ventura county limits: evaluation findings from the ventura … · 2010-05-08 · sig year three...

Ventura County Limits: Evaluation Findings from the Ventura County State Incentive

Grant (SIG) Funded Initiative

Ventura County State Incentive Grant (SIG)

Year Three Final Evaluation Report

Prepared for

Ventura County Behavioral Health Department

By

Kristen Donovan, Ph.D. Julie Slay, Ph.D.

& Lisa Garbrecht, Ph.D.

July 2008

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the individuals who participated in the outcome evaluation process. Huge thanks are extended to Kathleen Staples, Prevention Services Manager, and Daniel Hicks, SIG Program Administrator, for their ongoing support of the evaluation and for providing EVALCORP the opportunity to work with them. Their commitments to data-based decision making, and strategic prevention planning and implementation are truly admirable, and we feel fortunate to be a part of their work in Ventura County. We also wish to thank Management Assistant Glenda Valles for her continuous assistance in answering our requests for supporting information. Special thanks also are extended to the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department. Chief Deputy Geoff Dean made it possible for us to access needed data and information to inform the evaluation and was extremely helpful to us throughout the entire evaluation process. Captain Randy Pentis of the Thousand Oaks Station was especially helpful to us and responded to our many requests for data pertaining to Social Host Ordinance enforcement across Ventura County. We greatly appreciate the significant amount of time he spent on our behalf. Thanks also are extended to Chief of Police Bruce Macedo of the Fillmore Station and Chief of Police Bruce Norris of the Ojai Station, and to their patrol officers who participated in the evaluation. Captain Macedo and Captain Norris were very helpful to us and supportive of the SIG evaluation. We also greatly appreciate the ongoing data-related assistance we received from David James, Crime Analyst, Ventura County Sheriff’s Department. We wish to thank Alcohol Enforcement Officer, Derek Donswyk, of the Ventura Police Department for responding to our data requests pertaining to Social Host Ordinance enforcement and for sharing evaluative information on the Responsible Retailer Program with us. Thanks also are extended to Senior Alcohol Compliance Officer, Cliff Waer, Oxnard Police Department; Commander Ken Dobbe, of the Port Hueneme Police Department; Lieutenant Greg Riegert, Simi Valley Police Department; and Lieutenant Carlos Juarez, Santa Paula Police Department for providing us with enforcement data relative to Social Host Ordinances enacted in their jurisdictions. Thanks and appreciation also goes out to Ruth Cooper, Coordinator of the Ojai S.A.F.E. Coalition, for assisting in both the development and administration of the Nordhoff High School Student Survey. In addition, we wish to thank Fillmore Unified School District Superintendent Jeff Sweeney for assisting us in carrying out the Fillmore High School Student Survey in his district. Lastly, we thank Ojai City Council Member and VCBH Consultant Rae Hanstad for assisting us with the high school student surveys and policy-related evaluative measures.

Ventura County SIG Year Three Final Evaluation Report

Ventura County SIG Year Three Final Evaluation Report

Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 Purpose of the Current Report .............................................................................. 1 Ventura County Limits Partnership........................................................................ 2 Overview of Ventura County’s Phase II SIG Work Plan ........................................ 2 II. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 4 Outcome Evaluation Design and Research Questions ......................................... 4 Data Collection Strategies and Tools .................................................................... 4 Document Reviews.................................................................................... 4 High School Student Surveys .................................................................... 5 Key Informant Interviews ........................................................................... 5 Media Output Tracking .............................................................................. 6 Ordinance Enforcement and Other Law Enforcement Data ...................... 6 III. EVALUATION FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 7 Social Host Ordinance Related Findings............................................................... 7 Policies Enacted Countywide .................................................................... 7 Countywide Ordinance Enforcement Data ................................................ 8 Case Study Region Outcome Data.......................................................... 10 Additional Policies Enacted ................................................................................. 26 Responsible Retailer Program ............................................................................ 26 Program Overview................................................................................... 27 Program Development ............................................................................ 28 Implementation ....................................................................................... 32 Outcomes ................................................................................................ 33 Media Advocacy .................................................................................................. 34 Media Output Monitoring ......................................................................... 34 IV. SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 36 Review of Environmental Prevention Strategies Employed ............................... 36 Lessons Learned ................................................................................................ 37 Impact of SIG Funding ........................................................................................ 37 Measurement Considerations for Environmental Prevention .............................. 38 Sustainability ...................................................................................................... 39 V. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 40 Appendix A: High School Student Surveys ......................................................... 40 Appendix B: Key Informant Interview Protocols .................................................. 43 Appendix C: Media Output Tracking ................................................................... 48

SIG Year Three Final Evaluation Report Page 1

I. INTRODUCTION In late 2004, Ventura County was awarded State Incentive Grant (SIG) funding based on its ability to effectively plan and implement science-based, environmental prevention strategies to attain measurable outcomes related to binge and underage drinking. Ventura County was one of thirteen California counties selected for a three-year SIG grant as part of a competitive bid process through the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP). Over the past three years, VCBH and its community partnership, Ventura County Limits, utilized SIG monies to not only implement policy-based initiatives countywide, but also to ensure that enforcement took place and that media campaigns were in place to facilitate sustained impacts. In 2007, VCBH/Ventura County Limits received national recognition from the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) for their outstanding work in prevention and continues to respond to inquires from individuals in the prevention and law enforcement fields from around the country interested in learning from the successes achieved in Ventura County. From the very beginning, the issue of sustainability was thought about and plans made to facilitate the continuation of solid prevention, enforcement, and collaboration beyond the sunset of SIG funding availability. Examples of such accomplishments include 10 enacted municipal Social Host Ordinances (one in each of the 10 municipalities in Ventura County); a countywide Social Host Ordinance covering the vast Ventura County Unincorporated region; a Resolution to Support the County’s Social Host Ordinance for federal land located within the Ojai Valley; 10 additional formal laws and/or administrative policies enacted to reduce underage and binge drinking; a comprehensive model Responsible Retailer Program which is replicable and supported by fees paid by local alcohol retailers; and numerous fact sheets, issue briefings, and useful publications to support those interested in effective environmental prevention strategies – two of which were developed as “model documents/best practices” covering all of the legal aspects associated with Social Host Liability Ordinances and Best Practices in Municipal Alcohol Outlet Regulation. Their community partnership known as “Ventura County Limits” continues to meet and hold conferences on a regular basis. Purpose of the Current Report The current report is intended to complement the SIG Year Two report prepared by EVALCORP for VCBH/Ventura County Limits. Whereas the SIG Year Two report focused primarily on findings gleaned through the case study process evaluation of the Social Host Ordinance advancement and implementation process, this report summarizes significant accomplishments and outcomes achieved overall. In addition to descriptive information regarding the passage of Social Host Ordinances and initial enforcement data, detailed information on Ventura County’s historical implementation of an environmental approach to prevention, description of the problem of binge and underage drinking in Ventura County and key assessment findings, community readiness for change, fidelity to the CMCA model, strategies implemented, and short-term evaluation findings is


included in the SIG Year Two report.1 In the current report, additional outcomes related to Social Host Ordinance implementation and enforcement from the case study regions are included, as are evaluation findings pertaining to other components of the overall Ventura County SIG initiative implemented countywide. Ventura County Limits Partnership One of the cornerstones of Ventura County’s SIG initiative was the establishment of Ventura County Limits. Ventura County Limits is a Community Partnership dedicated to changing local patterns of alcohol abuse among young people, and the many community problems that result from binge and underage drinking. The overall goal of Ventura County Limits is to improve the quality of life for all who live, work and play in Ventura County through responsible alcohol policies and practices. Ventura County Limits seeks to change the conditions and settings that lead to the most costly and damaging problems associated with underage and binge drinking. The Ventura County Limits partnership is a forum for learning and sharing effective community alcohol management strategies. These include local ordinances that deter unruly parties (e.g., Social Host laws), municipal tools for setting local retailer standards and enforcing them (e.g., dealing effectively with problematic alcohol outlets), and a wide range of agency and institutional policies, including those applicable to local colleges and universities, to limit alcohol-related harms. Four countywide collaboratives also were formed four to facilitate the work of the overall Ventura County Limits partnership: the Law Enforcement Collaborative, Higher Education Collaborative, Municipal Collaborative, and Community Collaborative. The Ventura County Limits Law Enforcement Collaborative, led by a high-ranking member of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, brings together every law enforcement agency in the county to share data and experiences dealing with underage and binge drinking related problems. The Ventura County Limits Higher Education Collaborative unites the county’s colleges and universities for the same purpose. The Ventura County Limits Municipal Collaborative, led by a local City Council Member and policy consultant to VCBH, serves as a network of city and county government officials. The Municipal Collaborative also works with VCBH to study and implement effective municipal policies to address and prevent underage and binge drinking. The Ventura County Limits Community Collaborative is comprised of representatives from VCBH Prevention Services’ funded community-level prevention partners. The Community Collaborative comes together every other month to keep other community-level representatives/coalition members apprised of progress and to share lessons learned. Overview of Ventura County’s Phase II SIG Work Plan The specific components of Ventura County’s prevention strategies that were implemented as part of the SIG initiative were developed based on information obtained through assessments and strategic data collection efforts. Numerous sources were tapped and research conducted not only during the initial planning year of the SIG initiative, but also throughout the entire 1 See “Social Host Ordinance Development, Implementation and Enforcement Across Ventura County, Ventura County State Incentive Grant (SIG) Case Study/Process Evaluation Report: Phase II Program Implementation Year Two,” June 2007. Prepared by EVALCORP for Ventura County Behavioral Health Department/Ventura County Limits.

http://venturacountylimits.org/pages/view/2.1.1


implementation phase. Local coalition surveys, high school student surveys, countywide public opinion polls, youth focus groups, alcohol industry expert focus groups, Ventura County Sheriff’s Department and California Highway Patrol statistics, California Healthy Kids Survey data, Place of Last Drink survey data, and reviews of existing alcohol ordinances/policies are just some of the data sets that were either established or considered by VCBH/Ventura County Limits as they developed and implemented their particular prevention strategies. In addition to decision-making based on local data, Ventura County’s binge and underage drinking prevention strategies consisted of the passage and enforcement of new policies/laws (i.e., focusing on two settings in particular – home parties and problem outlets), as well as media advocacy and events, and the sustained involvement of concerned groups, local experts, and policy makers. Ventura County’s SIG goals were as follows:

1. To match specific alcohol management tools to identified community policy needs within each of the 10 municipalities comprising Ventura County.

2. To establish accurate public perceptions about the severity of underage and binge drinking problems and the importance of public policy/enforcement strategies for their effective prevention.

3. To enact new or improved policies for the management of problem alcohol settings within six Ventura County municipalities, through the coordinated action of Collaboratives, coalitions, policy makers, law enforcement, and media.

The specific objectives set to be accomplished during the Phase II implementation component of the project included:

By September 15, 2006, new “party host accountability” policies will be formally considered in at least 8 of the 10 Ventura County municipalities to deter underage and young adult binge drinking;

By September 15, 2006, at least three Ventura County municipalities will formally consider new or improved policies for managing problematic on-sale alcohol sales locations focused on preventing underage and binge drinking problems;

By August 30, 2006, execute a multi-faceted media campaign aimed at de-normalizing underage drinking, especially emphasizing adult accountability for underage drinking;

By August 30, 2006, complete three major press events sponsored by the Ventura County Limits Community Partnership exposing local realities of underage and binge drinking, and their respective environmental/policy solutions, with emphasis on adult accountability for underage drinking; and

By September 1, 2007, six Ventura County municipalities will adopt or enact improved policies for managing problematic underage and heavy drinking environments, including home parties and on-sale alcohol sales locations

During the SIG funding period, all of the above goals and objectives were achieved. And, in many respects, VCBH/Ventura County Limits far exceeded their proposed goals and objectives.


II. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The overall SIG evaluation design consisted of a two-pronged (i.e., process and outcome) approach. The first component involved an in-depth process evaluation of the passage of Social Host Ordinances in three regions: Ojai, Fillmore, and Ventura County Unincorporated. Relying heavily on qualitative data, the process evaluation documented the policy advancement process from the “idea stage” through passage and enforcement utilizing a regional case study approach. The second/outcome component of the evaluation strategy continued gathering data relative to outcomes achieved in the case study regions of Ojai and Fillmore. In addition, the outcome evaluation sought to document outcomes achieved countywide as part of VCBH/Ventura County Limits’ core strategies: policy advancement, responsible retailer initiatives, media, and sustained collaboration. Specific information pertaining to the outcome evaluation design is described below. Outcome Evaluation Design and Research Questions A mixed-methods approach (i.e., multiple data sources and data collection strategies) was used to inform the outcome component of the overall SIG measurement strategy. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed. The primary focus of the outcome evaluation was to assess the extent to which proposed goals and objectives were achieved, and to document key outcomes associated with their achievement. Additionally, the outcome evaluation sought to obtain useful information regarding lessons learned. The outcome-related evaluation questions that were investigated as part of the Year Three SIG Final Evaluation included:

1. How many and what types of policies were formally considered? In which municipalities?

2. How many and what types of policies were enacted/adopted? In which municipalities? 3. What outcomes were evidenced following the passage of new policies/ordinances? 4. What types of media were implemented to support policy related and/or other initiatives

conducted during the SIG grant period? 5. What types of collaborative events took place in support of the environmental prevention

work being conducted by VCBH/Ventura County Limits? Data Collection Strategies and Tools The primary methodologies used to capture evaluative data for the outcome component of the evaluation included document reviews, student surveys, key informant interviews, media output tracking, and analysis of ordinance enforcement and other law enforcement data. Document Reviews Thorough reviews of all project related documents took place dating back to the initial proposal submitted to ADP for funding. Other examples of the types of documents/materials used to inform the evaluation included: VCBH/Ventura County Limits SIG Work Plan Phase II; VCBH/Ventura County Limits SIG Quarterly Reports; VCBH/Ventura County Limits


publications such as reports, fact sheets and issue briefings; copies of drafted and approved ordinances; copies of Monthly Reports submitted to VCBH by their funded community-level coalitions; and materials developed to support Social Host Ordinances following passage/adoption (e.g., materials developed by VCBH/Ventura County Limits to inform community members about the consequences for violating an ordinance for specific municipalities). Law enforcement related documents also were reviewed and included as part of the evaluation (e.g., Ventura County Sheriff’s Department Patrol Services Division, Standard Operating Procedure – Handling of Social Host Ordinance Calls, June 2006; Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, Ojai Station, Standard Operating Procedure – Underage Drinking Party Ordinance; Social Host Ordinance Enforcement Protocol – Policies and Procedures; and incident report forms, copies of ordinance citation forms and related documents from various municipalities). High School Student Surveys Two self-report surveys were developed and administered to students in grades 9-12 attending high school in either Ojai or Fillmore. The surveys were designed to capture information relative to student alcohol and other drug use, and included items assessing: number of parties occurring each month where alcohol or other drugs were being used, perceived increases/decreases in the number of parties, perceived increases in drug use, modes of access to alcohol, ease of access to alcohol, where alcohol and other drugs are typically consumed or used, knowledge of Social Host Ordinances, and perceived effectiveness of Social Host Ordinances. Demographic items captured through the surveys included gender, ethnicity, and grade in school. A copy of each of the surveys is included in Appendix A. Key Informant Interviews A series of key informant interviews were conducted as part of the outcome evaluation. Key Informant Protocols were developed to capture information from law enforcement personnel and from the SIG Program Administrator. First, a Key Informant Protocol was developed for the Chiefs of Police in Ojai and Fillmore, as these were the first two cities to pass and begin enforcement of Social Host Ordinances in the county. The purpose of the interviews with Chiefs of Police was to assess how new officers are trained about use of the Social Host Ordinance, learn about any challenges experienced to date in issuing violations, obtain information and copies of protocols developed regarding ordinance enforcement, and to identify the name and contact information for one of their deputies whom we could interview who has actually issued Social Host Ordinance violations. Second, a Key Informant Protocol was developed to obtain information from patrol officers in the Ojai and Fillmore Stations of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department relative to ordinance enforcement. Third, interview questions were developed for a key informant interview with the Alcohol Enforcement Officer affiliated with the Ventura Responsible Retailer Program to obtain outcome data, identify lessons learned, and obtain recommendations for other jurisdictions or cities interested in implementing a similar initiative. Lastly, a Key Informant Protocol was developed and administered with the SIG Program Administrator. Copies of all of the Key Informant Protocols are included in Appendix B.


Media Output Tracking A comprehensive review and documentation of more than 150 relevant media outputs was developed and tracked as part of the evaluation. A majority of the outputs pertained to passage and enforcement of Social Host Ordinances in Ventura County. Other media outputs focused on Ventura’s Responsible Retailer Program or on the problems and consequences associated with binge and underage drinking. Type of media output was tracked (e.g., print, radio, online blog, television, etc.) as was the content or subject matter of the media output. A copy of the Media Output Tracking Form is included in Appendix C. Ordinance Enforcement and Other Law Enforcement Data Data pertaining to Social Host Ordinance citations/violations issued through September 2007 was analyzed for all Ventura County municipalities and unincorporated areas. For the cities of Ojai, Fillmore, Moorpark, Thousand Oaks and Camarillo, a data request was made to the Assistant Chief of Police at the Thousand Oaks station who provided the evaluation team with information for all of the contract cities mentioned above as well as for violations issued within Ventura County Unincorporated. These five municipalities and unincorporated areas within the county are under the jurisdiction of the Sheriff’s Department. Individual requests were made to key contacts (e.g., Alcohol Enforcement Officer, Alcohol Compliance Officer, Commander, or Lieutenant) at the Santa Paula, Simi Valley, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, and Ventura Police Departments to obtain Social Host Ordinance information for the non-contract cities. The types of information that the evaluation team requested for each citation included: location, date, calls for service history, age and gender of the person issued the ordinance violation, and size of party. To assess outcomes associated with Social Host Ordinance implementation within the first two cities to pass such ordinances (i.e., Ojai and Fillmore), the evaluators worked with the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department Crime Analysis Unit as well as with the Chiefs of Police in both jurisdictions. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were conducted on Furnishing Alcohol to a Minor and Minors in Possession data for both police jurisdictions.


III. EVALUATION FINDINGS Numerous significant accomplishments were made by VCBH/Ventura County Limits during the SIG grant period. In the sections that follow, findings are organized as follows:

A. Social Host Ordinance Related Findings Policies Enacted Countywide Countywide Enforcement Data Case Study Region Outcome Data

B. Additional Policies Enacted C. Responsible Retailer Program D. Media Campaign

A. SOCIAL HOST ORDINANCE RELATED FINDINGS In their original proposal and work plan, VCBH/Ventura County Limits proposed that the following would occur as part of their efforts to reduce underage and binge drinking occurring in home settings across Ventura County: (1) eight municipalities would formally consider new “party host accountability” policies to deter underage and young adult binge drinking, and (2) six municipalities would adopt or enact improved policies for managing problematic underage and heavy drinking environments, including home parties. Policies Enacted Countywide Not only were these objectives achieved, but far surpassed. By September 2007, 10 of 10 Ventura County municipalities had formally enacted Social Host policies to deter underage and young adult binge drinking. A countywide ordinance also was passed to cover all of the unincorporated areas of Ventura County. Additionally, a Resolution to Support the Countywide Ordinance was adopted to cover Casitas Municipal Water District. This accomplishment was particularly noteworthy and is believed to be the first of its kind within the United States. The Resolution gave Ventura County Sheriff’s Department the ability to issue ordinance violations on federal land (i.e., the Casitas Municipal Water District) where drinking among young people is known to occur. Table 1 includes the dates of adoption and host penalties for violation for all Social Host Ordinances enacted within Ventura County.


Table 1. Social Host Ordinances Enacted in Ventura County

Municipality or Region Date of Ordinance

Passage

Host Penalties for Violation

City of Ojai January 2006 $1,000, cost recoveryCity of Fillmore February 2006 $1,000, cost recoveryCounty of Ventura April 2006 $1,000, cost recoveryCity of Thousand Oaks May 2006 1st violation $2,500, then $3,500, then

$5,000 plus cost recoveryCity of Simi Valley June 2006 $1,000, cost recoveryCity of Camarillo June 2006 $500, repeat is $1,000City of Santa Paula August 2006 $1,000, cost recoveryCity of Moorpark September 2006 $1,000, cost recoveryCity of Oxnard March 2007 1st violation $250, progressive, cost

recoveryCasitas Municipal Water District April 2007 $1,000, cost recoveryCity of Ventura June 2007 $1,000, cost recoveryCity of Port Hueneme July 2007 $1,000, cost recovery

All of the Social Host Ordinances adopted in Ventura County are civil ordinances. Following extensive research, with input and legal expertise from the Center for the Study of Law and Enforcement Policy, it was determined that civil ordinances would be developed and implemented in Ventura County.2 Worthy noting is that the Model Social Host Liability Ordinance with Legal Commentary and Resources document (i.e., commissioned by VCBH and authored by Jim Mosher, JD and Stacy Saetta, JD) was a significant contribution to the field of environmental prevention. Developed during the SIG implementation period, this resource was used not only by local municipalities across Ventura County as they developed their own local ordinances, but continues to be requested and used by persons throughout California and the U.S. During the process evaluation, many key stakeholders involved in the policy advancement process for Social Host Ordinances around the county reported that the publication was the “backbone or foundation” of their ordinance, that it “was critical to the process” and that “it made the process feel less risky for all involved.” Countywide Ordinance Enforcement Data Another significant accomplishment of the Ventura County SIG initiative was the level of enforcement accompanying the adopted Social Host Ordinances. The first Social Host Violation was issued in the City of Ojai, which was the first to pass such an ordinance. Enforcement began in Ojai in June of 2006, several months following successful adoption of the ordinance. Consistent enforcement continues to take place countywide, although Simi Valley, Santa Paula, and Port Hueneme have not yet had justification to issue a violation to date (per conversations with senior law enforcement from these jurisdictions). Per the Ojai Chief of Police, who 2 See “Model Social Host Liability Ordinance with Legal Commentary and Resources,” November 2005. Authored by Center for the Study of Law and Enforcement Policy, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation for Ventura County Behavioral Health Department/Ventura County Limits.


maintains jurisdiction over the Casitas Municipal Water District, they have responded to several party calls at Casitas Municipal Water District; however, issuing a violation has not yet been warranted. Additional information pertaining to enforcement is included below in Table 2.

Table 2. Social Host Ordinance Enforcement in Ventura County

Municipality or Region Date of First Violation

Number of Violations

Through September 2007

City of Ojai June 2006 11 City of Fillmore November 2006 4 County of Ventura July 2006 17 City of Thousand Oaks August 2006 15 City of Simi Valley Not Applicable 0 City of Camarillo August 2006 15 City of Santa Paula Not Applicable 0 City of Moorpark January 2007 2 City of Oxnard June 2007 9 Casitas Municipal Water District Not Applicable 0 City of Ventura August 2007 8 City of Port Hueneme Not Applicable 0

Total 81 As shown in the table above, a total of 81 Social Host Ordinance violations have been issued in Ventura County between June 2006 and September 2007, averaging about five citations per month. Analyses of information pertaining to “Social Host Violators” and circumstances surrounding the citations revealed that the majority of persons cited for Social Host Ordinance violations were males (69%). Ordinance “violators” ranged in age from 16-73, with an average age of 27. Worth noting, however, is the fact that 73 percent of party hosts cited were under the age of 25, and that more than half (54%) of persons receiving violations were between the ages of 16 and 20 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Age of Persons Cited for Social Host Ordinance Violations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Per

cent

16-20 21-25 26-30 31-40 41-50 51+


While Social Host Ordinances were enacted in Ventura County to prevent and deter drinking among youth in home party settings by holding adults accountable for providing alcohol to young people, they also were put in place to reduce the number of “repeat offenders” where law enforcement was responding to large parties held at the same home or hosted by the same individual repeatedly. Analyses of law enforcement data indicated that of those cited for Social Host violations between June 2006 and September 2007, just under 20 percent have had repeat party-related calls for service by police. In other words, 1 in 5 of those cited for a Social Host Ordinance violation had a history of police calls for service for party disturbances. Social Host Ordinances were also enacted to help reduce the harms that occur to young people in small home party settings, and to reduce the dangers associated with “large unruly gatherings”. Ventura County Sheriff’s Department reports that respond to serious calls for service (e.g., sexual assaults, alcohol/other drug overdoses) involving young people in both small (less than 5) and large (50 or more) party settings. In order to examine the size of party where Social Host Ordinance violations were issued, an analysis of the number of attendees at parties where a citation was issued was conducted. Seventy percent of violations were issued at parties with 49 or fewer attendees; however, 30 percent occurred at parties with 50 or more in attendance (see Figure 2). Overall, size of parties where violations were issued ranged from 3 to over 200 attendees.

Figure 2. Size of Party Where Social Host Ordinance Violations Were Issued Case Study Region Outcome Data In order to examine outcomes resulting from ordinances that were in place first in the county (Ojai and Fillmore), supplemental data collection strategies were employed and examined for these municipalities. More specifically, interviews were conducted with Chiefs of Police and deputies who had been involved with issuing Social Host violations. Additionally, party related calls for service, alcohol-related violation data, and high school student survey data were analyzed to provide outcome data pre-post passage of the Social Host Ordinance in these regions, and to serve as baseline data for future evaluative efforts.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

9 or fewer 10 to 24 25 to 49 50 to 99 Over 100

Per

cent


City of Ojai Ojai’s Social Host Ordinance was passed in January 2006, making it the first municipality in Ventura County to adopt a policy that allows law enforcement to cite party hosts for providing alcohol to persons who are under the legal drinking age. Enforcing the Ordinance The Ojai Chief of Police developed a Standard Operating Procedure and Briefing that are used to train officers about the ordinance and how to enforce it. When new officers join the Department, this Briefing is reviewed with them. When asked whether his department had encountered any challenges relative to Social Host Ordinance enforcement, the Chief commented about the length of time it can take:

“Our main challenge is that it is time consuming. It [enforcement] takes officers off of the street for quite awhile. We expected that. We know that with parties there are issues. We wait until the teens can be picked up. It is not the ordinance itself that is challenging, it is the time it takes in enforcing it.”

