Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2008 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Prev Med. 2007 Mar 1;44(6):471–476. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.02.018

Who Needs Liquor Stores When Parents Will Do? The importance of social sources of alcohol among young urban teens

Mary O Hearst 1, Jayne A Fulkerson 2, Mildred M Maldonado-Molina 3, Cheryl L Perry 1, Kelli A Komro 1,3
PMCID: PMC1987716  NIHMSID: NIHMS25663  PMID: 17428525

Abstract

Objectives

Examine sources of alcohol over time in a large, ethnically-diverse adolescent population from a poor, urban environment.

Methods

Surveys were administered at four time points (6th–8th grades) assessing demographic characteristics, past year alcohol use, and sources of alcohol to youth in Chicago, Illinois 2003–2005. Growth curve analysis was used to examine alcohol access trends among all alcohol using youth and consistent alcohol users. Interactions by race and gender were tested.

Results

Social sources of alcohol were the most prevalent source over time. Parents were the primary source of alcohol, but their prominence significantly decreased over time. Taking alcohol from home, and getting alcohol from other adults, individuals under age 21, and commercial sources significantly increased as sources of alcohol over time. Males were significantly more likely than females to get alcohol from commercial sources and friends’ parents.

Conclusions

Greater attention for reducing social access to alcohol, particularly among parents, is needed for alcohol prevention efforts prior to and during middle school.

Keywords: adolescents, urban, diverse, race/ethnicity, alcohol, prevention, intervention, group randomized trial, Project Northland Chicago, commercial, alcohol sources, social access, growth curve modeling

Introduction

Early initiation of alcohol use has been associated with many negative health effects during adolescence, and the earlier the initiation, the greater the subsequent problems (Stueve and O’Donnell 2005). National surveys estimate that while alcohol use among 8th and 10th graders has steadily declined since 1991,(Johnston, O’Malley et al. 2004) a large proportion of youth still drink and experience negative consequences because of their drinking (Greenblatt 2000; Hingson, Jamanka et al. 2001; Subramanian 2002). One strategy to ameliorate alcohol use by youth (Wagenaar and Perry 1994; Williams and Perry 1998; Perry, Komro et al. 2000; Komro, Perry et al. 2001; Komro and Toomey 2002; Perry, Williams et al. 2002; Wagenaar, Murray et al. 2002; Perry, Komro et al. 2003) focuses on reducing or eliminating the primary sources of alcohol access,(Dent, Grube et al. 2005) largely targeting commercial access among underage drinkers (Preusser and Williams 1992; Forster, McGovern et al. 1994; O’Leary, Gorman et al. 1994; Grube 1997; Wagenaar, Murray et al. 2002; Freisthler, Gruenewald et al. 2003). Eliminating commercial sources of alcohol for youth is necessary; however, previous cross-sectional research indicates that social access is a primary source of alcohol for teenagers, particularly among young drinkers (Forster, McGovern et al. 1994; Forster, Murray et al. 1995; Wagenaar, Toomey et al. 1996; Jones-Webb, Toomey et al. 1997; Harrison, Fulkerson et al. 2000; Hussong 2000).

A common social source of alcohol among underage youth is adults over the age of 21 years (Wagenaar, Toomey et al. 1996; Jones-Webb, Toomey et al. 1997). Access sources do appear to differ by age, with younger adolescents (6th grade) reporting accessing alcohol from family, parties and at home, and older adolescents (9th–12th grade) accessing alcohol from friends (Harrison, Fulkerson et al. 2000). Male and female adolescents may also access alcohol in different ways, with females more likely than males to use social sources,(Harrison, Fulkerson et al. 2000) particularly family (Hussong 2000). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) surveyed a nationally representative sample of 7–12th graders on the ease of access to alcohol in the home and found that 28% of youth reported the home as an easily accessible location. Thus, although older adolescents appear to access alcohol from commercial sources more often than younger adolescents,(Wagenaar, Toomey et al. 1996) these primarily cross-sectional surveys indicate that young adolescents are predominantly obtaining alcohol from friends, young adults, and family.

