13th Alcohol Policy Conference Preventing Alcohol Problems Among Youth: Policy Approaches

Friday - Sunday, March 14 - 16, 2003

Boston, Massachusetts, USA

 Planning Committee conference call, April 4, 2001

Agenda:

Introductions:

1.     Review Presentation

2.     Reactions, recommendations, changes

3.     Lessons learned from last year/previous conferences

4.     Role of the Advisory Group/Frequency of participation

5.     Securing support: financial, in-kind etc.

 Call was convened at 2PM 4/4/01

Present:  Michael Gilbreath, Tom Colthurst, Robert Denniston, Jim Mosher, Valerie Gompf, Marilyn Aguirre-Molina, Traci Toomey, Rich Yoast, David Jernigan, Sheila Nesbit, Mary Jo Vasquez, Gayle Boyd, Norman Giesbrecht, Bobby Heard

 Modified transcript/Notes:

(Please note that I have rearranged the sequence of some comments in an effort to consolidate discussion about topics into particular sections of the notes.)

Following general opening comments about EDC’s interest in hosting the next Alcohol Policy Conference, Michael G. reviewed the presentation that had been previously distributed to planning committee members.  Participants posed questions and suggestions regarding both focus and specific content, and in depth discussions ensued on many of these items.  These discussions are recorded below.

General theme:

There was a general consensus that the theme proposed, Alcohol and Youth was a good choice and would offer the opportunity to involve an important new constituency in policy work.  Concerns were raised about the ease with which educators in particular become fixated on curricular and other “individual” approaches even in the absence of evidence that they are effect.  It was suggested that we be very careful about the use of language in all conference materials regarding this matter, and that we continuously phrase the theme, and descriptions of conference actives in a way that will clearly indicate that this is a conference about linking the education and youth development communities to the policy analysis and activist communities, and not about programs per se.

Questions were raised about this with respect to EDC’s expertise and general orientation.  Michael provided background on the work being done in various units of EDC including the Higher Ed center, the Northeast Center for the Application of Prevention Technology, and the Center for Violence and Injury Prevention in particular that demonstrates EDC’s understanding of the importance of policy.  He also provided examples of efforts to direct educators in particular to both see and deal with policy issues.

It was agreed that if curricula, such as project Northland, were to be addressed/discussed at the conference it must be through the lens of understanding the larger environment in which curricula are to be implemented. (Examples of some comments follow)

“Northland is broad and has a strong policy component.  Might be a useful presentation to look at the environment in which policy is implemented.  Educational folks on the whole don’t gravitate to policy and they need to be shown the links…”

“Tradition of policy focus for this conference is important.  The challenge is that the literature on the impact educational approaches is pretty negative, only the ones that have a policy component would be likely to show impact.”

“That is the point.  There should be presentations on the need for policy.

“ (so, we are talking about) …policy within the institution that effects the behavior of individuals, and policy of the community that impacts the institution and the individuals….”

“Language will be important for example, with the issue forums not just plain vanilla ‘media advocacy’, but frame it as ‘media advocacy for policy on campus’.”

Constituency: 

In addition to reaching out to youth serving and education constituencies there was a consensus that this would be an important  opportunity to also reach out to other foundations that have a more traditional youth development focus and seek to involve them in participation (i.e. as speakers) if not in actual support of the conference.  (“It shouldn’t just be RWJ supporting this work.”) It could be useful to tap into other foundations that are doing youth development and help them to see how alcohol can impact the environment in which that development occurs.

Also with regard to audience/ constituency, Planning group members felt strongly that there is a need to look at how to create broader “… minority support for and involvement in policy work.”  Issues that we should be concerned about include: “What are the implications of alcohol industry support for the black community.  How does this impact the focus of those communities on the issue?”

“We haven’t generally looked at the cultural implications of policy, policy is not color blind.” It was suggested that we might be able to learn something from the tobacco prevention world that would help us to address this.

The ’92 meeting made a big effort, speakers, scholarships, 1 to 1 recruiting.   The groups working in low income/ethnic communities need to be brought into the dialogues. It was suggested that NAPI is still active Jesse Brown (director) might be a good contact.

Note was made of the latest census, ethnic and racial populations are now the majority in many areas, growth is astonishing.  Given lower consumption rates in Hispanic and Afro American communities and their overall growth, this is clearly driving industry thinking.  Analysis of the 15 largest Latino organization Boards, revealed that they get $$ and the industry sits on their boards. For many of the national “minority” associations, the beer companies are huge supporters for these events. This has made it difficult to build bridges to these communities because it means challenging relationships with key financial support.  In some cases, the  industry is sitting on the boards of these organizations.

It was agreed that attention to this should be integrated into the program as well as having specific formal presentations on the issues.

It was also noted that many of the community of color organizations have a very strong tendency to link prevention and treatment.  Is this something that should be discussed.  Many states now have parity coalitions and are working with recovering groups. The conference could be an opportunity to bring prevention and recovery work into policy focus.

Norman:  Get someone to speak about this at a breakout or even plenary session, how do prevention and recovery

Keynote Presentations

After a review of some of the EDC suggestions, the group spent a significant amount of time considering additional possibilities for Keynote presentations as these will be critical to setting the tone for the conference and keeping folks focused on policy.  Suggestions included:

·       Someone from WHO - WHO (director general) has announced a review of world wide marketing to young people.  Good work is happening in other countries, France, Spain.  Perhaps invite Dr. Brundlant or Derek Yak,

·       Involve one of the “first spouses” as a keynote.  They know it is important. (Michael pointed out that the Higher Ed Center has a strong relations ship with Hope Taft. There was agreement that she would be a great choice.)

