3. Speak up! Respect others’ viewpoints We are all here because we are invested in progress Refrain from “blaming” Funding requirements and limitations

4. Policy initiatives updates – next steps Scanners are in! Now What Coalition building, determine the other drug(s) that SNAP will address.

5. YA Binge Drinking Retail Availability Lack of consequences Service to VIPs in bars that cater to YAs High concentration of bars/nightclubs especially in PDX E.D. State laws regarding alcohol service impede local enforcement of liquor laws Enforcement has limited capacity for MIPs and when MIPs are issued there is no consequence/intervention through the court. 34% of 44 outlets served “VIPs” in ED Law enforcement/retailer observations 44.5% of 18- 25 report binge drinking in the last month (NSDUH) Statewide 13 VIP violations; 5 Serious and Persistent in 2012 Lack of local control Consistent theme in law enforcement interviews PSU survey: 27% actually used 10+ days, 67% perceived most YAs are using 10+ days Problem Root Cause Local Condition Community Norms Support Use Frequent theme with youth focus groups and town halls Perception of acceptability Perception of community culture Misperception of drinking rates Visible intoxication and high rates of calls for service in PDX E.D. MC 3.6 outlets per 100 YAs (state is 2.8) Highest concentration downtown 3 OLCC officers for district Policy of Juvenile Court 3,128 drinking in public in PDX Frequent calls for service (in E.D.) Higher use rates than state average but lower incidents per 100 18-25 year olds: MIP(.85 vs. 4.4), DUII (.74 vs. 1.3), Liquor Law Violations (.95 vs. 2.5) 63% of YA drank at bar, restaurant or club when drinking (OHA Survey)

6. How Saturation Fits SNAP’s Plan Too Many YAs Binge Drinking Retail Availability High concentration of bars/nightclubs especially in PDX E.D. Problem Root Cause Local Condition 44.5% of 18- 25 report binge drinking in the last month (NSDUH) MC 3.6 outlets per 100 YAs (state is 2.8) Highest concentration downtown 67% of YA drank at bar, restaurant or club when drinking (OHA Survey)

7. Rulemaking as a means for education Leveling the playing field for responsible bar owners www.pamaction.com

9. How MIP work Fits SNAP’s Plan Too Many YAs Binge Drinking Lack of Consequences Enforcement has limited capacity for MIPs and when MIPs are issued no consequence /intervention through the court. Problem Root Cause Local Condition 44.5% of 18- 25 report binge drinking in the last month (NSDUH) 3 OLCC enforcement; limited PPB officer time for all nightlife in pdx, including extra 8,000 who come to E.D. on weekends Juvenile Court issues letter to parents as policy Higher use rates than state average but lower incidents per 100 18-25 year olds: MIP(.85 vs. 4.4), DUII (.74 vs. 1.3), Liquor Law Violations (.95 vs. 2.5) (2011 Oregon State Police, Data) 2013: 410 from OLCC

10. Enforcement: Additional officer time E-ticket writers Policy: initial steps: collecting data, making the case, increasing awareness Outreach/Education: Increase collaboration among schools/community/courts, etc.

11. How Scanners Fit SNAP’s Plan Too Many YAs Binge Drinking Retail Availability Service to VIPs in bars that cater to young adults ProblemRoot Cause Local Condition 44.5% of 18- 25 report binge drinking in the last month (NSDUH) 67% of YA drank at bar, restaurant or club when drinking (OHA Survey) 34% of 44 outlets served “VIPs” in ED Law enforcement/retailer observations

12. Bars participating 12 months of service Big Thanks LFL and PPB!!!! Next steps for SNAP?