The Chief also mentioned that another challenge is the collection of fines, noting that this component was not really the police department’s challenge but rather something that is faced by the City. He did note that to his knowledge almost all of the fines associated with violations had been collected however. According to one of the deputies in Ojai who has been involved in approximately 15 citations (in both the city of Ojai and the unincorporated Ojai Valley), the parties can be extremely large ranging from three to over 100 attendees. He also pointed out that issuing violations has not stopped or prevented everyone from repeat party hosting, saying that:

“I can think of one instance where we issued one to a 19 year old male, issued him two citations in one week. The day after his parents left for vacation, he had a big party. We got calls for fights in the street, and when several units got there and they saw kids in the street with open containers and gathered them. Once we figured out how much alcohol there was, we cited the juvenile, called his parents and let them know. The day before they came back home from their vacation, the kid had a second party and received another citation.”

Local police have cited 11 persons from January 2006 – September 2007, eight of which were within 12 months of the policy passing. Persons who were cited ranged in ages, from 18 to 57 years old. Seven were male and one had a history of party disturbing calls to their address. The size of the parties ranged from three to over 50 attendees. Five of the citations were for persons between 18 and 19 years of age. Of note, these citations were given during June and August 2006 and no person under 21 has been cited in Ojai since. There seems to be some concerns on the part of parents regarding the ordinance. According to law enforcement, there are some parents who feel that the parent should receive the citation rather than the child even if the child is the host of the party. According to interviews with law enforcement, parents would rather receive the citation instead of their child so that their child does not have a police record, though


this has not changed the way law enforcement handles the citation. In fact, one officer stated, “Most of the kids seem to be pretty receptive, not that they enjoy being cited, but they acknowledge they have screwed up and that it won’t happen again.” Outcome Data In order to understand the early impact of the Social Host Ordinance in the City of Ojai, law enforcement data and data from local students were collected and examined. Party Calls for Service. To examine how Social Host Ordinance passage may have affected the number of parties that occur in Ojai, calls related to a ‘party disturbing the peace’ were collected for the City of Ojai and the surrounding areas of Ojai (Ojai Valley) that are policed by the Ojai Police Department. Data were collected from 2002 through June 2007 to establish a baseline to compare rates of calls for service before and after Social Host Ordinance passage. In Table 3 below, the total number of calls for any type of service are reported for each quarter dating back to 2002. The number of calls that reflected a complaint of a party disturbing the peace for each quarter is reported as well. A rate of party disturbing calls for service was calculated (number of party disturbing calls for service/total number of calls for service x 1,000) so that any observed increases or decreases in party calls are a result of true increases and not because of changes in the total number of calls for service for the area.

Table 3. Number and Rate of Party Disturbing Calls in Ojai

Total Number of Calls for Service

(Any Type)

Number of Party Disturbing Calls

for Service

Rate of Party Disturbing Calls for Service (per 1,000 calls)

Jan – Mar 2002 826 7 8.5Apr – Jun 2002 1,028 17 16.5Jul – Sep 2002 1,305 16 12.3

Oct – Dec 2002 1,204 8 6.6Jan – Mar 2003 1,198 12 10.0Apr – Jun 2003 1,217 16 13.1Jul – Sep 2003 1,392 26 18.7




Oct – Dec 2006 1,059 20 18.9Jan – Mar 2007 1,013 12 11.8Apr – Jun 2007 1,195 42 35.1


The data in Table 3 demonstrate quite a bit of variability quarter by quarter in both the number of party disturbing calls, as well as the total number of calls for service. More interestingly, the rate of party disturbing calls also varies. This indicates that a number of environmental factors (e.g., seasons, events) may affect the opportunities for persons to disturb the peace and whether community members will report these disturbances to the police. When these data are graphed (see Figure 3 on the following page), a seasonal pattern in party calls is readily apparent. In fact, the seasonal pattern dates back to 2002. A greater number of party calls occurs from April through September, with the fewest party calls occurring during January through March. Overall, party calls appear to be steadily increasing since 2002, with a significant increase evidenced during April – June 2007. It should be noted that while it is important to examine party disturbing calls for service to examine trends both before and after passage of an ordinance designed to reduce/prevent underage drinking at home parities, this indicator alone is not the best measure. Party disturbing calls for service data do not indicate the cause for the disturbance, nor the age or number of persons at the party (if a loud party is the cause of the call). This information is only available through individual qualitative arrest reports. Because of the lack of data to specify the specific type of party disturbing call and other factors such as the age of the host, whether there were underage drinkers present, etc., these data may not be a solid indicator of the types of party calls for service expected to be reduced long-term through consistent Social Host Ordinance enforcement. Despite the fact that the number of party disturbing calls for service has increased in the City of Ojai according to law enforcement statistics; anecdotally, the Ojai Chief of Police and his deputies report that the number of party related calls for service where underage drinking is occurring has indeed decreased since passage of the Social Host Ordinance.


Figure 3. Rate of Party Disturbing Calls in Ojai/Ojai Valley by Quarter/Year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Jan -Mar

Apr -Jun

Jul -Sept

Oct -Dec

Jan -Mar

Apr -Jun

Jul -Sept

Oct -Dec

Jan -Mar

Apr -Jun

Jul -Sept

Oct -Dec

Jan -Mar

Apr -Jun

Jul -Sept

Oct -Dec

Jan -Mar

Apr -Jun

Jul -Sept

Oct -Dec

Jan -Mar

Apr -Jun

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Rat

e of

Par

ty D

istu

rbin

g C

alls

per

1,

000

Cal

ls fo

r Ser

vice

Alcohol-related Violation Data. Violations of two laws related to alcohol use by persons less than 21 years of age were analyzed to see whether there were changes following adoption of Social Host Ordinances. The number of violations for furnishing alcohol to a person under 21 (Official California Business & Professions Code §25658a) and minors who are in possession of alcohol (Official California Business & Professions Code §25662 and §25662a) were collected and examined. To establish a baseline for comparison, data from 2002 through June 2007 were gathered. In Ojai, the absolute number of occurrences every six months was relatively small for both types of violations (Figure 4). A small number of events can limit the generalizabilty of these data and any analyses using these data will be susceptible to extreme differences when examining quarter by quarter. Nonetheless, it is important to examine these types of indicators as part of an outcome evaluation designed to reveal changes occurring in alcohol-related crimes affecting minors. As can been seen in Figure 4, data related to furnishing alcohol to a person under 21 has been relatively stable since passage of the Ojai SHO in January 2006, with a very slight decrease appearing in the latter part of 2006 and continuing through June 2007.


Figure 4. Number of Furnishing Alcohol to a Person Under 21 Charges (Ojai/Ojai Valley)

0123456789

Jan-Jun02

Jul - Dec02

Jan - Jun03

Jul - Dec03

Jan-Jun04

Jul - Dec04

Jan-Jun05

Jul - Dec05

Jan-Jun06

Jul - Dec06

Jan - Jun07

Num

ber o

f Cha

rges

Unlike data related to furnishing alcohol to a person under 21, the trend in the number of Minors in Possession of alcohol (MIP) violations has gone up slightly from January 2006 through December 2006, but has declined since then (Figure 5). It is too early to tell if this decline in MIP charges is attributable to the Social Host Ordinance; however, it appears promising.

Figure 5. Number of Minor in Possession of Alcohol (MIP) Charges

(Ojai/Ojai Valley)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Jan-Jun02

Jul - Dec02

Jan - Jun03

Jul - Dec03

Jan-Jun04

Jul - Dec04

Jan-Jun05

Jul - Dec05

Jan-Jun06

Jul - Dec06

Jan - Jun07

Num

ber o

f Cha

rges

High School Student Survey Data. In June 2007, a survey of high school students was conducted as part of an environmental scan related to alcohol and drug use in the City of Ojai. The survey included items related to alcohol and drug use among high school students. Two hundred ninety-six students completed the survey at Nordoff High School in Ojai, with 9th and 11th graders (97.0%) making up most of the respondents. A majority of student respondents indicated their ethnicity as White (57.0%), followed by Latino (23.3%), Multi-racial (7.4%), Other (3.7%), Asian/Pacific Islander (3.4%), African American (2.7%) and a small proportion did not report their ethnicity (2.5%). Males (48.0%) and females (47.3%) were equally represented (4.7% declined to state their gender).


Students were asked if they thought the number of parties in Ojai has changed during the past year. Most reported that they did not know (37.8%). Just under one-third (30.7%) indicated that the number of parties remained the same compared with the year prior. Almost one-quarter (23.0%) thought that parties had increased, 7.1% reported that parities had decreased, and 1.4% did not respond (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Perceived Change in Number of Parties Occurring in Ojai/Ojai Valley within the Past Year

23.0%

7.1%

37.8%

1.4%

30.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Increased Decreased Remained the same Don't know Declined to state

Interestingly, almost two-thirds of students (65.2%) reported that there were at least three parties in an average month where students are drinking alcohol and/or using drugs. A small minority, only a little more than 1 in 10 students, reported hearing of no parties in an average month where alcohol and/or drugs are used (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Number of Parties Students Heard About in an Average Month Where Alcohol/Other Drugs are Used

41.6%

23.6%21.3%

11.1%

2.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

5 or more 3 to 4 1 to 2 None Declined to state

Most students (71.0%) reported significant or moderate levels of alcohol use among Ojai teenagers while only 7.1 percent indicated that alcohol use among teenagers was not a problem (Figure 8).


Figure 8. Student Perception Regarding Level of Alcohol Use Among Ojai Teens

29.4%

41.6%

10.8%7.1% 9.1%

2.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Significant Moderate Slight Not a problem Don't know Declined to state

When asked about ease of accessing or obtaining alcohol, 72 percent of high school students surveyed indicated that access to alcohol was very easy or somewhat easy for people under 21. When asked to identify how they obtain alcohol, getting it from friends and stealing from parents were the two most common ways students accessed alcohol (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Where/How Teens in Ojai/Ojai Valley Obtain Alcohol

61.2%

40.5%

31.6%27.8%

17.9% 16.2%11.3% 10.0%

25.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Friends over21 buy it

Steal fromParents

Sibling buysit

AskStranger to

Buy It

ParentsProvide It

Buy with aFake ID

Steal fromLiquor Storeor Mini-Mart

Steal fromGrocery

Store

Don't Know

Only about half of the students were aware of the new Social Host law. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of students in Ojai reported that the Social Host Ordinance would be a little or not at all effective in preventing or reducing parties where underage drinking might occur. Chi-square analyses were conducted to examine whether there were any significant relationships between awareness or knowledge of the Social Host Ordinance and its perceived effectiveness. Two statistically significant differences were found. First, perceptions about ease of access to alcohol were significantly related to perceived effectiveness of the Social Host Ordinance by students (p < .05); essentially, a student was more likely to report the Social Host Ordinance is not effective if they perceived access to alcohol was easy (Figure 10).


Figure 10. Perceived Effectiveness of SHO by Perceived Ease of Access to Alcohol

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Very effective Somewhat effective A little effective Not at all effective

Perceived Effectiveness of SHO

Very easy

Somewhat easy

Not at all easy

Don't know

Also, students who indicated that access to alcohol for people under 21 was easy were more likely to be aware of the ordinance (Figure 11).

Figure 11. Awareness of SHO by Perceived Ease of Access to Alcohol

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Yes NoAware of SHO

Very easySomewhat easyNot at all easyDon't know

Given the fact that only 1 in 2 students participating in the survey were aware of the Social Host Ordinance in Ojai, it would be beneficial for increased awareness building activities to continue. Also, given the results of the chi-square analyses, students may continue to believe that the Social Host Ordinance will not be an effective means of preventing or reducing the number of parties where underage drinking occurs until ease of access truly begins to decline to a greater extent.


City of Fillmore The Social Host Ordinance was passed in the City of Fillmore in February 2006. This was the second instance of Social Host passage in Ventura County. Enforcing the Ordinance When officers join the Fillmore Police Department they receive field training to familiarize them with local codes and procedures. During field training, officers receive information about the Social Host Ordinance and are trained on how to issue a Social Host violation. Similar to Ojai, Fillmore officers must be aware of the content and application of both the City and Countywide ordinances as they enforce both of them. The Police Chief reported that the Fillmore ordinance is limited in that five juveniles need to be present in order to issue a violation. He commented that it would be helpful if the number of juveniles present was lower and more consistent with the Ventura County Unincorporated Social Host Ordinance, as his officers are responsible for issuing both (i.e., within the City of Fillmore and in the surrounding Heritage Valley). The Chief also indicated that the most difficult part of implementing the ordinance was educating and increasing the awareness about the Social Host Ordinance with officers. A sergeant who has been involved in three citations since the passage of the Social Host Ordinance agreed that officer awareness is difficult to achieve but crucial to the success of the ordinance. He commented that he has to remind his officers to use the Social Host Ordinance, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights when parties are more common. According to the sergeant, officers are more interested in breaking up the party and getting the party quiet as quickly as possible, rather than assessing for the presence of five juveniles consuming alcohol and writing a citation. The sergeant admitted that at one party, he could have used the citation but did not because there were so many attendees at the party he feared “a riot would ensue.” Four Social Host Ordinance violations have been issued in the Fillmore area since its passage (i.e., through September 2007). One citation was given to a 19-year-old male, another to a 25 year old male, and two were issued to females (one 20 year old, one 27 year old). Party size ranged from “several” attendees to over 50 – with the largest party being hosted by a 20 year old female. None of the party hosts cited for Social Host violations had any documented history of party calls with police. The Chief noted that Fillmore is a small community and does not tend to have large parties that require police involvement. The sergeant commented that he believes that the Social Host Ordinance is a deterrent and that they use the threat of the ordinance to deal with situations that are out of hand and to prevent residents from making the choice to provide alcohol to minors at home parties. He pointed out:

“The Social Host Ordinance has a tremendous amount of impact. When we go to parties and can’t prove social host, we will threaten the host and tell them about the $1,000 fine and usually that fixes it. Either we don’t have to come back or when we go back no kids are drinking.”


