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