Community Attitudes Regarding Binge Drinking

1
Community Attitudes Regarding Binge Drinking
JANUARY 2003 Prepared by Cogent Research,
LLC www.cogentresearch.com
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

• OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY
• STRATEGIC SUMMARY
• RESEARCH FINDINGS
• ALCOHOL AND THE COMMUNITY
• STUDENT DRINKING
• ALCOHOL-RELATED POLICIES
• RESIDENT PROFILE

3
OBJECTIVES

• The purpose of this study is to measure
• Attitudes among residents of Iowa City and
  Coralville regarding underage and binge drinking
• Community support for policies and programs
  designed to reduce the level of underage and
  binge drinking among University of Iowa students
  and
• Changes in attitudes and perceptions among
  residents from a similar study conducted in 1998.

4
METHODOLOGY
Population Iowa City and Coralville
residents Methodology Telephone survey Data
Collection Period November 21-27, 2002 Sample
Size (error) n400 ( 4.9 pp) At 95
confidence level ( 6.0 when compared with 1998
results)
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS

• OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY
• STRATEGIC SUMMARY
• RESEARCH FINDINGS
• ALCOHOL AND THE COMMUNITY
• STUDENT DRINKING
• ALCOHOL-RELATED POLICIES
• RESIDENT PROFILE

6
STRATEGIC SUMMARY

• As was the case in 1998, binge drinking and
  underage drinking are considered to be serious
  problems by majorities of residents.
• The percentage of residents who characterize
  binge drinking and underage drinking as serious
  problems has remained relatively stable since
  1998. In contrast, levels of concern about many
  other issues (e.g., illegal drug use and teen
  pregnancy) have decreased significantly since
  1998.
• Student drinking is perceived to be a widespread
  problem at UI.
• The majority of respondents believe that more
  than one-quarter of the student population
  participates in binge drinking.
• Residents tend to believe that students have a
  particularly laid-back attitude toward binge
  drinking.
• Similar to 1998, residents perceive that UI
  students drink primarily for social reasons.
• Residents believe that most student drinking
  takes place in downtown bars.

7
STRATEGIC SUMMARY

• From a list of alcohol-related problems, those
  issues that are considered to be most serious and
  most closely tied to alcohol consumption include
  
• Erratic driving
• Sexual assault
• Disorderly conduct
• Noise disturbance
• These are problems that residents are most
  hopeful about reducing through additional
  policies aimed at alcohol consumption. Other
  problems that were tested are either not
  considered to be relatively serious issues facing
  the community, or are not perceived to be as
  closely tied to drinking and therefore not as
  directly impacted by alcohol-related policies.

8
STRATEGIC SUMMARY

• Similar to 1998, residents are most strongly in
  favor of strict enforcement of existing laws as a
  strategy for addressing alcohol-related
  problems.
• These laws include not selling alcohol to someone
  who is clearly intoxicated, not selling alcohol
  to underage individuals, and governing the use of
  fake IDs.
• Several other proposed solutions including
  lowering the blood alcohol standard for drunk
  driving and requiring kegs to be registered met
  with much lower support among residents, again
  similar to 1998.

9
STRATEGIC SUMMARY

• The various initiatives designed to address
  excessive student drinking have met with general
  support, particularly among older residents and
  those who perceive binge drinking to be a serious
  problem. Perhaps not surprisingly, younger
  residents, as well as those who are less
  concerned about binge drinking, are least
  supportive of these measures, especially parental
  notification.
• Support is strongest for the Alcohol-free
  tailgate area.
• Support is also strong for Saving Englert
  Theatre, although awareness is particularly low,
  especially among younger, newer residents.
• Overall, awareness is relatively low regarding
  Saving Pearsons. Among those familiar with the
  effort, however, most are in support.
• Respondents are divided in their opinions about
  the Nuisance Party Ordinance, with just over
  one-third in favor and one-quarter in
  opposition.
• Parental notification is the most controversial
  of the policy efforts, with 48 in favor and 36
  opposed.