While compelling evidence exists that social sources of alcohol are important, studies to date have been largely limited to cross-sectional associations and predominantly racially homogenous samples, particularly for early drinkers. Williams and Mulhall’s cross-sectional sample is the exception with a sample that included 62% urban youth, 33% minority youth and nearly one-fourth of the sample eligible for free and reduced lunch. Ethnically-diverse adolescents in urban settings may be at an increased risk for alcohol and other drug use given their disadvantaged economic environments (Crum, Lillie-Blanton et al. 1996) and higher density of alcohol outlets in poor and minority urban neighborhoods (Gorman and Speer 1997; LaVeist and Wallace 2000; Duncan, Duncan et al. 2002). In addition, previous cross-sectional research has not been able to examine longitudinally how sources of alcohol may change over time as youth mature nor how youth who initiate alcohol use at a young age (i.e., age 12) may have a unique pattern of alcohol access over time.

The purpose of this study is to contribute to the published research literature by examining sources of alcohol by young adolescents over time in a large ethnically-diverse population of mostly poor urban youth. The primary hypotheses are: 1) social sources of alcohol will be the most prevalent among this sample of young adolescents, 2) sources will change as adolescents age, and 3) sources of alcohol among the entire sample of alcohol users and consistent alcohol users will follow a similar pattern. Secondarily, we will explore whether there are any differences by gender or ethnicity. We hypothesize that sources of alcohol may vary by race and gender with females more likely to use social sources than males (as two previous studies suggest), and minority youth more likely to use commercial sources than white youth (because of the higher density of outlets in poor and minority urban neighborhoods (Gorman and Speer 1997; LaVeist and Wallace 2000; Duncan, Duncan et al. 2002) ). No other studies have examined access trends over time in such a large racially diverse, young adolescent population, nor examined the patterns of alcohol access among young consistent alcohol users as they mature. Understanding patterns of alcohol access will be critical for more targeted prevention efforts.

Methods

Study design

The data used in this study are from four waves of Project Northland Chicago (PNC), a multi-component, group randomized trial for the prevention of adolescent alcohol use, involving 63 schools and their surrounding neighborhoods in Chicago (Komro, Perry et al. 2004; Komro, Perry et al. 2006). All Chicago public schools that included grades 5 through 8, had relatively low mobility rates (< 25%), and were larger schools (at least 30 students per grade) were selected for recruitment. Schools were geographically clustered into units, and the units were randomly assigned to three years of the adapted PNC intervention (from sixth to eighth grade) (Komro, Perry et al. 2004) or the control condition. This study used data from the 58 PNC schools that participated in all four data collection points. Surveys were administered in the classroom at four time points: (1) fall, 2002 at the beginning of 6th grade (Time 1: T1); (2) spring, 2003 at the end of 6th grade (T2); (3) spring, 2004 at the end of 7th grade (T3), and (4) spring, 2005 at the end of 8th grade (T4). All students enrolled in the participating schools and grades were eligible for the surveys. Details of survey administration and consent procedures are available elsewhere (Komro, Perry et al. 2006). Survey response rates were high for each wave (T1: 91%, T2: 94%, T3: 95%, T4: 96%).

Study Population

Demographic variables such as gender, race/ethnicity, grade, and age were collected. For this study, we limited the sample to African American/Black (40%), White (14%), and Hispanic/Latino (31%) youth as these three racial/ethnic groups represent the overwhelming majority (85%) of the students in the study, and made racial/ethnic comparisons possible. Over the four data collection points, an average of 69.5% of students reported receiving free or reduced cost lunch, an indicator of poverty.

Alcohol Users

Students who completed a school survey at any of the four data collection time periods (T1 n=4164; T2 n=4137; T3 n=3710; T4 n=3709), reported consuming alcohol in the past year, and self-identified as Hispanic/Latino, African American or White were included. The sample of alcohol using students was 578 at T1, 825 at T2, 978 at T3, and 1328 at T4. The average age was T1=11.8; T2=12.3; T3=13.3; and T4=14.3 years. As shown in Table 1, almost half of the sample at each data collection point is African American/Black.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of alcohol usersa and a sub-sample of consistent usersb.