Outcome Data In order to understand the early impact of the Social Host Ordinance in Fillmore, law enforcement data and data from local students were examined. Party Calls for Service. Calls for service data were collected for the City of Fillmore and the surrounding areas of Fillmore (i.e., Heritage Valley) that are policed by the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department – Fillmore Station. Data were collected from 2002 through June 2007 to establish a baseline to compare rates of calls for service before and after Social Host Ordinance passage. In Table 4, the total number of calls for service are reported for each quarter since 2002. The number of calls that reflected a complaint of a party disturbing the peace for each quarter is reported as well. A rate of party disturbing calls for service was calculated (number of party disturbing calls for service/total number of calls for service x 1,000) so that any observed increases or decreases in party calls are a result of true increases and not because of changes in the total number of calls for service.

Table 4. Number and Rate of Party Disturbing Calls in Fillmore

Total Number of Calls for Service

(Any Type)

Number of Party Disturbing Calls

for Service

Rate of Party Disturbing Calls for Service (per 1,000 calls)

Jan – Mar 2002 1,197 24 20.1Apr – Jun 2002 1,534 43 28.0Jul – Sep 2002 1,955 51 26.1Oct – Dec 2002 1,689 38 22.5Jan – Mar 2003 1,446 31 21.4Apr – Jun 2003 1,698 60 35.3Jul – Sep 2003 1,859 65 35.0Oct – Dec 2003 1,523 35 23.0Jan – Mar 2004 1,593 34 21.3Apr – Jun 2004 1,786 51 28.6Jul – Sep 2004 1,837 62 33.8Oct – Dec 2004 1,455 36 24.7Jan – Mar 2005 1,630 29 17.8Apr – Jun 2005 1,796 57 31.7Jul – Sep 2005 1,812 65 35.9Oct – Dec 2005 1,432 52 36.3Jan – Mar 2006 1,468 28 19.1Apr – Jun 2006 1,657 63 38.0Jul – Sep 2006 1,635 66 40.4Oct – Dec 2006 1,437 61 42.4Jan – Mar 2007 1,487 43 28.9Apr – Jun 2007 1,656 70 42.3

Some seasonal patterns in party calls are evident in Fillmore, however there is inconsistency from year to year (Figure 12). The highest rate of party disturbing calls for service is seen between October and December 2006. The first two quarters of 2007 appear relatively consistent with the two first quarters of the prior year. More time will need to elapse with consistent


enforcement of the Social Host Ordinance to determine its impact on party disturbing calls for service. The same caution pointed to earlier when discussing the Ojai party for calls service data is relevant here; thus, this indicator should not be used exclusively to measure the impact of the ordinance on parties. Overall, party calls appear to be steadily and slightly increasing since 2002. It is unclear at this time why this level of increase is seen and further monitoring of party calls for service is warranted, though changes in population size and characteristics may affect the number of calls for service received by law enforcement.

Figure 12. Rate of Party Disturbing Calls in Fillmore/Surrounding Areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Jan -Mar

Apr -Jun

Jul -Sept

Oct -Dec

Jan -Mar

Apr -Jun

Jul -Sept

Oct -Dec

Jan -Mar

Apr -Jun

Jul -Sept

Oct -Dec

Jan -Mar

Apr -Jun

Jul -Sept

Oct -Dec

Jan -Mar

Apr -Jun

Jul -Sept

Oct -Dec

Jan -Mar

Apr -Jun

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Rat

e of

Par

ty D

istu

rbin

g C

alls

per

1,

000

Cal

ls fo

r Ser

vice

Alcohol-related Violation Data. Violations of two laws related to alcohol use by persons less than 21 years of age were also reviewed and analyzed. Furnishing alcohol to a person under 21 and minors who are in possession of alcohol were assessed. For both types of violations, the absolute number of occurrences every six months is relatively small. A small number of events can limit the generalizabilty of these data and any analyses using these data will be susceptible to extreme differences when examining quarter by quarter. Nonetheless, since passage of the Social Host Ordinance, the number of violations related to furnishing alcohol to a person under 21 has remained stable (Figure 13).


Figure 13. Number of Furnishing Alcohol to a Person Under 21 Charges (Fillmore/Surrounding Areas)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Jan-Jun02

Jul - Dec02

Jan - Jun03

Jul - Dec03

Jan-Jun04

Jul - Dec04

Jan-Jun05

Jul - Dec05

Jan-Jun06

Jul - Dec06

Jan - Jun07

Num

ber o

f Cha

rges

Unlike data related to furnishing alcohol to a person under 21, there is upward and downward spikes in the number of Minors in Possession (MIP) of alcohol charges dating back to 2002 (Figure 14). Since passage of the Fillmore Social Host Ordinance in February 2006, there was a decrease in MIP charges through December 2006; however, these types of charges increased during January to June 2007. It bears repeating that the total number of charges of this type is small for every six month period and so caution should be used when interpreting any trends.

Figure 14. Number of Minor in Possession (MIP) of Alcohol Charges

(Fillmore/Surrounding Areas)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Jan-Jun02

Jul - Dec02

Jan - Jun03

Jul - Dec03

Jan-Jun04

Jul - Dec04

Jan-Jun05

Jul - Dec05

Jan-Jun06

Jul - Dec06

Jan - Jun07

Num

ber o

f Cha

rges

High School Student Survey Data. In June 2007, a survey of high school students was conducted as part of an environmental scan related to alcohol and drug use in the City of Fillmore. The survey included items related to alcohol and drug use of high school students. A total of 175 students completed the survey, with 9th and 10th graders (86.0%) making up most of the respondents. A majority of student respondents indicated their ethnicity as Latino (64.2%)


followed by White (15.1%), Multi-racial (13.4%) African American (1.7), Other (1.7%), Asian/Pacific Islander (0.6%), and a small proportion did not report their ethnicity (3.3%). Slightly more females (53.1%) completed the survey compared to males (42.9%) (4.0% declined to state their gender). Students were asked to report on the number of parties (defined as four or more teens) that they hear about in an average month where alcohol and/or drugs are being used. Over half (54.8%) reported hearing of at least three parties occurring during an average month (Figure 15). Over one-third (34.1%) reported hearing about 1 to 2 parties where alcohol/other drugs are used (i.e., during an average month). Only 8.4% reported hearing of no parties during a typical month.

Figure 15. Number of Parties Students Heard About in an Average Month Where Alcohol/Other Drugs are Used

21.8%

33.0% 34.1%

8.4%

2.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

5 or more 3 to 4 1 to 2 None Declined to state

Students also were asked whether they thought that the number of parties in the Heritage Valley (Fillmore/Piru) had changed during the past year. As for perceptions about whether the parties occur more frequently, one-third (33.30%) indicated that the number of parties has increased during the last year, 4.5% reported that they believed the number of parties had decreased within the past year, 30.2% felt the number had remained the same, and 29.1% reported that they “did not know” (Figure 16).


Figure 16. Perceived Change in Number of Parties Occurring in Heritage Valley (Fillmore/Piru) within the Past Year

33.0%

4.5%

30.2% 29.1%

3.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Increased Decreased Remained the same Don't know Declined to state

When asked to rate the level of their peers’ alcohol use, two-thirds (66.0%) of students indicated moderate to significant alcohol use among Heritage Valley (Fillmore/Piru) teenagers (Figure 17). Only five percent reported that alcohol was “not a problem” for teens.

Figure 17. Perceived Level of Alcohol Use Among Heritage Valley (Fillmore/Piru) Teens

20.7%

45.3%

15.6%

5.0%

12.8%

0.6%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Significant Moderate Slight Not a problem Don't know Declined to state

Among Fillmore High School students, 70 percent stated that access to alcohol was very easy or somewhat easy for people under 21. When asked to identify how they obtain alcohol, older friends and siblings were the most common ways students accessed alcohol (Figure 18). Over one-quarter (27.9%) reported that alcohol is stolen from parents, and 14 percent indicated that parents provided the alcohol for young people.


Figure 18. Where/How Teens in Heritage Valley (Fillmore/Piru) Obtain Alcohol

55.3%

32.4% 31.8%27.9%

24.0%

14.0% 14.0%8.4% 5.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Friends over21 buy it

Sibling buysit

Don't Know Steal fromparents

Askstranger to

buy it

Parentsprovide it

Steal fromLiquor Store

Buy it with afake ID

Steal fromgrocerystore

Just over half (52.5%) of students participating in the survey were aware of the new Social Host law. Almost 60 percent (58.0%) of students reported that the Social Host Ordinance would be only a little or not at all effective in preventing or reducing parties where underage drinking might occur. Chi-square analyses were performed to examine how knowledge and perception of the ordinance might relate to other attitudes. Only one significant difference was found, and that is that the perception about ease of access to alcohol was related to perceived effectiveness of the Social Host Ordinance by students. In short, a student was more likely to report that the Social Host Ordinance would not be effective in preventing or reducing parities where underage drinking occurs if they perceived access to alcohol as easy (Figure 19). Because this finding also was found among Ojai/Ojai Valley teens, continued preventive efforts aimed at reduction of access may be helpful in increasing the perceived effectiveness of the ordinance over time.

Figure 19. Perceived Effectiveness of SHO by Perceived Ease of Access to Alcohol

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Very effective Somewhateffective

A little effective Not at alleffective

Don't know

Perceived Effectiveness of SHO

Very easySomewhat easyNot at all easyDon't know


B. ADDITIONAL POLICIES ENACTED In addition to having passed Social Host Ordinances countywide, VCBH/Ventura County Limits also achieved great success in advancing and enacting other policies designed to prevent binge and underage drinking (Table 5). These policy changes took place within the SIG grant funding period and serve as an additional series of policy-based environmental prevention strategies aimed at reducing accessibility and availability of alcohol to young people, while at the same time, enhancing community safety for both youth and adults.

Table 5. Type and Location of Additional Laws and Administrative Policies Enacted

Policy/Law Where Enacted Formal Laws Conductional Use Permit (with Deemed Approved provisions) requiring mandatory RBSS training for new licensees or those with substantial change in operations

City of Ventura Permit Fee Ordinance, funds an Alcohol Enforcement Officer position for the city

City of Ventura

Excessive Calls for Service Ordinance City of Ventura Drinking in Public Parks by Permit Only ordinance City of Ventura Public Drinking and Open Container Ordinance City of Ojai Alcohol in Parks, revision of Municipal Code City of Ojai Alcohol Policy for Seaside Pavilion Ordinance City of Port Hueneme Administrative Policies and Requirements Administrative Requirements for Special Events, Drink Limits, Serving Size Limits, Mandatory Non-transferable Wristbands, Sales Hours, and Recommended RBSS Training with ID Scanners through City Recreation Department

City of Simi Valley Special Events Policy with Conditions and Restrictions through City Recreation Department

City of Santa Paula

New Administrative Review – Conditions and Requirements by the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department Including Use of ID Scanners at Special Events

City of Thousand Oaks C. RESPONSIBLE RETAILER PROGRAM Yet another significant achievement evidenced during the SIG grant period was VCBH/Ventura County Limits’ development and implementation of a comprehensive Responsible Retailer Program. The program is currently in full operation within the City of Ventura and has been formally considered for implementation by the City of Camarillo and City of Thousand Oaks. The cities of Santa Paula and Simi Valley have begun implementing retailer awareness activities in attempts to prepare retailers for stricter enforcement of existing laws and more frequent compliance checks. The initial success of the Responsible Retailer Program has led to numerous requests for information about the initiative both within and outside of Ventura County.


Program Overview The City of Ventura’s Responsible Retailer Program (RRP) was developed in partnership with the Ventura Police Department, Ventura Adult/Continuing Education, and the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) as part of VCBH/Ventura County Limits’ countywide effort to better manage problems associated with alcohol sales and service. Piloted in the City of Ventura as a model to be replicated countywide, the RRP was designed to provide Alcohol Beverage Establishments (ABEs) with valuable information in order to maintain safe and responsible businesses by increasing their awareness of the dangers that result from improper sales and service of alcoholic beverages, particularly to minors and those who may already be intoxicated. The goal of the RRP is to:

Improve the public health and safety in the community by increasing compliance from Alcoholic Beverage Establishments.

