Public policies that reduce the availability of alcohol in communities can reduce consumption and related harms. In this article, we propose a practical model to guide alcohol policy implementation.
Approach.
The conceptual model is informed by a case study of three U.S. cities that adopted restrictions on high-alcohol malt liquor sales.
Setting.
The three cities included Seattle, Washington; Santa Ana, California; and Washington, D.C.
Participants.
Participants (n = 39) represented neighborhood groups, city officials, local police, Alcohol Beverage Control (board members and enforcement personnel), alcohol retailers, alcohol industry representatives, and advocacy and service organizations.
Method.
We conducted key informant interviews with participants in each city. We coded and analyzed the data by using a grounded theory approach. Findings were used to identify and illustrate model components.
Results.
Implementation components include building public awareness and educating stakeholders, monitoring and enforcing compliance, evaluating process and outcomes, and institutionalizing the policy. The experiences of study cities illustrate the importance of these activities in maintaining policy effectiveness; for example, a lack of enforcement resources appeared to contribute to the erosion of compliance over time.
Conclusion.
The model addresses an important gap in alcohol policy research. It is intended to spur further research on the subject, provide a guide for policy practitioners, and ultimately improve the long-term effectiveness of alcohol control policies.
CorraoGBagnardiVZambonALa VecchiaC. A meta-analysis of alcohol consumption and the risk of 15 diseases. Prev Med. 2004;38:613–619.
2.
RehmJRoomRGrahamK. The relationship of average volume of alcohol consumption and patterns of drinking to burden of disease: an overview. Addiction. 2003;98:1209–1228.
3.
ScribnerRCohenDKaplanS. Alcohol availability and homicide in New Orleans: conceptual considerations for small area analysis of the effect of alcohol outlet density. J Stud Alcohol. 1999;60:310–316.
4.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Alcohol-attributable deaths and years of potential life lost—United States, 2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2004;53:866–870.
5.
MokdadAHMarksJSStroupDFGerberdingJL. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA. 2004;291:1238–1245.
6.
BaborTFCaetanoRCasswellS. Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity: Research and Public Policy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2003.
7.
ToomeyTLWagenaarA. Possibilities of alcohol-related prevention policy in the USA. In: SchmidtBHurrelmannK, eds. Prevention Drug Policy: A Handbook. Oplanden, Germany: Leske and Budrich; 2000.
8.
WagenaarACToomeyT. Effects of minimum drinking age laws: review and analyses of the literature from 1960 to 2000. J Stud Alcohol Suppl. 2002;(14):206–225.
9.
CookP. Paying the Tab: The Costs and Benefits of Alcohol Control. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2007.
10.
WagenaarASaloisMKomroK. Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: a meta-analysis of 1002 estimates from 112 studies. Addiction. 2009;104:179–190.
ElmoreR. Backward mapping: implementation research and policy decisions. Polit Sci Q. 1979;94:601–616.
13.
PressmanJLWildavskyA. Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland … Ruined Hopes. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press; 1984.
14.
SabatierP. Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: a critical analysis and suggested synthesis. J Public Health Policy. 1986;6:21–48.
15.
McLaughlinMW. Learning from experience: lessons from policy implementation. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 1987;9:171–178.
16.
HolderHD. Community prevention trials: a respectful partnership. Am J Health Behav. 2001;25:234–244.
17.
WagenaarAToomeyT. Alcohol policy: gaps between legislative action and current research. Contemp Drug Probl. 2000;27:681–695.
18.
WagenaarACWolfsonM. Enforcement of the legal minimum drinking age in the United States. J Public Health Policy. 1994;15:37–53.
19.
FriedmanRM. A conceptual framework for developing and implementing effective policy in children's mental health. J Emotion Behav Dis. 2003;11:11–18.
20.
Jones-WebbRMcKeePHannanP. Alcohol and malt liquor availability and promotion and homicide in inner cities. Subst Use Misuse. 2008;43:159–177.
21.
ChenMJPaschallMJ. Malt liquor use, heavy/problem drinking and other problem behaviors in a sample of community college students. J Stud Alcohol. 2003;64:835–842.
22.
CollinsRLBradizzaCMVincentPC. Young-adult malt liquor drinkers: prediction of alcohol problems and marijuana use. Addict Behav. 2007;21:138–146.
23.
VilamovskaAMTaylorBrown DBluthenthalRN. Adverse drinking-related consequences among lower income, racial, and ethnic minority drinkers: cross-sectional results. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2009;33:645–653.
24.
TaylorBrown D. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Malt Liquor Beer Drinking Behavior Among African American Men in South Central Los Angeles. Los Angeles, Calif: California School of Professional Psychology; 2000.
25.
CaetanoR. Alcohol-related health disparities and treatment-related epidemiological findings among Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics in the United States. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003;2:1337–1339.
26.
McDonaldA JWangNCamargoCA. US emergency department visits for alcohol-related diseases and injuries between 1992 and 2000. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:531–537.
27.
Jones-WebbRMcKeePToomeyTL. Regulating malt liquor in urban areas in the US. Contemp Drug Probl. 2011;38:41–49.
TongASainsburyPCraigJ. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32 item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–357.
30.
University of Minnesota Alcohol Epidemiology Program. Local policies to restrict high-alcohol malt liquor and fortified wine. Available at: http://www.epi.umn.edu/alcohol/aeppolicy/aeppolicies.asp. Accessed November 15, 2011.
31.
McKeePNelsonTFToomeyTL. Adopting local alcohol policies: a case study of community efforts to regulate malt liquor sales. Am J Health Promot. 2012;26:e86–e94.
32.
WagenaarACToomeyTLEricksonD. Complying with the minimum drinking age: outcomes from a multi-community time-series trial. Addiction. 2005;100:335–345.
33.
WallachLDorfmanLJerniganDThembaM. Media Advocacy and Public Health: Power for Prevention. Thousand Oaks, Calf: Sage Publications; 1993.
34.
ElderRWShultsRASleetDA. Effectiveness of mass media campaigns for reducing drinking and driving and alcohol-involved crashes: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27:57–65.
35.
RossHL. Confronting Drunk Driving: Social Policy for Saving Lives. Binghamton, NY: Vail-Ballou Press; 1992.