Alcohol Users 2002 6th grade Mean age = 11.8 (n= 578) 2003 6th grade Mean age=12.3 (n= 825) 2004 7th grade Mean age=13.3 (n=978) 2005 8th grade Mean age=14.3 (n= 1328)
Race N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
African American 261 (45.3) 387 (47.1) 383 (39.2) 569 (42.9)
Hispanic 221 (38.4) 337 (40.1) 441 (45.1) 522 (39.3)
White 94 (16.3) 97 (11.8) 154 (15.7) 236 (17.8)
Gender
Male 330 (57.3) 445 (54.0) 483 (49.4) 643 (48.4)
Female 246 (42.7) 379 (46.0) 495 (50.6) 685 (51.6)
Consistent Users (n=217) (n=321) (n=329) (n=327)
Race
African American 81 (37.3) 116 (36.3) 112 (34.0) 110 (36.6)
Hispanic 100 (46.1) 161 (50.3) 166 (50.5) 161 (49.2)
White 36 (16.6) 43 (13.4) 51 (15.5) 56 (17.2)
Gender
Male 126 (58.1) 173 (53.9) 176 (53.5) 172 (52.6)
Female 91 (41.9) 148 (46.1) 153 (46.5) 155 (47.4)
Open in a new tab

Source: Project Northland Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 2002–2005

a

self-reported past year alcohol users

b

past year alcohol use reported during at least 3 of 4 surveys

Consistent users

To assess if consistent users have unique alcohol access patterns over time, a subsample of youth who reported consistent alcohol use over time was identified. A consistent user was defined as a student who reported past year drinking at three or four of the four data collection points. These youth may be particularly at risk because of their early alcohol initiation and consistent use at a critical time of adolescent development.

Loss to follow-up (LTF)

For the entire study cohort, the follow-up rate from T1 to T2 was 89%, T1 to T3 was 67%, and T1 to T4 was 61%. LTF was primarily due to two schools closing and student mobility. The follow-up rate was similar to those reported in a meta-analysis of school-based substance use prevention studies (Hansen, Tobler et al. 1990). Comparing alcohol use rates at T1 between those who remained in the study and those LTF shows students who were LTF were more likely to be baseline users (18%) than those not LTF (15%) (F=4.05, dfn:d=1:4067, p=0.04).

Measures

The complete self-report survey instrument consisted of 89 items, including items related to alcohol behavior, attitudes, and perceptions. Identical surveys were given at each data collection period, with the exception of a few items not related to these analyses. Questions were drawn from D.A.R.E. Plus and previous Project Northland studies (Perry, Williams et al. 1993; Williams, Toomey et al. 1995; Komro, Perry et al. 2004; Komro, Perry et al. 2004).

Alcohol use in the past year was measured with the question “During the last 12 months, on how many occasions, or times, have you had alcoholic beverages to drink?” Response options included 0 occasions, 1–2 occasions, 3–5 occasions, 6–9 occasions, 10–19 occasions, 20–39 occasions, and 40 or more occasions. The seven category response was dichotomized to “no occasions” (0) versus “one or more occasions” (1). A definition of an alcohol drink preceded, stating “a bottle or can of beer; a bottle or can of malt liquor; a glass of wine or wine cooler; flavored alcohol drink, SIPS DON’T COUNT.” There was additional visual cue half-way through the section stating, “Remember, sips don’t count.”

Access to alcohol was addressed in one question, “If you have ever had an alcoholic drink, think back to the last time you drank. How did you get the alcohol?” Response options included: “You’ve never had an alcohol drink”; “Your parent or guardian gave it to you”; “Another adult over 21 gave it to you”; “Someone under 21 gave it to you”; “You took it from home”; “You took it from a friend’s house”; “You bought it at a grocery or convenience stores”; “You bought it at a liquor store”; “You bought it at a bar or restaurant”; “You got it some other way…How did you get it?” Commercial sources (bar, liquor store, convenience store, gas station, and grocery store) were collapsed into one category due to low frequencies (< 2%) in each category.