Using an “Enforcement + Support” model to work proactively with all retail establishments licensed to sell alcohol within the City of Ventura, the RRP employs retail alcohol management strategies (such as Conditional Use Permitting and local retail compliance models), the strategic use of media (publicity, targeted messaging, and safety promotion), and Responsible Beverage Sales and Service training to inform and support alcohol retailers. The essential components of the program include:

1. A local ordinance, law, or permit process empowering local government to set and enforce conditions of operation for alcohol sales locations according to their type of use and mode of operation;

2. A local law enforcement position employing a dedicated person who is a sworn peace officer, familiar with ABC licensing and laws, able to track all alcohol licenses within their jurisdiction, and authorized to work closely with alcohol retailers on compliance with local and state regulations;

3. Direct relationships with key owners and managers of retail ABEs to answer questions, explain community expectations, and enroll them in the program;

4. Compliance inspections that systematically reach all licensees to determine whether and how the businesses conform to state and local rules, and a mechanism for first warning, then citing businesses that do not comply; and,

5. Local Responsible Beverage Sales and Service (RBSS) training on alcohol sales and service practices and rules for new licensees and/or the staff and management of businesses with violations.

The development of each of these components in the City of Ventura’s RRP is discussed below, as well as its strategic use of program materials and media to encourage and support retailers’ involvement in the program. Through collaborations with the City of Ventura, Ventura Police Department, ABC, Ventura Adult/Continuing Education, retailers, community members and other partners, VCBH/Ventura County Limits created the foundation and structure of the RRP in 2005-2006. The RRP was refined and implemented in early 2007.


Program Development Alcohol Beverage Establishment Use Permit Ordinance Several years ago, the City of Ventura was the only city in the county without a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for alcohol sales; yet there were more alcohol outlets in the City of Ventura than in any other city in the county, with roughly six times the state average of alcohol outlets per capita. With extremely limited State ABC resources covering the tri-county area, the community perception was that the City of Ventura should do more to actively shape alcohol settings. Considerable attention was brought to alcohol outlets in the City, with community members advocating for enhanced local powers. The Ventura Police Department took a strong position of “Do more with more” in order to create policies with local enforcement capacity. As a result, the Ventura City Council and VCBH staff drafted comprehensive policies in 2005 to proactively manage retail ABEs. The Alcohol Beverage Establishment Use Permit Ordinance was approved by City Council in October 2005 and went into effect January 1, 2006. The ordinance required a CUP for any new or modified ABE and an Alcohol Use Permit for all ABEs in the City of Ventura. The Alcohol Use Permit contained conditions that must be followed by every ABE and mandated compliance inspections of all ABEs. Additionally, the Alcohol Use Permit entailed an annual fee to be paid to the City of Ventura that would go towards funding an Alcohol Enforcement Officer. The amount of the fee is variable, depending upon the businesses’ characteristics on the following four components:

1) Risk: Retail outlets in which alcoholic beverages are sold are determined to be high–risk, other businesses may not be;

2) Hours: This is determined by the latest hour in which a business sold alcohol on any day during the previous year;

3) Volume: The dollar volume of a business’ wholesale alcohol purchases for the previous calendar year is the criteria; and

4) Entertainment: Whether or not a business provides entertainment and is required to obtain a Dance Hall/Entertainment Permit from the City is used to determine whether an entertainment fee is applicable.

Based upon information provided by the businesses, each business is rated high, medium, or low for each component to establish their annual fee. For example, a business that places low in each component will be charged a maximum of $250 annually. Whereas, a business that places high in each component and provides entertainment will be charged a maximum of $1,700 annually. The hours and volume components are divided into three categories and are described in Table 6.


Table 6. Risk Category for Hours and Volume Components

RISK CATEGORY

HOURS COMPONENT

VOLUME COMPONENT

Low No later than 10:00 PM Zero to $50,000

Medium No later than midnight

$ 50,001 to $100,000

High After midnight Over $100,000

Fees that are recommended for each category of the risk, hours, and volumes components are listed below in Table 7. In addition, there is a $300 fee if a business has an entertainment permit.

Table 7. Fee Structure

CATEGORY RISK HOURS VOLUME

Low $100.00 $50.00 $100.00

Medium N/A $100.00 $300.00

High $400.00 $300.00 $700.00

Along with the annual fee required for all ABEs, CUPs are also required for all new businesses that sell alcohol. Applicants for new alcohol outlets are required to pay the standard fee for processing the CUP. Fees collected from the ABE Use Permit Ordinance are used to fund a full-time Alcohol Enforcement Officer who would work closely with businesses to educate retailers in order to gain compliance with the new ordinance and laws. Additionally, the Alcohol Enforcement Officer would work with ABC and Ventura Police Department to ensure that all ABEs within the City are regularly inspected as required by the ordinance to determine whether or not the businesses are operating in compliance with local and state laws. Businesses that choose to use poor alcohol sales and service practices and ignore state and local laws may be penalized with administrative citations and fines, or criminal prosecution based upon the law violated. Alcohol Enforcement Officer Funded by the fees associated with the Alcohol Beverage Establishment Ordinance, the Alcohol Enforcement Officer manages policy enforcement for over 300 retail establishments serving


alcohol in the City of Ventura by increasing awareness of local law enforcement, developing relationships with retail owners and managers, and utilizing community support. The duties of the local Enforcement Officer include:

• Licensing (setting conditions on ABC licenses and CUPs); • Inspections (conducting bar checks and targeting problem locations); • Education (informing businesses and the public at large); • Enforcement (facilitating arrests, writing citations, and investigating ABC complaints); • Programs (engaging in minor decoy and shoulder tap operations and IMPACT program); • Training (conducting departmental trainings on changes in the rules and laws); and, • Entertainment Permits (reviewing and enforcing Entertainment Permits).

In early 2006, Officer Patrick Lindsay became the first Alcohol Enforcement Officer for the City of Ventura. VCBH/Ventura County Limits staff partnered with Officer Lindsay, meeting frequently to assist with the new retail compliance provisions of the municipal code. They also worked together to present information and progress related to Ventura’s RRP at OJJDP National Leadership Conferences. In 2007, Officer Lindsay was promoted to Corporal and a new Alcohol Enforcement Officer continues these duties (Officer Derek Donswyk). Design of the Responsible Retailer Program Throughout 2006, VCBH/Ventura County Limits staff met with Chiefs of Police and/or ranking officers of local police departments in five cities to discuss patterns of local problems (social and retail access by minors) and policy interests to support and expand prevention work (local enforcement models, use permits with conditions, and retail regulations). Collaborating with law enforcement in the Cities of Camarillo, Moorpark, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks, and the County of Ventura Unincorporated, they examined policies and practices shaping underage access, and gauged local readiness for change in local retail regulation/management. Based upon these meetings, law enforcement appeared most interested in conducting retail compliance checks and establishing local alcohol enforcement standards without relying heavily on the State Department of ABC. VCBH/Ventura County Limits elected to develop the RRP in City of Ventura, engaging over 300 alcohol licensees to comply with age and service laws, and creating a Pilot Program for replication across the county. Working closely with Officer Patrick Lindsay, Ventura Police Department, and others to advance the RRP Pilot Program for retail compliance, they investigated a range of retail best practices and Responsible Beverage Sales and Service (RBSS) training strategies used by local governments. They also contracted with a professional firm to “brand” the program (e.g., logo, policy promulgation strategy, etc.) and develop targeted messaging. After investigating research on the Best Practices for Responsible Retailing, VCBH/Ventura County Limits designed the RRP incorporating an “Assistance + Enforcement” model combing educational support with local enforcement powers to achieve the goal of compliance. Research showed that retailers were more receptive to retailing tips and education when the plan behind the support was grounded in assistance first. The “assistance” component entailed developing a quality improvement tool that would assess ABE’s current practices, identify absent Best


Practices, and could be used to monitor and provide feedback to retailers on individual inspections. Project SAFER was contracted to refine the on-sale assessment tool to be used by assessors, to recruit qualified assessors, and to develop and implement a training course for on-sale assessors. In December 2006, work began on documenting the business operations of selected on-sale alcohol retailers in Ventura County who may be at risk of serving underage patrons and/or over-serving young adults. EVALCORP assisted VCBH/Ventura County Limits in running analyses on the County’s Place of Last Drink (POLD) dataset to help identify which alcohol establishments warranted further investigation. Using Ventura County’s POLD Survey data, and in conjunction with Project SAFER, a series of Bar Risk Assessments were begun, using trained teams of assessors to record unsafe or illegal service practices. A total of 12 retail establishments (“The Dirty Dozen”) that were the most frequently mentioned as the place of last drink among young adults convicted for DUI were identified. This information was used to inform local law enforcement and community leaders about the most problematic restaurants, bars, and clubs in Ventura County, in order to systematically gain compliance among the very few establishments that generate the most problems, and to make the case for strong operating conditions that can be locally enforced. Relationships with Retailers Although compliance with local laws and ordinances is mandatory, participation in the RRP program is voluntary. Retailers were encouraged to participate in the RRP as it offered a working relationship with local law enforcement, education about the risks of sales to underage and intoxicated persons, information about the local ordinance, tools to limit their liability, and recognition for retailers’ commitment to a safer community. Retailers received program materials, informational pamphlets, and RRP signage and a window decal. Signage indicates that Responsible Retailers pledge to know the law and take the necessary steps to prevent alcohol sales to underage and intoxicated individuals, know that there are consequences for violating the policy, and that successful compliance will result in a rewarding and safe work environment. To actively participate in the program, retailers are asked to engage in the following steps:

1. Re-examine their policies regarding alcohol sales and service and to ensure that their employees are aware of the policies;

2. Use the RRP information and materials to learn about local ordinances and enforcement, to get training for their employees, and to display the program’s decal and poster;

3. Participate in an on-site inspection by Ventura Police Department and ABC officers (using the ABC IMPACT inspection form, as well as the city inspection form) and receive recommendations about policies and operating practices specific to their businesses;

4. Attend RBSS Training to limit their liability and require employees to complete the training; and,

5. Put policies into practice, be aware of local and state regulations and common violations, and be smart about sales and service practices.


RBSS Training The RRP recommended RBSS Training as the best way for retailers to become informed about responsible retailing. Program materials and volunteers provided ABEs with contact information for RBSS Trainings with Ventura Adult Education and with ABC’s Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (LEAD) training. To ensure that local RBSS Trainings would be affordable and accessible to all retail establishments, VCBH/Ventura County Limits contracted with Ventura Adult Education and Continuing Education program to design and implement high quality RBSS trainings incorporating the new local ordinance and laws. The RBSS Trainings include information about alcohol laws and retailers’ responsibilities, recognizing and preventing intoxication, checking identification, and handling difficult situations. Implementation In early 2007, VCBH/Ventura County Limits worked closely with Officer Patrick Lindsay and collaborating agencies to finalize the pilot RRP. They met with local representatives from local cities and law enforcement agencies to determine how best to bring forward compliance strategies for identified retail environments and how to advance public understanding of new policies. Additionally, a focus group was conducted with retailers in the City of Ventura to receive feedback on the RRP approach. Retailers recommended keeping contacts quick and to the point, having materials available in hard copy and on the website, were willing to post the RRP signage and participate in the program (particularly due to the Ventura Police Department involvement), and requesting more comprehensive and accessible RBSS classes. In March 2007, the implementation of the RRP was completed with the assistance of the City of Ventura’s Alcohol Enforcement Officer and other collaborators. Detailed training was held for Volunteers in Policing (VIP) program members who assisted in contacting over 300 local retailers regarding participation in the RRP. Protocol and approaches were developed for the procedures for visiting ABEs and obtaining their agreement to participate. The implementation stages of implementation of the RRP are as follows:

1. First Contact: A letter from the Ventura Police Chief was sent to retailers with an informational brochure.

2. Second Contact: Volunteers in Policing (VIP) called priority vendors, briefly explaining RRP components, and asking to schedule an appointment for an on-site visit to drop off RRP materials package.