·       If the conference is focused on youth then we should get a young person who is working in the policy realm. MADD could provide some contacts.

·       A good university president or district school superintendent.  (It was pointed out there are several presidents at AMOD sites who could fill this role, and also on the HEC Presidents Leadership Group.  There are also several members of the NIAAA panel such as Malloy and Pierce.

Questions were raised about the perspective of both Rod Paige and Bill Modzeleski with regard to the role of policy.  If they can speak clearly to the issue then they wold be good choices, if not, then not. (Could seriously impact the tone negatively)

General meeting formats

Michael provided a bit more detail about the intent of the working groups as designed to engender activity to take place after the conference. It was suggested that there should be working groups on International issues and on college policy issues possibly with a keynote pairing.

There was some agreement that formats that would allow participants to have greater interaction with each other were desirable. (Rich Yoast described the brief presentations with facilitated discussion that they have recently used with Underage Drinking coalitions.) 

The possibility of incorporating training sessions was raised.  In thinking about educators and policy we can ask the question; why don’t they feel comfortable with policy work?  They don’t like conflict.  How about hands on sessions for them that will walk through the challenges of engaging in policy work as a way to address the resistance and target particular strategies.  It was noted that training on computer modeling had been done in the past, and the question was posed “are there other tools that might be used.”  This also comes back to the question of how to show that policy works better than education.

It was noted that the Roundtable format at the 2000 conference worked well, and was well received.  Many participants indicated their enthusiasm for it.  This appeared to derive from both the opportunity to actually discuss topics and to the opportunity it represented to interact with others in the field and learn from their experience.

Role of Industry in conference:

Concern was raised that it would not be appropriate to have the industry represented on the program.  After some discussion there was general agreement that past practices/protocol should be followed.  They will not be sought out for participation, and the planners will reserve the right to decide on participation on a case by case basis, subject to planning group concurrence.  Past practice has included breakout sessions where the industry was challenged to debate the issues/defend their practices.  The Century Council has been an exhibitor for the past several conferences.  In response previous hosts have established both NPO For Profit exhibit rates.  The planners will also adopt previous guidelines regarding any possible offers of resources form the industry.  If the industry does participate we will ask plenary speakers to help shape the public response to them.

It was noted that in addition to efforts to market more aggressively to the minority community the industry is also making a major push with regard to college age youth.  They are approaching coalitions, they are “co-opting” social norms marketing campaigns (my language). There should be sessions focused on this.  (MG Note:  on reflection this could be an angle that resonates well with educators because of either focus on students as developing adults and their likely distaste for the industry to treat youth simply as potential consumers.  Many educators would be appalled if Anheuser Busch wanted to put a billboard in their classroom but they don’t see the similarity of the billboard at the stadium, the indirect marketing escapes them.  

Networking:

It was also suggested that one of the regular needs/desires of participants is the opportunity for networking and interaction.  The working groups may help address this:  For many this is the only opportunity folks get to network to organize.  In previous years, networking luncheons have been attempted but these seem in retrospect to not have been sufficient.  Importance of making connections.

Action oriented outcomes;

It was suggested that there is a need to bring the field together, having a focused, common agenda, something to rally around.  Try to build consensus around a few initiatives/issues to give direction to policy activity. It was agreed that the working groups could be structured to do this. An example is CSPI’s - alcohol and sports initiative.  We should also look at the European consensus statements.

What works is pretty well known, the question is how to make it work better, make it more sustainable, and to disseminate the knowledge.  Applying research is a big word, how do we put this in digestible chunks for this audience?  We should also note that no policy is a fait accompli forever, it is always open to challenge.  Need a presentation(s) about how to review and respond to policy as it changes.

Planning Group Members and Role:

We discussed possible additions to the group including possible addition of George Hacker (CSPI), and possibly someone from the faith community.

Doris ???,  Dean of students at U Hawaii, on Gold Key honor society.

Rich:  Faith community:  Target for recruitment of participants.  Methodists (Melissa Davis - special program on substance abuse and related violence) also involved in a college initiative with HBCUs

Sheila: In AP 12 Frank Canizales offered scholarships they have the funding for.

We briefly discussed possible meeting occasions that would bring the group together;.  It was agreed that at a minimum there would be a meeting a APHA in Atlanta.  It was suggested that EDC lay out a timeline and propose some check point meetings either in person or by phone.

Sheila Nesbit commented that in general, last years’ planning group worked very well using e-mail and conference calls, got an immense amount of work done this way.  There were also subcommittees formed for the planning committee members to actually work on particular program or recruitment tasks.

Next call

Next conference call will be used to review a timeline and possible subcommittees.  Participants agreed to hold 4/25 & 5/9 at 2 p.m. for the next call.  Michael will confirm date.

Other sources of support:

It was strongly suggested that before going to the foundation (RWJF) with a proposal for support that initial contacts with other potential sources supports be made so that the foundation will see the whole package.  Michael will discuss separately.  NHSTA representative will discuss and be in contact.

Michael thanked everyone for their participation, and the call ended at 3:40 p.m.