Analysis

To assess the changes in alcohol sources over time, we used generalized linear mixed modeling. Analyses were conducted using SAS PROC GLIMMIX (SAS Version 9.1), which allows for a correlated data structure where the response is not necessarily normally distributed. This statistical procedure also allows adjusting for the effects of several covariates and can handle missing data by properly aligning observations according to time. Autoregressive and nested error structures were used to account for correlation within individual’s responses over time and for individual responses within schools, respectively. Each of the outcome variables (parents, friend’s parent, another adult >21, someone <21, took it from home, took it from friend’s home, and commercial sources of alcohol) was regressed on time, treatment condition, gender, ethnicity, time by ethnicity and time by gender interactions. A linear slope for each outcome variable was estimated. Interaction terms (time*ethnicity and time*gender) that failed to achieve significance at α = 0.10 were subsequently excluded from the final models. Models were tested for the entire sample of alcohol users and then within a sub-sample of consistent alcohol users (those who reported alcohol use in the past year in at least three or four waves of data). Because the probability of Type I error increases as more tests are performed (Ott and Longnecker 2001), we used Bonferonni correction (p<.05/2 =.025).

Results

As shown in Table 2, at the beginning of 6th grade, parents/guardians were by far the most common source of alcohol (32.7%), followed by another adult >21 (15.7%) and someone <21 (9.7%). By the end of 8th grade, accessing alcohol from another adult >21 (22.7%) surpassed parents/guardian (18.9%) as the most prevalent source reported. Consistent users followed a similar pattern to the entire sample, with social sources dominating commercial sources. Over time, student reports of taking alcohol from home or a friend’s home, receiving alcohol from a friend’s parent or guardian, and purchasing alcohol from commercial sources were lower in prevalence compared to accessing alcohol from parents or guardians, another adult >21, or someone <21.

Table 2.

Sources of alcohol over time for entire sample of alcohol users and sub-sample of consistent alcohol users.

Source Fall 2002 (6th grade) Spring 2003 (6th grade) Spring 2004 (7th grade) Spring 2005 (8th grade)
Alcohol Users
 Na (578) (825) (978) (1328)
Parents/guardian (%) 32.7 30.6 24.4 18.9
Friend’s parent or guardian (%) 4.1 3.0 4.0 4.5
Another adult over 21 (%) 15.7 17.1 16.8 22.7
Someone under 21 (%) 9.7 12.2 18.4 16.4
Took it from home (%) 3.6 6.7 9.2 8.9
Took from friend’s house (%) 2.6 3.0 4.0 6.2
Commercial source (%) 2.4 2.6 3.2 5.6
Consistent Users
 Nb (217) (321) (329) (327)
Parents/guardian (%) 38.0 34.6 23.4 18.7
Friend’s parent or guardian (%) 4.6 3.4 4.0 2.7
Another adult over 21 (%) 16.1 17.1 16.1 25.1
Someone under 21 (%) 8.8 13.1 23.7 17.3
Took it from home (%) 2.8 8.1 12.1 11.9
Took from friend’s house (%) 2.3 3.7 3.7 4.6
Commercial sourcec (%) 2.8 1.9 3.3 6.7
Open in a new tab

Source: Project Northland Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 2002–2005

a

Sample size increases over time because alcohol use (past year) increases with age.

b

Sample size generally increases over time because the sub-sample includes those who reporting drinking three out of four time periods rather than all four.