3. Third Contact: VIP visited retailers to introduce the program and provide program materials.

4. Fourth Contact: Ventura Police and ABC officers inspect each location. 5. Fifth Contact: Follow-up phone call or on-site visit to record and thank vendor for

participation. Promoting the roll out of the RRP, the Institute for Public Strategies prepared a media plan and services to support high-profile media coverage of the benefits of the RRP as well as increased awareness of the RRP among residents. Local media coverage included features in the Ventura County Reporter and the Ventura County Star newspapers. During the implementation of the


RRP, VCBH also contracted with the Center for the Study of Law and Enforcement Policy to develop a “Best Practices” document regarding regulations pertaining to retail alcohol outlets.3 Outcomes The pilot Responsible Retailer Program, which features a comprehensive CUP Ordinance and a fee structure for alcohol retailers to sustain local alcohol enforcement efforts through the Ventura Police Department, was fully implemented in the City of Ventura. More than 300 businesses participated in the program, prominently posting Responsible Retailer signage. Furthermore, a sustainable RBSS program has been established in cooperation with Ventura Adult and Continuing Education, so that those required to complete training can do so quickly, conveniently, and cost-efficiently, to comply with local rules. According to the current Alcohol Enforcement Officer, there has not been a significant decrease in outcomes of shoulder tap operations, stating that, “Usually 70% of customers will purchase for minors.” He also indicated that, “I wish I could say less sales to minors has been an outcome of the Responsible Retailer Program, but every time we do the minor decoys, it seems like it is the same amount, same percentage, being sold. Hopefully that will change with the more minor decoys that we do.” On the other hand, he reported that calls for service to alcohol outlets appear to be down due to having an Alcohol Enforcement Officer out there in the community. The Officer also reported, “Relationships between retailers and police have gotten better with us being there for them to go to when they have questions or problems.” Because it is still early in the process, future evaluative efforts should continue to monitor the impact of the RRP on sales to minors, over-service, relationships with retailers and other indicators of enhanced sales and service practices. Based upon the success of the pilot RRP, multiple cities in Ventura County (and outside) have expressed interest in replicating the Responsible Retailer Program, using the CUP Ordinance and funding mechanism piloted by the City of Ventura, along with program materials. The cities of Santa Paula and Simi Valley have begun implementing retailer awareness activities in attempts to prepare the retailer community for new, stricter enforcement and more regular compliance checks. Also, the cities of Camarillo and Thousand Oaks have expressed interest in more fully replicating the Responsible Retailer Program, with fidelity to the “Essential Elements,” which will help to alter a significant contributing factor in young adult binge drinking – bars, clubs and restaurants that over-serve patrons. In sum, many new or improved policies have been put in place to manage the highest risk community settings for underage and binge drinking problems across Ventura County. Lessons Learned In designing and implementing the Responsible Retailer Program, VCBH/Ventura County Limits and Ventura Police Department gained valuable insight into how to most efficiently and effectively develop and implement an effective RRP. They recommend: 3 See “Best Practices in Municipal Regulation to Reduce Alcohol-Related Harms From Licensed Alcohol Outlets, With Model Ordinance and Bibliography,” Prepared by the Center for the Study of Law and Enforcement Policy, in consultation with The Alcohol Policy Network for Ventura County Behavioral Health Department/Ventura County Limits.


• Gaining knowledge from retailers; • Understanding the political environment; • Engaging the community in the development and implementation process; • Developing a program that offers benefits for retailers and the community; • Creating materials that look professional; • Training support staff and volunteers; • Being persistent with retailers; • Maintaining progress with a dedicated officer; and • Viewing the program as an evolving process.

Ultimately, they found that the success of the RRP lies in the partnerships/collaborations. Officer Donswyk, current Alcohol Enforcement Officer, pointed out, “Make sure that businesses continue to go along with the Responsible Retailer Program and that all of their policies are up to date, and that their employees are educated about not selling to minors. Continue to do compliance checks, and let retailers know that law enforcement is out there doing minor decoys and shoulder tap operations.” When asked about recommendations for successful implementation of similar programs in other cities or counties, Officer Donswyk added:

“The trainings – having employees being trained is great because so many of them benefit from the education provided. They feel so much more confident about looking at fake IDs and not serving over-intoxicated patrons. That is the main goal: getting people educated. People have been working in the bar industry for many years, and they can take this class and say ‘I didn’t’ realize this or that.’ We are telling them that they can refuse alcohol to people, take alcohol away from people. Giving them the confidence to know what they can do. We make it really clear about what they can or cannot do.”

D. MEDIA ADVOCACY Media advocacy was a core strategy of the overall VCBH/Ventura County Limits SIG Phase II Work Plan. Numerous articles and media pieces were developed and distributed as part of an ongoing media campaign. During the multi-year grant period, media (i.e., in the form of newspaper articles, TV, radio spots, flyers, etc.) was utilized strategically as part of the Social Host Ordinance policy advancement, adoption, and enforcement process; as part of other administrative policy changes implemented countywide; as part of the implementation and initial successes resulting from the Responsible Retailer Program; and, more generally, to help keep parents and youth aware of the statistics and resulting harms so often experienced by young people as a result of excessive alcohol use. Media Output Monitoring For evaluative purposes, relevant media outputs were tracked following reviews of pertinent print, radio, and TV media collected by the VCBH/Ventura County Limits and its funded partners (e.g., the Ojai S.A.F.E. Coalition, Fillmore Family Coalition). Thirty one print articles were tracked prior to the SIG implementation in 2005, demonstrating conditions associated with underage and binge drinking in Ventura County and the need for the chosen strategies. During


the SIG implementation phase, 113 print articles and two television interviews regarding Social Host Ordinances, underage and binge drinking, and law enforcement in Ventura County were tracked from local and national media sources. Additionally, a 13 week radio advertising campaign was run on 7 local radio stations. A copy of the Media Output Tracking Form containing the list of articles/media pieces is listed in Appendix C. The majority of the media advocacy and education efforts occurred in the form of news stories in local newspapers. Press coverage was also attained through letters to the editor, opinion pieces, public service announcements and news releases. With headlines like “Underage drinking party hosts face fines,” “Halting teen drinking,” “In almost a year, laws seem to crimp drinking parties” and “Turning off the teen tap,” local newspapers such as the Ventura County Star, Ojai Valley News, and the Ventura County Reporter informed the public about the progress of the Social Host Ordinances and other attempts to curb underage and binge drinking by VCBH/Ventura County Limits. The Los Angeles Times reported on stories such as “Putting a cork in teen parties” and “Party may be over for ‘cool’ parents.” On a national level, the Associated Press released an article titled “Punishing parents deters underage drinking” and USA Today ran two news stories titled “Adults penalized for teen drinking” and “Laws crash underage drinking.” In addition to print media, television news stories and radio advertisements also contributed to the local media campaign. Captain Gary Pentis of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department was interviewed on a KCBS-LA show “Studio 2” and the Social Host Ordinance in Simi Valley was discussed in a piece by Key News 3. A 13 week radio advertising campaign promoting the Social Host Ordinances and the prevention of underage drinking was broadcast on seven local radio stations. Two radio spots were aired in both English and Spanish versions for a total of 2,262 broadcasts reaching an estimated audience of 240,500 listeners. Overall, the Social Host Ordinances were the predominant focus of the media output content. Local news articles and televised interviews appeared before, during and after the ordinances were adopted in each city. Implications of the Social Host Ordinances were discussed from the perspective of the city, law enforcement, parents and teenagers. National and local stories applauded the implementation and effectiveness of the policies. In addition to the Social Host Ordinances, much of the other media output focused on underage drinking, binge drinking, law enforcement, community coalition efforts, and alcohol use in general.


IV. SUMMARY As discussed throughout this report, VCBH not only met their intended SIG goals, but far exceeded them. In addition to enacting 20 new alcohol-related policies, VCBH worked with law enforcement to ensure that newly adopted ordinances were enforced. Their emphasis on strong collaboration lead them to establish and maintain key relationships as part of the Ventura County Limits partnership and their four Collaboratives. Model/Best Practices publications and other resources were developed to inform and support the work of Ventura County Limits. A countywide media campaign was also instituted to help keep community members informed about underage and binge drinking, and what was being done to address these issues in Ventura County. Several “Municipal Strategies Conferences,” as well as environmental prevention related trainings and many hours of technical support were made available by VCBH so that the members of Ventura County Limits had ample information and networking opportunities to carry out their initiatives most effectively. The remaining sections of this report discuss the following: review of environmental prevention strategies implemented by VCBH/Ventura County Limits, lessons learned, impacts of SIG funding, measurement and evaluation considerations for environmental prevention initiatives, and information related to sustainability beyond SIG funding. Review of Environmental Prevention Strategies Employed In response to documented high rates of drinking among youth and growing public concern over the impact of alcohol on the lives of young people in Ventura County, VCBH/Ventura County Limits employed a comprehensive policy-based approach to changing norms and behaviors among parents and young people. One of the underpinnings of their strategy was the establishment of a countywide community partnership, known as Ventura County Limits. The overarching goal of Ventura County Limits is to prevent and reduce underage and binge drinking through responsible alcohol polices and practices. Representatives from local colleges and universities, law enforcement, municipal government, as well as parents, youth and young adults participate in Ventura County Limits to effectively prevent alcohol-related harms and increase overall community safety. In addition to a strong emphasis on building and maintaining relationships, relying on the expertise and network of the Ventura County Limits partnership, VCBH implemented a multi-pronged approach to environmental prevention to carry out their SIG Phase II Work Plan. Consistent with the Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA) model, VCBH/Ventura County Limits’ strategies involved: 1. Providing funding, technical assistance, and training to existing community-level

coalitions – helping them to conduct assessments of local community norms, policies, and problems and responding to requests for additional resources (e.g., model policies, media advocacy skill building, etc.).

2. Recognition of the need to build core leadership groups able to build citizen support of policy change, which is accomplished through the Ventura County Limits countywide Collaboratives – particularly the Law Enforcement and Municipal Collaboratives.

3. Implementation of the SIG Phase II Work Plan as an action plan.


4. Use of ongoing data collection and evaluation activities to inform and shape planning efforts, as well as to monitor/track progress and measure outcomes.

5. Use of media education and advocacy to garner additional community support and educate the public about the desirable impact that intended policy change will have on the safety and well being for all residents.

6. Recognition of the fact that policy change most definitely requires a collaborative process, and must come from the “ground up,” and acting in accord with this idea.

Lessons Learned Many lessons were learned throughout the Phase II Implementation component of SIG. When asked for suggestions to assist others interested in developing and successfully implementing large-scale environmental prevention initiatives, a number of core themes emerged from the process. The most frequently occurring piece of advice from VCBH/Ventura County Limits core stakeholders was: to collect and use local data, engage the community and policymakers, and utilize media to effectively support your efforts. Particular recommendations included:

Know that one size does not fit all – do not follow exactly in the footsteps of others, instead spend a lot of time identifying local needs and crafting strategies that are directly responsive to your local community.

Collaboration is an absolute must – strong relationships are key (e.g., among local police, city and county leaders, youth organizations, community members/parents, local coalitions, etc.).

Garner support from the community (parents, youth) and civil leaders/policymakers though education and media efforts – engaging them early on in the process.

Conduct the necessary legal homework required. Recognize that prevention is comprehensive – requiring policies, enforcement, and

community engagement before norms, and ultimately, behaviors, begin to show measurable change on a communitywide level.

Impact of SIG Funding When the SIG Administrator was asked what he felt was the most significant impact of SIG Funding for VCBH/Ventura County Limits, he responded:

“Overall I would say it made it possible to move from relatively localized and somewhat episodic prevention efforts to a more regional and countywide campaign or sustained systematic process. That will be the legacy of the funding. To not just talk about doing things across the county but to actually have done something in the county.”

Other significant outcomes that were realized with SIG funding, according to the SIG Program Administered were:

“Relationships we didn’t have before. Through the SIG funding it became possible to engage youth and parents, law enforcement, city managers and elected officials. The grant gave us the possibility of creating new relationships


between us in prevention and people in varying positions across the county. Also, it gave us the ability to do additional local research and assessment. We would not have been able to do what we did without local research, such as POLD, the countywide telephone survey to assess community readiness, and many other local assessment/data gathering initiatives that were undertaken during the SIG grant period. SIG funding also allowed us to be more specifically focused on doing environmental prevention than ever before. We were able to say that this project is about getting policies into place that will have this effect, and could start off discussions with that. It facilitated the adoption of that approach (defined as policy development), and knowing from the beginning that it was going that way, we could focus on navigating to create policy and then making sure it was implemented and enforced. A lot of people think that the lasting effect of our work under SIG is civil liability for party hosts (where underage drinkers are present) across the county. I see it bigger than that. We can now be a lot more directly focused on policy goals for other things, too.”

When asked to identify any long lasting investments that were made as a result of SIG funding one of the things mentioned was the ID scanner technology that VCBH was able to procure. According to the SIG Program Administrator, VCBH would not have been able to obtain them, adding, “Without SIG funding, we would not have these high-tech ID scanners that can be used anywhere in the county. This combined with training we received from Project SAFER to have community events be more safe is essential to having annual events change over the years.” Another long lasting investment made possible through the SIG grant was equipment (e.g., flashlights) for law enforcement. This equipment will be used at events involving youth (e.g., proms, football or other sporting events). According to the SIG Program Administrator, this brought not only good will with VCBH’s law enforcement partners, but also will lead to practices and policies that go beyond what VCBH/Ventura County Limits was focused on during their SIG initiative. Measurement Considerations for Environmental Prevention Short-term outcomes were measured and documented as part of the evaluation, along with an in-depth assessment of the policy advancement process. Enforcement was measured, law enforcement statistics analyzed, surveys were conducted with those affected by new ordinances, and over 30 key informant interviews were conducted to learn “what worked” and lessons learned. Still, more evaluative efforts are needed to track the longer-term impact of Social Host Ordinances and Responsible Retailer Programs. The changes desired to occur through all of the work carried out and successes achieved by VCBH/Ventura County Limits are long-term. Multiple types of evaluation data collection strategies were employed between February 2006 and September 2007 when EVALCORP was involved in the evaluation. Many of the accomplishments of VCBH/Ventura County Limits related to SIG grant funding occurred in the second and third year of the three-year cycle. As such, immediate and some short-term outcomes related to these environmental policies may be measurable, though intermediate and long-term outcomes are not yet apparent. The types of interventions implemented through SIG funds are expected to be long-lasting and should be tracked for years to come. In fact, it may take two or three more years before rates of underage


and binge drinking (and the consequences associated with such behaviors) are measurable through more routine data collection (e.g., CHKS, alcohol-related crime/violation statistics available through law enforcement agencies, alcohol related crashes, etc.). Nevertheless, significant outcomes were achieved in Ventura County and have been documented to date. Sustainability From the very beginning, the issue of sustainability was thought about and plans made to facilitate the continuation of solid prevention, enforcement, and collaboration beyond the sunset of SIG funding availability. Examples of such accomplishments include 10 enacted municipal Social Host Ordinance (one in each of the 10 municipalities in Ventura County); a countywide Social Host Ordinance covering the large Ventura County Unincorporated region; a Resolution to Support the County’s Social Host Ordinance for federal land within the Ojai Valley; and 10 additional formal laws or administrative policies enacted to reduce underage and binge drinking (i.e., Conditional Use Permit with Deemed Approved Provisions requiring mandatory RBSS training; Permit Fee Ordinance; Special Events polices with conditions and restrictions; etc.). All of these accomplishments will live beyond the grant itself. Ventura County has in place a solid infrastructure for environmental prevention. And, according to many key stakeholders in the process, the work of Ventura County Limits is expected to continue.

