Perspectives from the alcohol industry, public health, and research. Contemporary Drug Problems31, 711–736 [this issue].
14.
GiesbrechtN.JohnsonS.AnglinL.GreenfieldT. K. & KavanaghL. (2004). Alcohol advertising policies in the United States: National promotion and control initiatives. Contemporary Drug Problems, 31, 673–710 [this issue].
15.
GlaserB. G. & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
16.
GordisE. (1991). From science to social policy: An uncertain road. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 101–109.
17.
GordisE. (1993). Alcohol research and public health policy—a commentary by NIAAA director Enoch Gordis, M.D.Alcohol Alert—National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 20, 3.
18.
GreenfieldT. K. (1994). The next agenda for prevention research: Studying alcohol policy formation. Skrifter fra Center for Rusmiddelforskning (Journal of the Center for Alcohol and Drug Research, Århus University), 1, 35–55.
19.
GreenfieldT. K. (1997a). Alcoholism, alcohol problems, and social policies. In SheltonW. & EdwardsR. B. (eds.), Values, ethics, and alcoholism (pp. 221–256). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
20.
GreenfieldT. K. (1997b). Warning labels: Evidence of harm reduction from long-term American surveys. In PlantM.SingleE. & StockwellT. (eds.), Alcohol: Minimizing the harm (pp. 105–125). London: Free Association Books.
21.
GreenfieldT. K. & ZimmermanR. (1993). Experiences with community action projects: New research in the prevention of alcohol and other drug programs. CSAP Prevention Monograph 14 (ADM) 93–1976. Washington, DC: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention.
22.
GreenfieldT. K.GiesbrechtN.JohnsonS. P.KaskutasL. A.AnglinL.KavanaghL.RoomR. & MackenzieB. (1999). U.S. federal alcohol control policy development: A manual. Berkeley, California: Alcohol Research Group.
23.
GreenfieldT. K.GiesbrechtN.KaskutasL. A.JohnsonS. & KavanaghL. (1996). Example summaries of policy histories. Presented at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Substance Abuse Policy Research Program's first annual grantee meeting, San Francisco, December 12–13.
24.
GreenfieldT. K.MidanikL. T. & RogersJ. D. (2000). A ten-year national trend study of alcohol consumption 1984–1995: Is the period of declining drinking over?American Journal of Public Health, 90(1), 47–52.
25.
GreenfieldT. K.JohnsonS. P.GiesbrechtN. A. (2004a). Public opinion on alcohol policy: A review of U.S. research. Contemporary Drug Problems, 31, 759–790 [this issue].
26.
GreenfieldT. K.JohnsonS. P.GiesbrechtN. A. (2004b). The alcohol policy development process: Policy makers speak. Contemporary Drug Problems, 31, 627–654 [this issue].
27.
HolderH. D. (ed.) (1987). Control issues in alcohol abuse prevention: Strategies for states and communities. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
28.
HolderH. D. (ed.) (1994). Recent advances in alcohol problem prevention research. Skrifter fra Center Rusmiddelforskning (Journal of the Center for Alcohol and Drug Research, Århus University), 1: 9–33.
29.
HolderH. & EdwardsG. (eds.) (1995). Alcohol and public policy: Research and evidence. New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
JanesickV. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 209–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
31.
JohnsonS. P.AnglinL.KavanaghL. T.GreenfieldT. K. & GiesbrechtN. (1999). The impact of Internet information resources on research strategies: A case study of alcohol policy analysis. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 17(2), 33–46.
32.
JohnsonS.GreenfieldT. K.GiesbrechtN.KaskutasL. & AnglinL. (2004). The role of research in the development of U.S. federal alcohol control policy. Contemporary Drug Problems, 31, 737–758 [this issue].
33.
KaskutasL. A. (1995). Interpretations of risk: The use of scientific information in the development of the alcohol warning label policy. International Journal of the Addictions, 30(12), 1519–1548.
34.