c

Bar, liquor store, convenience store, gas station, grocery store

As shown in Table 3, among the entire sample of alcohol users, increases over time were observed across the following sources of alcohol: another adult >21 (p<.001), someone < 21 (p=.008), took it from home (p<.001), and commercial (p<.001). Parents as a source of alcohol use decreased over time (p<.001). No significant time effects were observed for alcohol taken from a friend’s home or receiving it from a friend’s parent. Similar results were observed among the sub-sample of consistent alcohol users, with the exception of a nonsignificant finding for getting alcohol from someone <21. Results also suggested that males were more likely to get alcohol from commercial sources (p=.020), although this result was not observed among consistent users. Among consistent users, males who engaged in consistent alcohol use were more likely than females to get alcohol from a friend’s parent. No racial/ethnic differences (white vs. minority youth) were observed across sources of alcohol use over time, with one exception. Results suggested that among consistent users, minority youth were more likely than white adolescents to take alcohol from home (p=.025), although this difference does not reach our conservative statistical criterion (i.e. p=.025).

Table 3.

Sources of alcohol use among the entire sample of alcohol users and consistent alcohol users over time.

Alcohol Users Consistent Alcohol Users
Source Slope SE F-value p-value Slope SE F-value p-value
Parents
Time −0.191 0.052 13.62 <0.001** −0.277 0.616 20.13 <0.001**
Treatment 0.010 0.129 0.01 0.941 −0.054 0.198 0.07 0.789
Gender 0.088 0.090 0.97 0.326 0.104 0.115 0.82 0.366
Ethnicity −0.045 0.129 0.12 0.735 −0.303 0.183 2.73 0.099
Friend’s Parent
Time −0.120 0.160 0.52 0.470 −0.052 0.622 0.08 0.780
Treatment −0.399 0.360 1.23 0.280 −0.336 0.185 0.56 0.463
Gender 0.699 0.330 4.60 0.032 1.100 0.449 5.81 0.016**
Ethnicity 0.129 0.395 0.11 0.750 −0.007 0.521 0.00 0.988
Another adult> 21yr
Time 0.197 0.058 11.60 <0.001** 0.194 0.076 6.49 0.011**
Treatment 0.106 0.123 0.74 0.398 0.138 0.157 0.77 0.392
Gender −0.142 0.117 1.47 0.225 −0.138 0.151 0.84 0.361
Ethnicity −0.272 0.175 2.42 0.120 −0.390 0.239 2.65 0.104
Someone< 21yr
Time 0.190 0.072 7.06 0.008** 0.169 0.088 3.68 0.056
Treatment −0.096 0.186 0.27 0.610 0.009 0.205 0.00 0.965
Gender −0.140 0.147 0.90 0.344 −0.124 0.179 0.48 0.490
Ethnicity 0.006 0.217 0.00 0.977 0.072 0.247 0.09 0.769
Took it from Home
Time 0.366 0.099 13.62 <0.001** 0.431 0.128 11.32 <0.001**
Treatment −0.076 0.272 0.08 0.784 −0.328 0.297 1.22 0.283
Gender −0.111 0.211 0.28 0.597 −0.284 0.253 1.26 0.263
Ethnicity 0.354 0.272 1.70 0.193 0.660 0.294 5.03 0.025**
Took it from Friend’s Home
Time 0.195 0.147 1.75 0.186 0.247 0.184 1.79 0.181
Treatment 0.154 0.339 0.21 0.654 0.248 0.383 0.042 0.526
Gender 0.141 0.308 0.21 0.648 −0.157 0.367 0.18 0.669
Ethnicity 0.443 0.358 1.53 0.216 0.452 0.426 1.13 0.289
Commercial
Time 0.865 0.306 11.28 <0.001** 1.210 0.492 5.64 0.018**
Treatment 0.648 0.510 1.60 0.218 0.603 0.471 1.64 0.215
Gender 2.261 0.970 5.44 0.020** 2.320 1.681 1.91 0.168
Ethnicity −0.978 1.145 0.73 0.393 1.250 1.340 0.87 0.351
Time*gender −0.699 0.350 3.96 0.047 −0.076 0.551 1.92 0.166
Time*ethnic 0.487 0.403 1.43 0.233 −0.259 0.485 0.29 0.593
Open in a new tab

Source: Project Northland Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 2002–2005

