The Local Option

An Alaskan policy to reduce alcohol-related harm in villages

My Project Objectives

• Objectives: – to understand the greater success of the

Local Option in some villages in reducing alcohol related harm

– to report to village residents and state policymakers, so the findings may inform local and state decision making

• Long term goal: to contribute to development of policies that will reduce alcohol-related harm in rural Alaska

Study Region

Doyon / TCC Region

And Fourth Judicial District

Fourth Judicial District extends to Yup’ik region in Western Alaska, allowing inclusion of some Yup’ik villages

Methods• Use of quantitative data

– state and local crime reports, death reports, demographic info, etc.

• Limitations: reported data ≠ number of incidents

• Original qualitative research– Interviews in Fairbanks and in villages to understand

peoples’ perceptions of conditions, successes, challenges, failures in their villages

• Limitations: biases, personal attitudes; info is anecdotal • (perceptions reflect expectations; evaluative terminology is

relative – good, bad, better, worse . . . )

Stage I – Exploratory Research in Fairbanks

• Interview professionals who live in or visit villages regularly

– Health care workers, police officers, magistrates, teachers, TCC contacts, chiefs

• Develop hypotheses re: greater success in some villages

• Select villages for case studies / secure invitations to villages

• Seek funding for Stages II and III

Potential Variables• Historic

– Time of regular contact with outsiders

– History of missionization

• Social and Health– Village health aide?– Active church org?– Org. non-alcoholic events?– Sobriety movement?– Strong adult role models?– Amount of social capital

among residents

• Physical / demographic– On or off road system– Distance from hub– Age dist. of residents– Male-female ratio– Avg. ed. level of adults– Ethnic homogeneity

• Economic– Level of public assist.– % of males doing subsist.– % males, females

employed

Variables (cont.)

• Political– Degree of community support behind Local

Option (measured by vote count, active vigilance against bootlegging, efforts to rescind vote)

– Presence of law enforcement– Presence of active tribal gov’t– Other community orgs. (relates to social

capital issue)

Stage II – Case Studies

• Travel to selected villages

• Conduct interviews with village residents to learn their perspectives on – Alcohol problems– Trends– Explanations for current conditions– Frustrations

Measures of Success

• Positive change as perceived by residents– Fewer alcohol-related disturbances– Improved school attendance and/or better

academic performance (teacher perceptions)

• Reduction in alcohol-related crimes

• Reductions in reported child abuse and neglect

• Reductions in accidents, suicides and other alcohol-related deaths

Stage III

• Report back to villages on findings (ask for responses)

• Report to AFN (ask for responses)

• Report to legislature (ask for responses)

• Publish findings

Progress

• Identification of six villages of interest– Two road system villages– Two villages with community-owned stores– Two remote dry villages

• Met with IRB officer

• Developed interview questions, tested them with grad students

Progress (cont.)• Contacts and interviews:

– Tribal court administrator at TCC• She’s interested incollaborating and could offer villages

support through workshops on making the local option work better.

– Director of VPSO program at TCC– Member of the ABC Board– Tribal leader in one target village

• Plus other villagers there (background)– Magistrate in village with community store– Fairbanksan with strong ties to other village with community

store– Pastor in non-study village near planned study village for

background

Challenges• Developing relationships with villages

– I’m an outsider– My bringing up the issue will raise tension in

villages– Tension could result in revisiting L.O. status

• Funding . . .

• Chicken or egg question re: funding and village selection