KaskutasL. A. (2004). Division in the ranks: An analysis of alliances and dissension in the alcohol industry and advocacy communities. Contemporary Drug Problems, 31, 655–672 [this issue].
35.
KaskutasL. A.SchmidtL.WeisnerC. & GreenfieldT. K. (2000). Methods for evaluating policy changes in alcohol services. Addiction, 95 (Suppl. 3), S329–S345.
36.
KingdonJ. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: HarperCollins.
37.
KingdonJ. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
38.
KingdonT. (1993). The relevance of research to policy formulation: An Australian perspective. Addiction, 88 (Suppl.), 61S–65S.
39.
MäkeläK.RoomR.SingleE., Sulkunen, P. & Walsh, B., with 13 others (1981). Alcohol, society and the state: I. A comparative study of alcohol control. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation.
40.
MarshallC. & RossmanG. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
41.
McKenzieD. (1993). Structuring drinking environments to promote moderation: The balance between research and social interests in policy development. In GreenfieldT. K. & ZimmermanR. (eds.), Experiences with community action projects: New research in the prevention of alcohol and other drug problems (pp. 43–49). Washington, DC: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention.
42.
MidanikL. T. & ClarkW. B. (1994). The demographic distribution of U.S. drinking patterns in 1990: Descriptions and trends from 1984, American Journal of Public Health, 84, 1218–1222.
43.
MilesM. B. & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
44.
MooreM. & GersteinD. (eds.) (1981). Alcohol and public policy: Beyond the shadow of prohibition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
45.
MoserJ. (1979). Prevention of alcohol-related problems: An international review of prevention measures. Geneva: World Health Organization.
46.
MosherJ. F. (1995). The merchants, not the customers: Resisting the alcohol and tobacco industries' strategy to blame young people for illegal alcohol and tobacco sales. Journal of Public Health Policy, 16, 412–432.
47.
MosherJ. F. & JerniganD. F. (1989). New directions in alcohol policy. Annual Review of Public Health, 10, 245–280.
48.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
49.
Public Law No. 100–690 (1988). Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988. Washington, DC: 100th Congress, 2nd session.
50.
RistR. C. (1994). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 545–558). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
51.
RoomR. (1990). Thinking about alcohol controls. In EngsR. (ed.), Controversies in the addictions field (Vol. 1, pp. 68–75). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall-Hunt.
52.
RoomR. (1991). Social science research and alcohol policy making. In RomanP. (ed.), Alcohol: The development of sociological perspectives on use and abuse (pp. 311–335). New Brunswick: Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies.
53.
RoomR. (1993). Research, policy and the problems set by rapid social, economic and political change. In EdwardsG.StrangJ. & JaffeJ. H. (eds.), Drugs, alcohol, and tobacco: Making the science and policy connections (pp. 26–33). New York: Oxford University Press.
54.
RoomR.GravesK.GiesbrechtN. & GreenfieldT. K. (1995). Trends in public opinion about alcohol policy initiatives in Ontario and the U.S.: 1989–91. Drug and Alcohol Review, 14, 35–47.
55.
SingleE.MorganP. & de LintJ. (eds.) (1981). Alcohol, society and the state: II. The social history of alcohol control experiences in seven countries. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation.
56.
StockwellT.SingleE. (1997). Standard unit labelling of alcohol containers. In PlantM.SingleE.StockwellT. (eds.), Alcohol. Minimizing the harm (pp. 85–124). London: Free Association Books.
57.
WienerC. L. (1981). The politics of alcoholism: Building an arena around a social problem. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
58.
WilliamsG. D.StinsonF. S.ClemD. & NobleJ. (1992). Apparent per capita alcohol consumption: National, state and regional trends: 1977–1990. (Surveillance Report No. 23). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System.
59.
ZahariadisN. (1999). Ambiguity and choice in public policy: Political decision making in modern democracies. In SabatierP. A. (ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 73–93). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
60.
ZahariadisN. (2003). Ambiguity and choice in public policy: Political decision making in modern democracies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