Appendix A. Student Surveys


CONFIDENTIAL QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Current grade in school:

Gender:

Ethnicity:

1. How would you rate the level of alcohol use among Ojai Valley teens?Significant Moderate Slight Not a problem Don't know

Significant Moderate Slight Not a problem Don't know

5 or more 3 to 4 1 to 2 None

Increased Decreased Remained the same Don't know

Brother/sister over 21 buys it

Friends over 21 buy it

Teens buy it with a fake IDTeens steal it from a grocery store

Teens steal it from a liquor store or mini mart

It's taken from parents without permission

Parents knowingly provide it

Don't know

2. How would you rate the level of drug use (prescription or illegal drugs) among Ojai Valley teens?

4. How many parties (defined as gatherings of 4 or more teens) do you hear of in an average month where alcohol and/or drugs are being used?

5. In the past year, have the number of parties in Ojai ...?

6. From what you've heard and/or seen, when alcohol is present at a party, what are the mainways that teens in the Ojai Valley get the alcohol? (check the three most common ways)

3. Have you noticed a recent increase in the use of any particular drug(s) in our community? If so, please listwhich drug(s):

9th 10th 11th 12th

Female Male

Asian/PacificIslander

AfricanAmerican

Hispanicor Latino

Caucasian Multi-Racial Other

7. In your opinion, how easy is it for people under 21 to get alcohol in the Ojai Valley?Very easy Somewhat easy Not at all easy Don't know

8. Where have you seen teens under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs in the Ojai Valley?(check all that apply)

At parties

At my own home

At friend's houses

At public parksAt the Ventura River Preserve

At Lake Casitas Campgrounds

During the school day at school

At school-sponsored events

Haven't seen teens under the influence

Yes No

9. Do you know about that the law that charges a $1,000 fine to those hosting gatherings of underage drinkers(under the age of 21)?

Very effective Somewhat effective A little effective Not at all effective Don't know10.How effective do you think the law is in preventing or reducing parties where underage drinking occurs?

~Thank you for completing this survey~

Teens ask a stranger tobuy it near a store

31720

CONFIDENTIAL QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Current grade in school:

Gender:

Ethnicity:

1. How would you rate the level of alcohol use among Heritage Valley (Fillmore/Piru) teens?Significant Moderate Slight Not a problem Don't know

Significant Moderate Slight Not a problem Don't know

5 or more 3 to 4 1 to 2 None

Increased Decreased Remained the same Don't know

Brother/sister over 21 buys it

Friends over 21 buy it

Teens buy it with a fake IDTeens steal it from a grocery store

Teens steal it from a liquor store or mini mart

It's taken from parents without permission

Parents knowingly provide it

Don't know

2. How would you rate the level of drug use (prescription or illegal drugs) among Heritage Valley(Fillmore/Piru) teens?

4. How many parties (defined as gatherings of 4 or more teens) do you hear of in an average month where alcohol and/or drugs are being used?

5. In the past year, have the number of parties in Heritage Valley (Fillmore/Piru) ...?

6. From what you've heard and/or seen, when alcohol is present at a party, what are the main ways thatteens in the Heritage Valley (Fillmore/Piru) get the alcohol? (check the three most common ways)

3. Have you noticed a recent increase in the use of any particular drug(s) in our community? If so, please listwhich drug(s):

9th 10th 11th 12th

Female Male

Asian/PacificIslander

AfricanAmerican

Hispanicor Latino

Caucasian Multi-Racial Other

7. In your opinion, how easy is it for people under 21 to get alcohol in the Heritage Valley (Fillmore/Piru)?Very easy Somewhat easy Not at all easy Don't know

8. Where have you seen teens under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs in the Heritage Valley (Fillmore/Piru)?(check all that apply)

At parties

At my own home

At friend's houses At public parks

At Lake Piru

During the school day at school

At school-sponsored events

Haven't seen teens under the influence

Yes No

9. Do you know about that the law that charges a $1,000 fine to those hosting gatherings of underage drinkers(under the age of 21)?

Very effective Somewhat effective A little effective Not at all effective Don't know10.How effective do you think the law is in preventing or reducing parties where underage drinking occurs?

This survey is being conducted anonymously by an independent research company.Thank you for your participation.

Teens ask a stranger tobuy it near a store

14411

Appendix B. Key Informant Protocols



Year Three Outcome Evaluation Key Informant Interview Protocol

Chiefs of Police

Date: ____________________________ Interviewer Initials: ________________ Respondent Name: ___________________ Title: ____________________________ City/Region: __ Fillmore __ Ojai

1. Have you incorporated training for enforcement of the Social Host Ordinance into New Officer Training?

2. Can you please explain how new hires are made aware of the Social Host Ordinance? 3. Has your department experienced any challenges relative to Social Host Ordinance

enforcement? If so, can you please explain?

4. Can we please obtain copies of any memos, briefings, protocols, or other documentation regarding enforcement of the Social Host Ordinance in your jurisdiction? (Note: ask for copies of documents to be mailed or emailed)

5. We are interested in understanding the circumstances surrounding an event where a

Social Host Ordinance violation is warranted and/or was issued. May we speak with one of your patrol officers or deputies who would be able to provide us with this type of information? (Note: document permission, and name and contact information of person to contact)



Patrol Officers/Deputies

Date: ____________________________ Interviewer Initials: ________________ Respondent Name:___________________ Title: ____________________________ City/Region: __ Fillmore __ Ojai

1. How many times have you used the Social Host Ordinance (i.e., how many citations for violating the ordinance have you been involved in?

2. Please describe a typical event/setting where you issued a Social Host Ordinance

violation?

3. Do you think the Social Host Ordinance has been effective at reducing the number of parties where underage drinking occurs?

4. Do you see (or have you encountered) any challenges related to the Social Host

Ordinance in your jurisdiction?



Responsible Retailer Program – Alcohol Enforcement Officer

Date: ____________________________ Interviewer Initials: ________________ Respondent Name:___________________ Title: ____________________________ Police Department: _________________________________________________________

1. What lessons have you leaned from the development and implementation of the Responsible Retailer Program?

2. What recommendations do you have for the successful continuation of the Responsible Retailer Program in the City of Ventura?

3. What recommendations do you have for the successful implementation of similar

programs in other cities or other counties?

4. What is the most significant impact of the Responsible Retailer Program?

5. What other significant outcomes were realized as part of the Responsible Retailer Program?

6. Has there been an impact on minor decoy or shoulder tap operations?

7. Has there been a reduction of calls for service involving alcohol or calls for service at

alcohol establishments?

8. What has been the response from retailers?



SIG Program Administrator

Date: ____________________________ Interviewer Initials: ________________ Respondent Name:___________________ Title: ____________________________

1. What has been the most significant impact of the State Incentive Grant (SIG) funding? 2. What other significant outcomes were achieved or realized with SIG funding in Ventura

County?

3. If you were to do the SIG initiative all over again, what would you do differently, if anything?

4. Was there anything that you thought would be easy but instead was very challenging to

implement?

5. What was the most unanticipated difficulty that you experienced?

6. Please describe any unexpected outcomes of the SIG funding?

7. Knowing what you know now, what would you change in your original proposal for SIG funding and why?

8. What additional work needs to happen to help diminish binge and underage drinking in

Ventura County?

9. What long lasting investments were made as a result of SIG funding?

10. How has SIG funding impacted your organization? Is it long-term, and if so, how so?


Appendix C. Media Output Tracking


Type Code

Content Code

Name of Media Outlet

Date

Headline or Description

Placement (ex: columns)

Summary

8 8 Ojai Valley News 2002 Local doctor sees ‘surprising increase’ in OxyContin overdoses

Ojai Drug-related injury

8 8 Ojai Valley News 11/29/02 Family deals with drug-related havoc Ojai Drug related injury

8 8 Ojai Valley News 11/29/02 Girl’s path leads from OxyContin to rehab Ojai Valley Underage Drug-use

2 8 Ojai Valley News 11/29/02 The truth about drugs and Ojai’s youth Ojai Valley Underage Drug-use

3 1 Ojai Valley News 12/02 Abuse denial weakening with recent drug-suspected deaths

Ojai Valley

4 8 12/16/03 Join the effort to end drug abuse Ojai Valley Substance-abuse

8 8 Los Angeles Times Ventura County Edition

11/14/02 Apparent overdose death evidence of growing threat

B1, B9 Ojai Valley Drug-related death

8 1 Ojai Valley News 05/03/03 S.A.F.E. identifies drug hot spots Ojai Valley

8 7,8 Ojai Valley News 04/07/04 Methamphetamine use a ‘real shocker’ A-1, A-3 Illegal drug use

3 7 Ojai Valley News 04/09/04 Q&A with Ojai Police Chief Gary Pentis Ojai, interview with G. Pentis

8 1 Fillmore Gazette 06/29/04 Fillmore Family Coalition addresses alcohol issue

Fillmore

8 1,7,8 Ojai Valley News 07/02/04 OUSD approves policy on drugs A-1,A-3 Ojai, school district takes action against illegal drug use

8 1 Fillmore Gazette 08/26/04 Host ordinance shows history of success A-1 Fillmore

8 5,6 Prevention File Fall 2004 A bold new initiative to reduce binge drinking Pg. 1 Ventura County

8 5,6 Prevention File Fall 2004 Learning more about young drinking drivers Pg. 6 Ventura County

8 9 Prevention File Fall 2004 Playing it safe in Ojai Pg. 7 Ojai drug death leads to community action

8 8 Ojai Valley News 09/03/04 Ojai joins national crime hotline A-1,A-3 Ojai Valley, Community action

8 7 Ventura County Star 09/07/04 Ojai Valley crime tip hotline unveiled B1, B2 Ojai Valley


Type Code

Content Code


Date



Summary

8 1,8 Ojai Valley News 09/08/04 SAFE Coalition gears up for drug-reduction campaign

Ojai Valley, Community action

8 7,8 Ojai Valley News 09/10/04 Cops hope tips will stem drug crisis A1,A4 Ojai Valley, drug overdose

8 1 Join Together Online 09/20/04 Parents take risk in holding student drinking parties at home

Online Article for jointogether.org

8 7,8 Ventura County Star, Ventura Edition

09/20/04 Charges against teen’s friends raise issue of responsibility

A1, A6 Ventura, illegal-drug related death

8 5,8 Ventura County Star 09/22/04 County earns funds to fight binge drinking SIG funding

8 5,8 Ventura County Star 09/27/04 County gets grant to fight binge drinking B1 SIG funding

8 2 Ventura County Star 10/14/04 Open container law ruled unconstitutional B1,B2 Ventura Alcohol policy

8 8 Ventura County Star 10/31/04 Affluent teens’ drug use up B1,B2

4 1 Ojai Valley News 11/01/04 Ojai youth making right choices Ojai

8 4 Ventura County Star 11/02/04 Cooperation helps Ojai Valley, Community Action

3 7,8 Ojai Valley News 11/05/04 Drug-sniffing dogs keep schools drug-free Ojai Valley Law Enforcement, underage drug use

8 7,8 Ojai Valley News 11/12/04 Dogged Determination Ojai Valley Law Enforcement, Underage drug use

8 7,8 Ventura County Star 12/18/04 Nordhoff High brings in drug-sniffing dogs B1, B2 Law Enforcement, Underage Drug-use

9 6 2005 The easiest place for kids to get beer

8 2 Ojai Valley News 2005 Ojai group seeks liability for party hosts of underage drinkers

Ojai

3 4 Los Angeles Times 2005 Reckless youths 13 year old Devin Brown stole a car and was shot by police

8 6 Ventura County Star 2005 County kids say booze is prevalent B1

8 6,8 Ventura County Star 2005 Group gathers ideas to curb drinking B1,B2


Type Code

Content Code


Date



Summary

8 2 Ventura County Star 02/05 Ojai group seeks liability for party hosts of underage drinkers

