Findings from a Connecticut Study 2 0 1 8 N A T I O N A L P R E V - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Why Do Retailers Continue to Sell Alcohol to Minors? Findings from a Connecticut Study 2 0 1 8 N A T I O N A L P R E V E N T I O N N E T W O R K C O N F E R E N C E A U G U S T 3 0 , 2 0 1 8 P R E S E N T E D B Y : G R E G O R Y C A R V E R S U P E R V I S I N G S P E C I A L I N V E S T I G A T O R S T E P H A N I E M O R A N , B A , C P S P R I M A R Y P R E V E N T I O N S E R V I C E S C O O R D I N A T O R

Learning Objectives  Understand the procedure used.  Identify key components and cultural considerations.  Increase awareness of the challenges to reduce youth access to alcohol.  Familiarize participants with next steps to address retailer non-compliance.

Connecticut  Population: 3,588,184  Size: 5,018 square miles  Population  Largest City - Bridgeport:  147,022 people  $43,137 median income  Smallest Town - Union:  854 people  $88,125 median income

Alcohol Compliance Checks in Connecticut  Partners  Active Permits: 6152  CT Department of  1895 Restaurant Consumer Protection, Liquor Control Division  1281 Package Store  Law Enforcement  Youth Inspectors  891 Grocery Store  Community Coalitions  809 Café  45 Winery

Alcohol Compliance Checks in Connecticut  Sec. 30-86. Sale or  Sec. 30-11. Penalties delivery to minors,  “…shall, for each offense, intoxicated persons and be fined not more than one thousand dollars or habitual drunkards imprisoned not more than prohibited. one year or both.”  Subject to Sec. 30-11  First Offense is a $750 fine Penalties and a 3 day suspension of the liquor license

Underage Drinking in Connecticut  Alcohol is the most  Youth have identified common substance used that the #1 place to get by youth alcohol is from home or an older friend or family member.  Prevention Initiatives  Age of Onset:  PFS-2015  13 years old  CT SPF Coalitions  Local Prevention Councils

Problem Substances of Greatest Concern According to Informants, By Age Group* 100% 10 90% 2 23 80% 70% 40 18 Prescription Drugs 60% Heroin 50% Marijuana 24 40% 13 Tobacco 1 30% Alcohol 20% 32 30 10% 0% 12-17 years old 18-25 years old *CT CRS, 2018

Percent of 12 to 17 Year Olds Reporting Past Month Alcohol Use and Binge Drinking: NSDUH, Connecticut, 2004-05 to 2015-16 50 45 40 35 30 25 20.9 20.2 19.6 18.6 18.3 17.8 20 17.6 16.8 14.2 13.5 13.6 13.3 13.2 12.8 15 12.1 11.9 11.2 11.21 10.2 8.1 10 7.5 6.3 6.09 5 1 0 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Past Month Alcohol Use Past Month Binge Drinking

Percent of High School Students Reporting Past 30-Day Alcohol Use and Binge Drinking: CT School Health Survey (YRBS), Connecticut, 2005-2017 50 45.3 44.7 43.5 45 41.5 40 36.7 35 30.4 30.2 27.8 30 26.2 24.2 25 22.3 20.8 20 14.9 14.2 15 10 5 0 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Alcohol Use Binge Drinking

Purpose of Study  Determine a statewide baseline for alcohol sales to minors.  Assess the results/outcomes of our interventions.  Initial Hypothesis:  20-30% of inspected establishments would sell to minors.

Preparation  Connect With Partners  Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, Liquor Control Division  UConn School of Social Work, Evaluation  Center for Prevention Evaluation and Statistics  Connecticut Department of Administrative Services

Pulling the Random Sample Eleni Rodis & Jenna Powers, UConn School of Social Work  List of Active Permits was  Tools Used: cleaned  Proportional Stratified Sampling Calculator:  Used Proportional www.surveysystem.com Stratified Sampling  RAND Command in Excel  Excel, RAND Command to select establishments  95% Confidence 5% Error

Establishing a Protocol Process Began in November 2017  Combination of Synar and Best Practices of Alcohol Compliance Checks  Developed an Inspection Form

Establishing a Protocol Youth Inspectors  Part-Time Paid State  9 Youth Inspectors Employees  2 – Seventeen Year Olds  5 – Eighteen Year Olds  Most Have Experience  2 – Twenty Year Olds from TPEP Program  5 - Female  4 - Male

The Inspection Began January 2018, Completed July 2018  On Premise  Off Premise  Primarily purchased beer  Primarily purchased beer or malt liquor – based on  Avoided mixed drinks demographics  Multiple Youth Inspectors  One Youth Inspector went sent in to sit at a table or in and attempted to bar purchase  Multiple Youth Inspectors  Easier type of inspection attempted to purchase

The Outcome 356 Inspection Sample Size 32 Deemed Ineligible 324 Total Completed Inspections -------------------------------- 174 On-Premise Inspected 150 Off-Premise Inspected --------------------------------

Inspection Snapshot

Inspection Snapshot

The Data Overall On-Premise vs. Off-Premise 140 Inspections 126 120 98 100 80 Compliant 52 60 48 Compliant 40 45% Non- 20 Non- 55% Compliant Compliant 0

The Data 55% Non-Compliance Rate 140 122 120 95 100 88 80 62 60 47 Total Inspections 40 28 26 24 Non-Compliant 20 5 5 0

The Data Asked for Identification  51.6% of establishments 250 inspected requested ID Total Inspections 200  37.9% of establishments Non- 150 that requested ID, sold Compliant 100 ID Requested 50 ID 0 Requested On Off and Sold Premise Premise

The Unexpected  How do we count  Inspector was only asked multiple sales to minors once if he was the minor’s at one establishment? Parent/Guardian  29 establishments sold to multiple minors  Youth Inspector’s ID was  Alcohol Inspections Take only confiscated once More Time than Tobacco  Restaurants and Bars  Amount of retailers who  Storage and Disposal of sold after checking ID the Alcohol

What We Learned  Highest Non-Compliance:  Need for Merchant Education  Restaurants  On-Premise Establishments  Urban Areas  Training on checking ID’s  Assuming an older adult is  Cultural Factors and a parent/guardian Barriers:  Clerks and Youth Inspectors  Need to continue and strengthen our efforts  Store owners were less likely to sell vs. employees

Next Steps  Send Compliant and Non-Compliant Letters  Merchant Education  Continue Work With Community Coalitions  Enhance collaboration with Liquor Control Division  Look at Options for a Statewide Campaign  Sustainable Funding for Compliance Inspections  Recruiting and Training Youth Inspectors (volunteer)

Questions?  Gregory Carver  Stephanie Moran, BA, CPS Supervising Special Primary Prevention Investigator Services Coordinator gregory.carver@ct.gov stephanie.moran@ct.gov (860) 418-6702 (860) 418-6880 Thank You!