10
TABLE OF CONTENTS

• OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY
• STRATEGIC SUMMARY
• RESEARCH FINDINGS
• ALCOHOL AND THE COMMUNITY
• STUDENT DRINKING
• ALCOHOL-RELATED POLICIES
• RESIDENT PROFILE

11
COMMUNITY PROBLEMS
Alcohol-related problems, particularly underage
drinking and binge drinking, are considered to be
among the most serious community problems by
residents.
Single most important community
problem 2002 1998 Underage drinking 24 29 Drun
ken driving 18 15 Binge drinking 18 11 Illegal
drug use 9 15 Proliferation of bars
downtown 8 1 Limited choice of retail/ shopping
outlets downtown 6 1 Underage
smoking 3 6 Racism 2 4 Teen-age
pregnancy 2 3 Teen-age suicide 2 2 Teenagers
congregating on the pedestrian
mall 1 3 Vandalism 1 1
Percentage 4-5
Continued on following page
Data unavailable for 1998
Q3-Q14. On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being not
a problem and 5 being a very serious problem,
please tell me how you would rate each of the
following items in the community. Q15. Of the
community problems in the preceding list, which
is the single most important community problem in
your opinion?
12
While concern about underage drinking and binge
drinking has remained stable over the past four
years, most other issues tested are perceived to
be a serious community problem by fewer residents
today than in 1998.
COMMUNITY PROBLEMS
Continued from previous page
Percentage 4-5
Women are more likely than men to believe that
binge drinking is a very serious community
problem.
Data unavailable for 1998
Q3-Q14. On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being not
a problem and 5 being a very serious problem,
please tell me how you would rate each of the
following items in the community.
13
As was the case in 1998, littering, erratic
driving behavior, and sexual assault are
perceived to be serious problems facing Iowa
City/Coralville by one-quarter of residents or
more.
SECONDHAND EFFECTS EXTENT OF PROBLEM
Continued on following page
Percentage 4-5
Q16-Q27. On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being
not a problem and 5 being a very serious
problem, please tell me how much of a problem
you think each item is in the Iowa
City/Coralville area.
14
None of the problems tested are perceived to a
serious problem by significantly more residents
in 2002 than 1998. In contrast, many items
(including sexual, verbal, and physical assault,
as well as threats of physical violence) are
perceived by fewer people to be serious problems
facing the community in 2002 than in 1998.
SECONDHAND EFFECTS EXTENT OF PROBLEM
Continued from previous page
Percentage 4-5
Data unavailable for 1998
Q16-Q27. On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being
not a problem and 5 being a very serious
problem, please tell me how much of a problem
you think each item is in the Iowa
City/Coralville area.
15
As was the case in 1998, the majority of
respondents believe that there are many problems
directly tied to alcohol consumption, especially
public urination and disorderly conduct.
SECONDHAND EFFECTS ROLE OF ALCOHOL
Percentage 4-5
Continued on following page
Q28-Q39. Now I would like you to think about the
extent to which you think each of these items are
alcohol related. Please use a scale that ranges
from 1 to 5 with 1 being alcohol was definitely
not a factor and 5 being alcohol was the main
factor.
16
SECONDHAND EFFECTS ROLE OF ALCOHOL
Continued from previous page
Percentage 4-5
Data unavailable for 1998
Q28-Q39. Now I would like you to think about the
extent to which you think each of these items are
alcohol related. Please use a scale that ranges
from 1 to 5 with 1 being alcohol was definitely
not a factor and 5 being alcohol was the main
factor.
17
Secondhand Effects Matrix
The chart on the following page illustrates the
extent to which the problems tested are perceived
to be serious alcohol-related problems in the
community. Problems are plotted from right to
left in order of perceived seriousness in the
community, and from bottom to top based on the
extent to which each is perceived to be related
to alcohol. Upper-Right Quadrant More Serious
Problem, Higher Alcohol Role. This is perhaps the
most critical area because it reflects problems
that are both perceived to be serious concerns in
the community, and are perceived to be closely
tied to alcohol consumption. These problems
include erratic driving, sexual assault,
disorderly conduct and noise disturbance. Lower-R
ight Quadrant More Serious Problem, Lower
Alcohol Role. Items is this quadrant are
perceived to be relatively serious problems
facing the community, but are not closely linked
to alcohol in respondents minds (e.g.,
littering). Upper-Left Quadrant Less Serious
Problem, Higher Alcohol Role. These items are
closely linked to alcohol, but are not perceived
to be among the most serious problems facing the
community. They tend to be rarer problems, or
less-threatening nuisances (e.g., public
urination). Lower-Left Quadrant Less Serious
Problem, Lower Alcohol Role. These items are
perceived to be neither relatively serious
community problems nor closely tied to alcohol
consumption (e.g., trespassing), and are not high
priorities.
18
As explained on the previous page, erratic
driving, sexual assault, disorderly conduct and
noise disturbance all fall into the critical
upper-right quadrant of problems that score
relatively high in both perceived seriousness and
relationship to alcohol.
SECOND-HAND EFFECTS MATRIX
K
D
J
C
H
I
E
A
G
F
Role of Alcohol Mean 3.45
L
B
Extent of Problem Mean 2.40
A Erratic Driving Behavior B Littering C Sexual
Assault
D Disorderly Conduct E Noise Disturbance F
Traffic Accidents
G Property Damage/Vandalism H Physical Assault I
Verbal Assault in a Public Setting
J Threat of Physical Violence K Public
Urination L Trespassing
19
The majority of respondents believe there are
specific areas in the region where these problems
are particularly common. They mention downtown
far more often then anywhere else, including
student neighborhoods and the universitys campus.
PROBLEM LOCATIONS
Q41 IF Q40YES Where? (multiple
response) N283 Downtown 77 Student
neighborhoods 14 On campus 12 Coralville
2 Pedestrian Mall 4 Around bars in general
2 Low frequency responses 7 Don't
know/Refused 1
Not surprisingly, respondents who live within a
mile of campus are more than twice as likely as
other respondents to say that these problems are
especially common in student neighborhoods.
However, even these residents mention downtown
far more often than any other area.
Q40. Are there specific areas within Iowa
City/Coralville where the behaviors in the
preceding question are especially a problem in
your view?
20
TABLE OF CONTENTS

• OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY
• STRATEGIC SUMMARY
• RESEARCH FINDINGS
• ALCOHOL AND THE COMMUNITY
• STUDENT DRINKING
• ALCOHOL-RELATED POLICIES
• RESIDENT PROFILE

21
The social aspect of drinking is the most obvious
explanation for student drinking, according to
respondents. This view was also held by
respondents in 1998.
STUDENT DRINKING CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Continued on following page
Percentage 4-5
Data unavailable for 1998
Q42-Q53. On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being
definitely not a factor and 5 being a
significant factor, to what extent are each of
the following reasons that students drink alcohol?
22
STUDENT DRINKING CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Continued from previous page
Percentage 4-5
Q42-Q53. On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being
definitely not a factor and 5 being a
significant factor, to what extent are each of
the following reasons that students drink alcohol?
23
The majority of respondents believe that more
than 25 of UI undergraduates are binge drinkers.
BINGE DRINKING EXTENT OF PROBLEM
2002
Respondents who are particularly likely to
perceive that UI has a high volume of binge
drinkers include younger (18-34) residents, those
with household incomes under 50,000, and UI
alumni or students.
NOTE Data unavailable for 1998
Q55. Based on what you have heard or
experienced, approximately what percentage of all
UI undergraduate students are binge drinkers?
24
The majority of respondents think that most UI
student alcohol drinking occurs in downtown bars.
STUDENT DRINKING LOCATION
2002
NOTE Data unavailable for 1998
Q54. Where do you think most UI student alcohol
drinking occurs?
25
Not surprisingly, respondents own views about
binge drinking are more conservative than their
perception of the typical students views.
BINGE DRINKING ACCEPTABILITY
Own view
Perceived student view
2002
2002
NOTE Data unavailable for 1998
Q56. Which of the following statements best
reflects your views about high risk
drinking? Q57. And which of those same
statements best reflects what you think is the
typical view of UI undergraduates about high risk
drinking?
26
TABLE OF CONTENTS

• OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY
• STRATEGIC SUMMARY
• RESEARCH FINDINGS
• ALCOHOL AND THE COMMUNITY
• STUDENT DRINKING
• ALCOHOL-RELATED POLICIES
• RESIDENT PROFILE