**

p < .025

We explore social versus commercial access to alcohol by young teens in a diverse, urban environment. Social sources dominated all years for alcohol users (n=1328) and consistent users (n=329).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine sources of alcohol by young adolescents over time in a large, ethnically-diverse population of mostly poor, urban youth. The present study findings support our primary hypotheses that social sources were the most prevalent sources of alcohol, and sources of alcohol changed over time for all alcohol users and the sub-sample of consistent users. Specifically, parents and guardians surpassed all other sources of alcohol initially, but significantly decreased by the end of 8th grade. Both accessing alcohol from another adult >21 and someone <21 significantly increased over time, with another adult >21 becoming the most common source of alcohol at the end of 8th grade. Accessing alcohol from someone <21 did not significantly increase for consistent users. Finally, taking alcohol from home and commercial access increased significantly over the study time period. Our secondary hypotheses regarding gender and ethnic differences were only partially supported as few gender and no statistically significant racial/ethnic differences were found among sources of alcohol.

Our findings that the predominant source of alcohol for young teens is parents underscores the importance of educating parents regarding provision of alcohol to their children and children’s friends. Parental education about the need to eliminate, lock up and/or monitor alcohol in the home may be necessary to prevent youth from having easy access to alcohol in a convenient location, particularly as taking alcohol from home also significantly increased over time. Parents who provide their children with alcohol on special occasions or religious events may want to consider all subsequent effects, including increased acceptance of alcohol at a young age, in addition to the perceived religious or bonding benefits. Interventions should target and enhance known methods for alcohol prevention/reduction at the family level, such as improving parent-child relationships, parental monitoring and communication, consistent rule-setting and enforcement, and family skills training (Komro and Toomey 2002).

The present study’s findings that the primary source of alcohol shifts with age from parents to other adults and youth <21 highlight the need for alcohol prevention efforts to address these social sources of alcohol, particularly before high school; a major challenge for alcohol prevention efforts (Komro and Toomey 2002). Community-level interventions that provide alcohol free community events and settings for youth, may deter alcohol initiation and decrease youth’s reliance on young adults as a source of alcohol access.

Our findings indicate that commercial sources are not primary outlets for youth access, but that they increase in importance as youth age (Wagenaar, Toomey et al. 1996; Harrison, Fulkerson et al. 2000). This increase extends the previous cross-sectional research illustrating that older adolescents use commercial sources to obtain alcohol more often than younger adolescents. While young adolescents may not be purchasing alcohol illegally, legal purchases by adults or illegal purchases by minors may filter to underage youth, particularly in areas with high alcohol outlet density. Hence, social sources of alcohol to youth flow from easy community access (Wagenaar, Toomey et al. 1996). Strategies for reducing access to minors identified in previous cross-sectional studies include continued monitoring and enforcement of underage sales and drinking laws, increased vigilance regarding keg registration, increasing the price of alcohol, and enforcement of laws prohibiting buying alcohol for minors. Although limiting commercial access of alcohol to underage youth should continue to be emphasized in the community in general, the primary focus for this age group should be on reducing social sources.

Our findings showed that males were more likely than females to use commercial sources and social sources were equally used by males and females. While this finding appears to be in contrast to previous research that has shown a greater reliance on social sources among young females (Harrison, Fulkerson et al. 2000; Hussong 2000), perhaps the prevalence of social sources among females increases in later adolescence as they begin to socialize and date older males.

The present study is unique as no other study, to the authors’ knowledge, has followed young, racially-diverse, poor urban youth over a two and a half year period, observing patterns of social and commercial alcohol access in this manner. Particularly unique to this study was our ability to follow a sub-sample of consistent drinkers who initiated alcohol use at a young age and continued drinking, and assess if their patterns of access were unique. The present study provides an important extension to research on commercial access (Wagenaar, Toomey et al. 1996; Jones-Webb, Toomey et al. 1997; Harrison, Fulkerson et al. 2000; Dent, Grube et al. 2005) by showing that social access is particularly salient for young, racially-diverse adolescents (6–8th grade) and prominent among consistent and early initiating alcohol users.