Ojai

3 2 Ventura County Star 02/24/05 Taking aim at teen drinking B8 Ojai Valley

8 6,7 Ojai Valley News 03/05 Council A-3 Campus drinking

4 2 Ojai Valley News 03/08/05 Ojai needs Social Host Ordinance Ojai

8 7 Ojai Valley News 03/25/05 Council eyes law on parties Gary Pentis departs

8 5,6 Prevention File Spring 2005

Ventura County Limits- off and running Pg. 1 Ventura County

8 8 Ojai Valley News 04/01/05 Say it ain’t so, Joe Community Action

8 6,8 Ojai Valley News 04/27/05 SAFE successful in first two years Community action

8 1 Fillmore Gazette 04/28/05 Fillmore youth attend alcohol awareness in Oxnard

Fillmore Family Coalition

4 6 Ojai Valley News 06/20/05 Lack of options invites disaster Letter warning against SAFE approach

4 6 Ojai Valley News 07/06/05 Drinking Denial

4

5,6 Ojai Valley News 07/06/05 Stern warning Providing Alternatives for teenagers

4 5 Ojai Valley News 07/08/05 Alcohol abuse not right for minors

4 5,6 Ojai Valley News 07/08/05 Alcohol abuse not right for minors Parents need to wise up about the dangers of alcohol use

8 5 Ojai Valley news 07/08/05 SAFE warns parents about teen drinking

4 2 Ojai Valley news 07/13/05 Drinking thinking change SHO goal Ojai

4 6 Ojai Valley News 07/20/05 Addictions prey on Ojai youth

8 5,6 Prevention File Summer 2005

Ventura County Limits Pg. 5 Ventura County

8 1,7 Ojai Valley News 08/26/05 Alcohol sting nets four local arrests Study about increase in favorable attitudes towards law enforcement


Type Code

Content Code


Date



Summary

8 7 Ojai Valley news 09/23/05 Kids’ best friend Drug sniffing dogs

3 6 Ojai Valley News 10/12/05 Beyond our doorsteps A-5

8 2,6 Prevention File Fall 2005 Holding social hosts accountable Pg. 1 Fillmore, Ojai, Ventura County

8 3 Prevention File Fall 2005 Managing retail alcohol availability in Ventura Pg. 3 Ventura

8 6 Prevention File Fall 2005 Tracing back to the source Pg. 5 Ventura County

8 2,6 Prevention File Fall 2005 Q & A with Chief Deputy Geoff Dean Pg. 7 Ventura County

8 2 Ojai Valley News 11/11/05 Teenage drinking targeted A-1, A-3 Ojai

8 2 Ventura County Star 12/07/05 Strict law urged to fight alcohol parties B1, B2 County Unincorporated

8 2 Los Angeles Times 12/24/05 Putting a cork in teen parties Ojai

8 2 Los Angles Times 12/07/05 Study of ‘Social Host’ laws gets ok B1 County Unincorporated

8 2 Ventura County Reporter

02/09/06 Ojai – bringing the smack down on underage drinking

Ojai

8 2 Ventura County Star 02/12/06 Party may be over for Ojai teenagers B1 Ojai

8 2,6 Prevention File March 2006

Q & A with Kathy Long Pg. 5 Fillmore, Ojai, Ventura County

8 5,6 Prevention File March 2006

Straight Up promotes social change with reality improve

Pg. 7 Ventura County

7 2,6 KCBS TV (LA Ch.2) 03/19/06 Studio 2: Interview with Capt. Gary Pentis; Risks of the internet

Ventura County

8 2 Ventura County Star 03/29/06 County backs party-giver fines B6 Ojai Valley

8 2 Los Angeles Times 03/29/06 Party may be over for ‘cool’ parents B1 Ojai, Fillmore, County Unincorporated

8 3 Ventura County Star 03/31/06 Judge rejects Ventura’s open bottle law B8 Ventura

8 2 Ojai Valley News 03/31/06 Beer nearing end at softball games? Ojai

8 2 Ventura County Star 04/05/06 Underage drinking party hosts face fines B2 County Unincorporated


Type Code

Content Code


Date



Summary

4 2 Ventura County Star 04/05/06 Support Social Host law B13 County Unincorporated

8 2 Thousand Oaks Acorn 04/06/06 If you serve alcohol to minors, be ready for stiff fine

County Unincorporated

8 2 Moorpark Acorn 04/07/06 Party host ordinance puts brake on underage drinking

Moorpark

3 2 Ventura County Star 04/09/06 Corking teens use of alcohol Social Host good measure

B9 County Unincorporated

4 2 Ojai Valley News 04/12/06 Fine examples set for violators Ojai Valley

8 2 Camarillo Acorn 04/14/06 Parents may face fines for underage drinking Camarillo

8 3 Ojai Valley News 04/14/06 Liquor clerks fare well in beer sting Ojai Valley

4 2 Ventura County Star 04/14/06 Social Host Ordinance great B9 County Unincorporated

1 2 Ventura County Limits Website

04/18/06 County house party law will help stop unruly underage drinking gatherings

Ojai, Fillmore, County Unincorporated

8 2 Ventura County Star 04/19/06 Hosts of underage drinkers face fines B1 County Unincorporated

8 2 Ojai Valley News 04/19/06 County passes host ordinance to curb drinking A1 Ojai Valley

8 2 Ventura County Star 04/23/06 T.O. to consider fines for hosts of parties with underage drinking

B1 Thousand Oaks, County Unincorporated

8 2 Ventura County Star 04/25/06 Halting teen drinking B6 Thousand Oaks

8 2 Ventura County Star 04/26/06 T.O. passes underage drinking law B11 Thousand Oaks

8 2 Ventura County Star April 2006

Alcohol-party fines approved by county Ojai Valley

8 2 Ventura County Star 05/16/06 Simi goes after underage drinking B1 Simi Valley

8 6,7 Ojai Valley News 05/17/06 Police curb preserve partying A-1,A-8 Ojai Valley

3 2 Camarillo Acorn 05/19/06 Teens don’t need alcohol to celebrate graduation

A4 Camarillo

8 2 Camarillo Acorn 05/26/06 Council passes law to help curb underage drinking

Camarillo


Type Code

Content Code


Date



Summary

8 2 Ventura County Star 05/26/06 Camarillo to crack down on parties, graffiti and curfew

B3 Camarillo

9 6 Ojai Valley News 06/07/06 06/23/06 06/28/06

Did you know the party is at your house?

3 6 Ventura County Star 06/23/06 No ‘fun’ dying young B8 Ventura County

8 2 Ventura County Star 06/30/06 Authorities cite hosts of underage drinking B3 SHO Enforcement – Ojai

8 2,5,6 Prevention File July 2006 Alcohol issues in your community: strategies for local leaders


8 2,5 Prevention File July 2006 Preventing underage drinking in home parties in Ojai

Pg. 3 Ojai

8 2 Prevention File July 2006 Social host liability in Fillmore Pg. 5 Fillmore

8 2,6,7 Prevention File July 2006 Q & A with Dan Hicks Pg. 7 Ventura County

8 2,7 Ojai Valley News 07/05/06 Two social host cities issued A-1,A-7 Ojai, Fillmore

3 2 Ventura County Star 07/19/06 Youth drinking ordinances save lives and money

B11 Ventura County

3 6 Ventura County Star 07/19/06 Underage drinking puts everyone in harm’s way

Simi Valley, Ventura County

9 6,8 Ojai sees reduction in teen drinking parties Ojai community action

8 2 Ventura County Star 08/04/06 Council OKs fines for hosts of teen drinkers Moorpark

8 2 Moorpark Acorn 08/11/06 Fines for underage drinking Moorpark

1 2 Associated Press 08/25/06 Punishing parents deters underage drinking Ventura County

8 2 Join Together 08/29/06 More communities target parents who allow underage drinking

Ventura County

8 2,7 Prevention File October 2006

A decade of environmental change to reduce alcohol problems


8 2 Prevention File October 2006

Camarillo, Moorpark, Santa Paula, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks pass social host ordinances

Pg. 7 Camarillo, Moorpark, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks


Type Code

Content Code


Date



Summary

8 2 Ventura County Star 11/15/06 Hosts held to account A1 Ventura County

8 2 Ventura County Star 11/15/06 In almost a year, laws seem to crimp drinking parties

A1 Ventura, Ojai Valley, Camarillo, Thousand Oaks

8 2 USA Today 01/04/07 Adults penalized for teen drinking A1 Ventura County

8 2 USA Today 01/04/07 Laws crash underage drinking A3 Ojai, Ventura County

8 1 Ventura County Star 02/05/07 Training offered to festival organizers B8 Ventura County

8 2 Ventura County Star 02/09/07 Agoura Hills will consider a social host ordinance

B2 Ventura County

8 2 Ventura County Star 03/06/07 Oxnard’s council to consider alcohol law A1 Oxnard, Ventura County

8 2 Ventura County Star 03/08/07 Oxnard supports social host ordinance A1 Oxnard, Ventura County

8 6 Ventura County Star 03/17/07 Simi teens assess availability of alcohol Simi Valley

10 2 Ojai Valley News Blog 03/27/07 Twelve cited for social host violation Online report, Ojai

8 2 Ojai Valley News 03/29/07 Ojai’s social host ordinance Ojai

8 5,6 Ventura County Star 04/10/07 The truth, Straight Up B1 Straight Up, Simi Valley, Ventura County

8 3 Ventura County Star 04/14/07 Police fortifying alcohol rulings B1 Ventura

8 3 Ventura County Star 04/14/07 Ventura fortifies its liquor laws B2 Ventura


04/26/07 So education and enforcement walk into a bar A1 Responsible Retailer Program, Ventura

8 5,6 Ventura County Star 05/05/07 Documentary on underage drinking is released

B4 Straight Up “Access and Excess”

8 4,6 Ventura County Star 05/21/07 Teens encouraged to party safely, stay sober on prom night

Ventura

8 2 Ventura County Star 05/27/07 District OKs social host ordinance B4 Lake Casitas Recreation Area

8 2 Ventura County Star 06/04/07 Ventura may add social host law B8 Ventura

8 2 Ventura County Star 06/05/07 Ventura passes ‘social host’ ordinance Ventura


Type Code

Content Code


Date



Summary

8 2 Ventura Star 06/06/07 Port Hueneme to explore tighter gun ordinance. Social host drinking law also considered

B1 Port Hueneme

8 2 Ventura County Star 06/06/07 Ventura OKs social drinking ordinance Ventura

8 2 Ventura County Star 06/06/07 Ventura approves social host ordinance B3 Ventura

8 2 Oxnard Star 06/08/07 City to draft ordinances on guns, underage drinking

B1 Port Hueneme

8 2 Casitas Water News Summer 2007

Lake Casitas Recreation Area is now under social host ordinance of Ventura County

1 Lake Casitas Recreation Area, Ventura County

7 2,6 Key News 3 06/18/07 Social Host Law story; interview with Coalition for Simi Valley Youth and Community

6:00 p.m. Simi Valley, Ventura County

8 6 Ventura County Star 06/28/07 Parents get sneak peek at teen party B2 Camarillo, Ventura County

8 2 Ventura County Star 06/29/07 Agoura Hills implements social host law Agoura Hills, Ventura County

8 5,6 Simi Valley Acorn 07/06/07 Party brings home realities of teen drinking A1 Simi Valley, Camarillo

8 2 Oxnard Star 08/11/07 Crackdown on parties with teen drinking wins group accolades

B1 Ventura County


08/16/07 Long urges new tax status for ‘Alcopops’ 10 Ventura County

8 2 Ventura County Star 08/29/07 Ventura, Oxnard party hosts cited for teen drinking

A1 Ventura, Oxnard, Ventura County

3 2 Ventura County Star 09/02/07 Turning off the teen tap FC Ventura County

8 5,6 Ventura County Star 09/09/07 Parents invited to teens’ drinking party Ventura County

6 2 KCAQ-FM 7/16/07-10/08/07

Radio campaign on SHO with 2 ads broadcast in English

Broadcast 312 times

Ventura County

6 2 KFYV-FM 7/16/07-10/08/07


Broadcast 351 times

Ventura County

6 2 KOCP-FM 7/16/07-10/08/07


Broadcast 351 times

Ventura County

6 2 KVTA-AM 7/16/07-10/08/07


Broadcast 312 times

Ventura County


Type Code

Content Code


Date



Summary

6 2 KKZZ-AM 7/16/07-10/08/07


Broadcast 351 times

Ventura County

6 2 KUNX-AM 7/16/07-10/08/07

Radio campaign on SHO with 2 ads broadcast in Spanish

Broadcast 351 times

Ventura County

6 2 KXLM-FM 7/16/07-10/08/07

Radio campaign on SHO with 2 ads broadcast in Spanish

Broadcast 234 times

Ventura County

Type Codes:

Content Codes

1 News release 2 Media advisory 7 TV news story 3 Opinion piece 8 Print news story 4 Letter to the Editor 9 Public Service Announcement 5 Media event 10 Other (note in summary) 6 Radio advertisement

1 General alcohol 2 Alcohol policy – party host (note city in Summary) 3 Alcohol policy – retail alcohol (note city in Summary) 4 Alcohol related injury 5 Binge drinking 6 Underage drinking 7 Law enforcement 8 Other (note in Summary)

ventura county limits: evaluation findings from the ventura … · 2010-05-08 · sig year three...

Documents