27
Among policy changes and events, support is
strongest for the alcohol-free tailgate area and
Saving Englert Theatre, although there is some
opposition to each. Parental notification
garners the most polarized reaction among
respondents.
POLICY CHANGES AND EVENTS
Support (Percent 4-5)
Oppose (Percent 1-2)
Alcohol-free tailgate area
Saving Englert Theatre
Parental notification of UI students arrested for
alcohol violations
Nuisance party ordinance
Saving Pearsons
NOTE Data unavailable for 1998
NOTE 3s and dont knows are not shown.
Q74-Q78. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being
strongly oppose and 5 being strongly support
please tell me to what extent you support the
event or change.
28
Among all of the initiatives, the Alcohol-free
Tailgate Area has the greatest support (mean
score3.66). However, a core group of
respondents are opposed to it.
POLICY INITIATIVES
ALCOHOL-FREE TAILGATE AREA
Strongly Oppose
Strongly Support
Not aware/DK
Mean
6
3.66
1
2
3
4
5
Support for the Alcohol-free tailgate area is
strongest among longer-term residents (10
years), respondents over 35, those who live more
than one mile from campus, and those who perceive
binge drinking to be a serious community
problem.Respondents who live within one mile of
campus, younger respondents, and those who do not
perceive binge drinking to be a serious problem
are most likely to oppose the measure. However,
even among these groups, support for an
alcohol-free tailgate area far outweighs
opposition.
Q76. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being
strongly oppose and 5 being strongly support
please tell me to what extent you support the
event or change Alcohol-free tailgate area at UI
football games.
29
Residents support Saving Englert Theatre by a
greater than two-to-one margin (50 vs. 20), and
are nearly three times more likely to strongly
support the effort than strongly oppose it.
POLICY INITIATIVES
SAVING ENGLERT THEATRE
Strongly Oppose
Strongly Support
Not aware/DK
Mean
8
3.53
1
2
3
4
5
The strongest supporters for Saving Englert
Theatre include those with college degrees, and
UI alumni or students.Respondents who have
lived in the area for no more than two years and
those 18-34 are significantly more likely to be
unaware of Saving Englert Theatre than others are.
Q75. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being
strongly oppose and 5 being strongly support
please tell me to what extent you support the
event or change Saving Englert Theatre.
30
While awareness of the Saving Pearsons effort is
relatively low, compared with other initiatives,
support outweighs opposition.
POLICY INITIATIVES
SAVING PEARSONS
Strongly Oppose
Strongly Support
Mean
Not aware/DK
22
3.52
1
2
3
4
5
Among those respondents least aware of Saving
Pearsons are those age 18-34 and those who have
lived in the community for less than three
years. Support for Saving Pearsons is strongest
among long-term residents (10 years), residents
age 35, and women.
Q77. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being
strongly oppose and 5 being strongly support
please tell me to what extent you support the
event or change Saving Pearsons.
31
Residents are divided in their opinions about the
Nuisance Party Ordinance, with just over
one-third in favor and one-quarter in opposition.
Nearly one-in-five residents are not familiar
with the ordinance or do not have an opinion.
POLICY INITIATIVES
NUISANCE PARTY ORDINANCE
Strongly Oppose
Strongly Support
Not aware/DK
Mean
19
3.21
1
2
3
4
5
Support for the ordinance is strongest among
residents over 54, and those who consider binge
drinking to be a serious problem in the
community. Opposition to the ordinance is
greatest among men, residents 18-34, and those
who believe that binge drinking is not a serious
problem.
Q74. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being
strongly oppose and 5 being strongly support
please tell me to what extent you support the
event or change Nuisance Party Ordinance.
32
Parental notification is the most controversial
of the policy efforts, with 48 in favor and 36
opposed.
POLICY INITIATIVES
PARENTAL NOTIFICATION
Strongly Oppose
Strongly Support
Not aware/DK
Mean
3
3.23
1
2
3
4
5
Predictably, opposition to parental notification
is strongest among residents who fit the student
profile recent residents, under 35, live within
a mile of the university, and unmarried. In
addition, opposition is greatest among those who
do not perceive binge drinking to be a serious
community problem. Support for parental
notification is greatest among longer-term
residents, those who live more than one mile from
campus, residents 35, married residents, and
those who perceive binge drinking to be a serious
problem in the community.
Q78. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being
strongly oppose and 5 being strongly support
please tell me to what extent you support the
event or change Parental notification of UI
students arrested for alcohol violations.
33
SUPPORT FOR POLICIES
The vast majority of respondents support strict
enforcement of existing laws aimed at reducing
drinking-related problems. This was also the
case in 1998.
Continued on following page
Percentage 4-5
Long-term residents (10 years), older residents
(55 years), and women are more likely to support
most of these initiatives than are their younger,
male counterparts.
Data unavailable for 1998
Q58-Q68. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being
strongly oppose and 5 being strongly favor,
please indicate whether you favor or oppose the
following initiatives to reduce problems related
to drinking?
34
SUPPORT FOR POLICIES
Continued from previous page
Percentage 4-5
Data unavailable for 1998
Q58-Q68. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being
strongly oppose and 5 being strongly favor,
please indicate whether you favor or oppose the
following initiatives to reduce problems related
to drinking?
35
TABLE OF CONTENTS

• OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY
• STRATEGIC SUMMARY
• RESEARCH FINDINGS
• ALCOHOL AND THE COMMUNITY
• STUDENT DRINKING
• ALCOHOL-RELATED POLICIES
• RESIDENT PROFILE

36
Nearly 90 of residents had gone downtown within
two weeks of being surveyed, most often to shop,
socialize or eat. One-third had gone to a
downtown bar.
PERSONAL BEHAVIOR
Why not?
Yes
No/Dont know

• Dont have what I want (32)
• No time/opportunity (11)
• Parking/lack of parking (10)

• Dont enjoy atmosphere (16)
• No time/opportunity (16)
• Dont have what I want (12)

• No time/opportunity (17)
• Dont have what I want (10)
• Parking/lack of parking (9)

• Dont enjoy atmosphere (24)
• Dont drink/go to bars (13)
• No time/opportunity (12)

• Dont have what I want (18)
• No need in general (11)
• Shop in other areas/places (10)

Residents most likely to have gone downtown for
any reason include UI alumni or students,
respondents who live within one mile of campus,
and respondents under 55.Respondents who had
gone to a downtown bar are disproportionately
men, unmarried, under 35, UI alumni or students,
living in households with annual incomes under
50,000 per year, and living within a mile of
campus.
Q69-Q73. Within the last two weeks have you..
IF NO Why not?
37
Respondents in the 2002 and 1998 studies had
similar demographic profiles.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
2002 1998 Less than 1 year 5 7 1 to 2
years 12 12 3 to 5 years 15 21 6 to 10
years 14 13 More than ten years 55 48 Less
than a mile 33 - More than a mile 66 - Don't
know 2 - Yes 59 63 No 41 37 HS/Less 14 15
Some college/Associates Degree 35 32 Bachelors
Degree 28 29 Post Graduate Degree 23 25
LIVED IN IOWA CITY/ CORALVILLE
DISTANCE FROM UI CAMPUS
ATTEND(ed) UI
EDUCATION
38
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
2002 1998 18-24 years 21 18 25-34
years 13 29 35-44 years 12 18 45-54
years 23 16 55-64 years 11 7 65 years or
older 10 10 Refused 11 3 0 83 83 1 11 11
2 3 4 3 1 - 4 or more - - Refused 3 1 White
93 87 Non-white 7 7 Other - 3 Refused 1 2

AGE
CHILDREN IN COLLEGE/ TECHNICAL SCHOOL
ETHNIC BACKGROUND
39
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
2002 1998 Yes 31 31 No 69 69 Married 54 47
Single 31 40 Divorced/Widowed/Separated 14 12
Living with Partner 2 1 Dont
know/Refused - 1 Under 30,000 31 34 30,000-
49,999 16 19 50,000-69,999 13 13 70,000 or
more 18 11 Dont know/Refused 25 24 Male 41
43 Female 60 57
KIDS IN HOUSE
MARITAL STATUS

INCOME
GENDER