The present study has limitations. Only a minority of youth were using alcohol at the beginning of sixth grade (17%) which limited the sample size because alcohol access could only be asked among users. However, the study was conducted with a rigorous study design and the sample size increased over time, providing a greater understanding of how adolescents as young as 12 years of age access alcohol. Another limitation is that some students may have counted small amounts of alcohol as “drinks.” Although, the students were given visual cues and reminders on the survey that sips of alcohol do not count as having consumed alcohol in the past 12 months, it is possible that some of the students reported drinking alcohol in the past year when they consumed a very small amount. These adolescents could have received small amounts of alcohol from their parents at dinner or religious events which could account for the predominance of parental access in the earliest time points. However, if parents were providing alcohol under these circumstances, we would expect these patterns to continue over time. Instead, the prevalence of parental access decreases over time. Lastly, our analysis of those lost to follow-up showed that those lost were at higher risk for alcohol use, thus our findings are likely attenuated.

This study also has many strengths, including the large, ethnically-diverse sample and the longitudinal design of the study. This study is relevant for intervention development emphasizing the importance of social access when the target population is young and when intervening in an urban area. The research literature and prevention efforts will benefit if future studies develop items that can assess the motivation of individuals for providing alcohol to youth. Prevention of early onset of alcohol is a critical component of ensuring the short- and long-term health and safety of our youth (Greenblatt 2000; Hingson, Jamanka et al. 2001; Subramanian 2002; Stueve and O’Donnell 2005) as well as deterring legal troubles. Recognizing the importance of social sources of alcohol and how social sources change as children age offers an ideal opportunity for primary prevention.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by grant R01-AA13458 from NIAAA to Kelli A. Komro, PhD. All study methods were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Minnesota. We thank the Project Northland-Chicago staff for extensive efforts in data collection, data management and computer programming.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  1. Crum RM, Lillie-Blanton M, et al. Neighborhood environment and opportunity to use cocaine and other drugs in late childhood and early adolescence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1996;43(3):155–61. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(96)01298-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dent CW, Grube JW, et al. Community level alcohol availability and enforcement of possession laws as predictors of youth drinking. Prev Med. 2005;40(3):355–62. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.06.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Duncan SC, Duncan TE, et al. A multilevel analysis of neighborhood context and youth alcohol and drug problems. Prev Sci. 2002;3(2):125–33. doi: 10.1023/a:1015483317310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Forster JL, McGovern PG, et al. The ability of young people to purchase alcohol without age identification in northeastern Minnesota, USA. Addiction. 1994;89(6):699–705. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1994.tb00956.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Forster JL, Murray DM, et al. Commercial availability of alcohol to young people: results of alcohol purchase attempts. Prev Med. 1995;24(4):342–7. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1995.1056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Freisthler B, Gruenewald PJ, et al. Evaluating alcohol access and the alcohol environment in neighborhood areas. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003;27(3):477–84. doi: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000057043.04199.B7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gorman DM, Speer PW. The concentration of liquor outlets in an economically disadvantaged city in the northeastern United States. Subst Use Misuse. 1997;32(14):2033–46. doi: 10.3109/10826089709035618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Greenblatt J. Patterns of alcohol use among adolescents and associations with emotional and behavioral problems. OAS Working Paper 2000 [Google Scholar]
  9. Grube JW. Preventing sales of alcohol to minors: results from a community trial. Addiction. 1997;92(Suppl 2):S251–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hansen W, Tobler N, et al. Attrition in Substance-Abuse Prevention Research - a Metaanalysis of 85 Longitudinally Followed Cohorts. Evaluation Review. 1990;14(6):677–685. [Google Scholar]
  11. Harrison PA, Fulkerson JA, et al. The relative importance of social versus commercial sources in youth access to tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs. Prev Med. 2000;31(1):39–48. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2000.0691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hingson R, Jamanka H, et al. Age of Drinking Onset and Unintentional Injury Involvement After Drinking. Washington, D.C: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hussong A. The settings of adolescent alcohol and drug use. Journal of Youth & Adolescence. 2000;29(1):107–19. [Google Scholar]
  14. Johnston L, O’Malley P, et al. University of Michigan News and Information Services. Ann Arbor, MI: 2004. Overall teen drug use continues gradual decline; but use of inhalants rises. [Google Scholar]
  15. Jones-Webb R, Toomey T, et al. Why and in what context adolescents obtain alcohol from adults: a pilot study. Subst Use Misuse. 1997;32(2):219–28. doi: 10.3109/10826089709027310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Komro KA, Perry CL, et al. Reliability and validity of self-report measures to evaluate drug and violence prevention programs. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse. 2004;13(3):17–51. [Google Scholar]
  17. Komro KA, Perry CL, et al. Brief report: the adaptation of Project Northland for urban youth. J Pediatr Psychol. 2004;29(6):457–66. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsh049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Komro KA, Perry CL, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation of a home-based program for alcohol use prevention among urban youth: The Slick Tracy Home Team Program. Journal of Primary Prevention. 2006;27(2):135–154. doi: 10.1007/s10935-005-0029-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Komro KA, Perry CL, et al. How did Project Northland reduce alcohol use among young adolescents? Analysis of mediating variables. Health Educ Res. 2001;16(1):59–70. doi: 10.1093/her/16.1.59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Komro KA, Toomey TL. Strategies to prevent underage drinking. Alcohol Res Health. 2002;26(1):5–14. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. LaVeist TA, Wallace JM., Jr Health risk and inequitable distribution of liquor stores in African American neighborhood. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(4):613–7. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00004-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. O’Leary D, Gorman DM, et al. The sale of alcoholic beverages to minors. Public Health Rep. 1994;109(6):816–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ott R, Longnecker M. Multiple comparison: An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. Australia: Duxbury Thomson Learning; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  24. Perry CL, Komro KA, et al. The Minnesota DARE PLUS Project: creating community partnerships to prevent drug use and violence. J Sch Health. 2000;70(3):84–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2000.tb06451.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Perry CL, Komro KA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the middle and junior high school D.A.R.E. and D.A.R.E. Plus programs. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003;157(2):178–84. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.157.2.178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Perry CL, Williams CL, et al. Background, conceptualization and design of a community-wide research program on adolescent alcohol use: Project Northland. Health Educ Res. 1993;8(1):125–36. doi: 10.1093/her/8.1.125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Perry CL, Williams CL, et al. Project Northland: long-term outcomes of community action to reduce adolescent alcohol use. Health Educ Res. 2002;17(1):117–32. doi: 10.1093/her/17.1.117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Preusser DF, Williams AF. Sales of alcohol to underage purchasers in three New York counties and Washington, D.C. J Public Health Policy. 1992;13(3):306–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Stueve A, O’Donnell LN. Early alcohol initiation and subsequent sexual and alcohol risk behaviors among urban youths. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(5):887–93. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2003.026567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Subramanian R. N. C. f. S. a. Analysis, NHTSA, using NCHS (CDC) 2002 Mortality Data. 2002. Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes as a Leading Cause of Death in the United States, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  31. Wagenaar A, Murray DM, et al. Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol: Outcomes from a randomized community trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2002;61(1):85–94. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2000.61.85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Wagenaar A, Perry CL. Community strategies for the reduction of youth drinking: Theory and application. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 1994;4(2):319–345. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wagenaar AC, Toomey TL, et al. Sources of alcohol for underage drinkers. J Stud Alcohol. 1996;57(3):325–33. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1996.57.325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Williams CL, Perry CL. Lessons from Project Northland: preventing alcohol problems during adolescence. Alcohol Health Res World. 1998;22(2):107–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Williams CL, Toomey T, et al. Development, reliability, and validity of self-report alcohol-use measures with young adolescents. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse. 1995;4(3):17–39. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES