{"id":153,"date":"2016-05-18T07:45:22","date_gmt":"2016-05-18T11:45:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ctlsites.uga.edu\/hprb7010may2016\/?page_id=153"},"modified":"2016-06-07T21:16:28","modified_gmt":"2016-06-08T01:16:28","slug":"privatization-of-retail-alcohol-sales","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/ctlsites.uga.edu\/hprb7010may2016\/privatization-of-retail-alcohol-sales\/","title":{"rendered":"Privatization of Retail Alcohol Sales"},"content":{"rendered":"

Part I. Community Guide Update and Rationale for Intervention <\/u><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Author & Year<\/strong><\/td>\nIntervention Setting, Description, and Comparison Group(s)<\/strong><\/td>\nStudy Population Description and Sample Size<\/strong><\/td>\nEffect Measure (Variables)<\/strong><\/td>\nResults including Test Statistics and Significance<\/strong><\/td>\nFollow-up Time<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0Stockwell, et al., 2015<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0In British Columbia, Canada, this study shows the correlation between an increase in the density of private alcoholic beverage retail stores and along with increases in the price of alcohol on the amount of alcohol-related traffic incidences, crime against other people, and total crime.\u00a0 The density of stores and price of alcohol were studied separately, so correlations refer to each intervention separately.<\/td>\n\u00a0The population of interest are the citizens of British Columbia, Canada from 2002 to 2010 from 89 local health areas.<\/td>\nThe effect measure variables in this study are alcohol-related traffic incidences, person-on-person violations, and total crime rate.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0The minimum\u00a0alcohol sale price had an increase of 10%.\u00a0 The resulting increase led to a 18.81% (95%CI:+<\/span> 17.99, p<0.05) decrease in the amount of alcohol-related traffic incidences.\u00a0 This also led to a 9% (95%CI:+<\/span>\u00a05.95%, p<0.01) decrease of person on person violations.\u00a0 Total crime rates also decreased by 9.39% (95%CI:+<\/span>3.80%, p<0.001)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The study found no statistical significance of an increase in the density of privately owned and operated liquor stores on traffic violations, person to person crime, or total crime.<\/td>\n

\u00a0Annual data were collected from these 89 areas from 2002 to 2010.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0Zhao, et al., 2013<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0This study also takes place in British Columbia, Canada.<\/span><\/p>\n

Alcohol-attributable deaths are studied as price, outlet density, and socio-demographic changes occur from 2002 to 2009.<\/span><\/td>\n

Populations of 16 Health Service Delivery areas participate in this study.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

\u00a0The dependent variable is alcohol- attributed deaths.<\/span><\/p>\n

Independent variables are the price of alcohol and the density of alcohol outlets.<\/span><\/td>\n

A 10% increase in the average minimum price of alcohol led to a reduction in alcohol-attributed deaths\u00a0by\u00a031.72% (95%CI:+<\/span>\u00a025.73%, P<0.05)<\/span><\/p>\n

A 10% increase in the amount of privately own liquor stores\u00a0had increases in acute 2.45%(95%CI:+<\/span>\u00a02.39%, P<0.05), chronic 2.36%(95%CI:+<\/span>1.57%, P<0.05), and total 1.99%(95%CI:+<\/span>\u00a01.76%, P<0.05) alcohol-attributed mortality rates.<\/span><\/td>\n

From 2002 to 2009 there were 32 annual quarters at which measures were taken.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0Treno, et al., 2013<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0This British Columbia study looks at alcohol outlet density when there is partial privatization of retail alcohol and that relationship to alcohol price<\/span><\/td>\nLocal Health Area (LHA) densities of bars, restaurants, government liquor stores, private liquor stores.<\/span><\/p>\n

2 private liquor stores selected from each of 89 LHAs.<\/span><\/p>\n

Prices requested from 33 brands of alcohol<\/span><\/td>\n

\u00a0Variables include price, density of each type of alcohol outlet, and population density.<\/span><\/td>\nIncreased privately-owned liquor stores density results in lower alcohol prices.\u00a0 The doubling of private stores in each LHA would cause drop of $0.0049 per mL of ethanol, or a 3.7% reduction in ethanol price (p<0.05).<\/span><\/p>\n

Increased densities of government-run alcohol retail, bars, and restaurants did not result in alcohol price reduction.<\/span><\/td>\n

\u00a0Surveys on price at private liquor stores conducted from June 2010 to October 2010.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

The strategy strongly recommends against<\/span> privatization of the alcohol retail industry.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Community Preventive Services Task Force currently recommends against the privatization of alcohol sales that would allow alcoholic beverages to be sold by retail vendors that are not state-owned (Community Guide).\u00a0 The Task Force has found that, in the states that have privatization of alcohol sales, an increase in the alcohol purchases and consumption has taken place.<\/p>\n

The Stockwell article suggests there is an inverse relationship between the price of alcohol and the amount of alcohol-related crime:\u00a0 as prices go up, the crime will go down.\u00a0 Price contributes to the access of alcohol for the population.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Zhao paper shows that decreases in alcohol price leads to an increase in alcohol-related deaths while an increase in density of privately-owned liquor stores contributes to an increase in mortality rates.\u00a0 This paper shows strong evidence that privately-owned liquor retail stores contribute negatively to the population.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Treno paper exhibits the relationship of privately-owned liquor stores and how competition can lead to decreases in the price of alcohol.\u00a0 A reduction in alcohol price leads to greater access to alcohol.\u00a0 The two other papers show that a lower price of alcohol correlates to negative impacts on the population.<\/span><\/p>\n

Alcohol privatization\u00a0will lead to a decrease in alcohol prices.\u00a0 This will make alcohol more accessible for people and lead to increased drinking rates.\u00a0 Drinking has been correlated to increased crime such as alcohol-related traffic violations (Hahn, et al. 2012).\u00a0 Allowing for greater accessibility to alcohol has repercussions on public health and government spending.<\/p>\n

The research shows that privatization of alcohol retail sales contributes negatively in many ways.\u00a0 These negative impacts include increases in access to alcohol, increases in alcohol-related crimes, and increases in alcohol-related deaths (Zhao et al., 2013).\u00a0 For these reasons it is suggested that the recommendation be changed from recommended against to strongly recommended against privatization of retail alcohol sales.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Part II. Theoretical Framework\/Model <\/u><\/p>\n

The theory needs to be at the community level because policy change at the state level is the suggested mode of action.\u00a0 The theory of community organization and other participatory models is appropriate for having alcohol sales regulated by the state of Georgia<\/span>.\u00a0 This community approach allows for control of excessive drinking and excessive crime.\u00a0 The increased price of alcohol\u00a0maintained will make alcohol less accessible for many people.\u00a0 This will lead to decreases in alcohol-related traffic violations and crime.\u00a0 This is considered a social action theory because it is both process and task oriented.<\/p>\n

Constructs:<\/span><\/p>\n

Empowerment is\u00a0a social action process through which people gain mastery over their lives and their communities (Rimer, et al. 2005)<\/span>.<\/span>\u00a0 Ultimately, people will be in charge of whether or not they decide to spend money on alcohol.\u00a0 This policy should push them toward not spending it on alcohol because the price will be increased.\u00a0 There will also be less stores to purchase alcohol so people will need to understand the lesser convenience.<\/p>\n

Attrition, for social action theory purposes, is defined as a reduction in the amount of entities that could negatively impact others.\u00a0 In other words, the goal is to increase the barrier to alcohol.\u00a0 The access to alcohol will be greatly reduced with a state-run monopoly because there will be less access to stores and prices will increase.<\/span><\/p>\n

Social norms are the rules and behaviors that are considered acceptable by society (Rimer, et al. 2005).\u00a0 The overall goal is more than reducing crime rates attributed to alcohol.\u00a0 Abstaining from excess drinking and alcoholism should become more of a social norm.\u00a0 Many people accept the fact that people will become alcoholics when we should try to deter this behavior in a bigger way.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

CONCEPTUAL MODEL<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Screenshot<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Part III. Logic Model, Causal and Intervention Hypotheses, and Intervention Strategies <\/u><\/p>\n

The target population will be the citizens of the state of Georgia that are of legal drinking age<\/span>.\u00a0 Georgia, as well as all other states, have groups that suffer with health disparities.\u00a0\u00a0The measure of privatization of alcohol retail stores would most likely have an adverse impact on groups that suffer with low incomes and may have become reliant on alcohol.\u00a0 However, our purposes will look at the Georgia population as a whole.\u00a0 Changes in behavior, such as alcohol-related crimes, are measured to determine the effects of alcohol retail changes.\u00a0 Access to the population has increased with privatization, and behavior changes will occur as a consequence.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Intervention Method<\/strong><\/td>\nAlignment with Theory<\/strong><\/td>\nIntervention Strategy<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Increase Empowerment \/ Attrition<\/span><\/td>\nThe process change of modifying the law to make privatization illegal will effect many people in the state of Georgia.\u00a0 They will need to make personal decisions about whether alcohol should be as integral to their lives after access has decreased.\u00a0 These individual decisions will affect the community with regard to crime and overall health.<\/span><\/td>\nThe change in the law will increase barriers through reduction of stores and increase in prices.\u00a0 Overall access is decreased with the state-run alcohol retail system.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Reduce Alcoholism as a Social Norm<\/span><\/td>\nSocial norms are acceptable behaviors from the public.\u00a0 Social action theory is a community based theory where social norms are integral.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0The change in law will contribute to alcoholism becoming less of a social norm.\u00a0 Access to alcohol will be reduced and the goal is for alcohol to be less a part of people’s lives.\u00a0 If most can reduce their amount of drinking, society as a whole will become less reliant on alcohol.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n
Inputs\/Resources <\/strong><\/td>\nActivities <\/strong><\/td>\nOutputs<\/strong><\/td>\nShort-term Outcomes<\/strong><\/td>\nIntermediate Outcomes<\/strong><\/td>\nLong-term Outcomes<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Legislative support to end privatization of retail alcohol system.<\/span><\/td>\nVoting in state legislator\u00a0results in a new system where states now have a monopoly on alcohol retail sales.\u00a0 Privatization will end.<\/span><\/td>\nAfter the elimination of private retail alcohol stores and opening of state-run stores, their will be a 25% decrease in total amount of stores where alcohol can be purchased.<\/span><\/p>\n

The lack of competition will drive alcohol prices up by 5% as consequence of the new legislation.<\/span><\/td>\n

The reduction in total amount of stores combined with the increased price of purchase will decrease access to alcohol and also decrease consumption of alcohol.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0Decreased access to alcohol and consumption rate will reduce alcohol-related crime and death.<\/span><\/td>\nOverall community health will improve as a result of less access, less\u00a0consumption, and less crime.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/span>Intervention Hypothesis<\/span><\/p>\n

The passing of this legislation will eliminate any and all privately owned retail alcohol outlets.\u00a0 State-run retail will take over in place of these privately owned stores.\u00a0 With a state-run system, there will be less stores overall.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

Causal Hypothesis<\/span><\/p>\n

Decreasing the access to alcohol and decreasing the amount consumed in the population will decreased the amount of alcohol-related crimes and deaths.\u00a0 Obviously, less of these incidents will occur when the population consumes less alcohol.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

SMART Objectives<\/span><\/p>\n

Goal 1:\u00a0 Reduction in the amount of retail stores where alcohol can be purchased.<\/span><\/p>\n

Objective 1:\u00a0 The law will take a year to transition from a private market to a state-run market.\u00a0 After that year is up there will be zero privately-run retail stores.\u00a0 State-run stores will be opened to replace the privately owned stores, but the amount of total stores will be reduced by 25% from the privately-owned system after one year.<\/span><\/p>\n

Goal 2:\u00a0 Increase the price per unit of alcohol sold at state-run retail stores.<\/span><\/p>\n

Objective 1:\u00a0 The\u00a0abundance of\u00a0competition that the privately-run market made will no longer exist.\u00a0 All store will be run by the state, so there will be no comparison from store to store with regard to price.\u00a0 Prices will be increased by 5% per unit of alcohol after one year.<\/span><\/p>\n

Part IV. Evaluation Design and Measures <\/u><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Stakeholder<\/strong><\/td>\nRole in Intervention<\/strong><\/td>\nEvaluation Questions from Stakeholder<\/strong><\/td>\nEffect on Stakeholder of a Successful Program<\/strong><\/td>\nEffect on Stakeholder of an Unsuccessful Program<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0Lawmakers<\/td>\n\u00a0Listening to the proposed change in legislation.<\/p>\n

They will ultimately be the individuals voting on whether the legislation will be changed in the state of Georgia.<\/td>\n

\u00a0How will this change in legislation benefit the state of Georgia?<\/p>\n

How will this change in legislation benefit individuals?<\/td>\n

\u00a0Success of the legislation will push voters to side with those lawmakers that voted in favor of it.<\/td>\n\u00a0If legislation is unsuccessful it could push voters to vote against those that voted in favor of the legislation.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0Citizens of Georgia that are of legal drinking age<\/td>\n\u00a0Georgians will be those effected in the retail alcohol market as consumers.<\/td>\n\u00a0Will a state-run alcohol retail system limit my availability to alcohol?<\/p>\n

What benefits will I see from a monopolized system as a consumer?<\/p>\n

Will the price of alcohol drop?<\/td>\n

\u00a0Citizens will experience a decrease in crime.<\/p>\n

Price of alcohol will increase<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Less access to stores selling alcohol.<\/p>\n

Healthier community.<\/td>\n

\u00a0If unsuccessful, citizens will still see the normal crime related to alcohol while also having less access to alcohol.<\/p>\n

If privatization restored due to unsuccessful monopoly, greater access to alcohol will occur again.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\u00a0Private business owners that sell alcohol<\/td>\n\u00a0Their business relies on privatization of alcohol sales.<\/td>\n\u00a0Why should I be put out of business for the state to run alcohol sales?<\/p>\n

What will be my settlement on the state shutting me down?<\/td>\n

\u00a0Loss of business.<\/p>\n

Loss of income.<\/td>\n

\u00a0Restoration of business if law switched back to privatization<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0Law enforcement<\/td>\n\u00a0Alcohol-related crimes rely on law enforcement officials to respond and react.<\/td>\n\u00a0What are the projections in reduction of alcohol-related crime?<\/p>\n

Will less access to alcohol actually reduce crime?<\/td>\n

\u00a0Less calls for incidents involving alcohol.<\/p>\n

Time better utilized to solve other issues.<\/td>\n

\u00a0If crime does not decline, law enforcement will not see a change in amount of alcohol-related incidents.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Evaluation Design:\u00a0 Quasi-experimental<\/p>\n

The study will use two groups in its design.\u00a0 The first group is the privatized retail liquor group before intervention\u00a0and the last group is the state-run retail liquor system after the intervention has taken place.<\/span><\/p>\n

O2 X O1<\/span><\/p>\n

X=intervention, O1=assessment before intervention, O2=assessment after intervention<\/span><\/p>\n

The intervention taking place is a state-run retail alcohol system in place of a privatized system.<\/p>\n

Data will be collected from privately owned stores to determine the price per unit alcohol for the initial assessment.\u00a0 <\/span>The assessment for the intervention will take place one year after the intervention is put into place.\u00a0 This will account for time for the new law to take place and collection of alcohol-related crime data.<\/p>\n

Major threats to internal validity:<\/p>\n

–Interaction\u00a0Effect<\/span>:\u00a0 Monopolizing the retail alcohol industry will cause an increase in the cost of alcohol (Treno, et al. 2013)<\/span>.\u00a0 This has the potential to effect the lower class of people who have difficulty affording alcohol.\u00a0 Middle and upper class families may continue to purchase and consume the same amount of alcohol after the intervention because they will still be able to afford it.\u00a0 Criminal activity may only decrease in the lower class.\u00a0 This study will look at demographics to determine whether this is, in fact, the case.<\/p>\n

-History:\u00a0 Changes in attitude and behavior with regard to alcohol may have changed while the intervention is taking place.\u00a0 Many have turned to a healthier lifestyle and now purchase and consume less alcohol than before.\u00a0 Therefore, less alcohol-related crimes will occur without the intervention.\u00a0 The study will attenuate for that by examining the overall health of the community before and after the intervention by looking at lifestyle changes.<\/p>\n

-Attrition Bias:\u00a0 This refers to differences between the privatized alcohol stores and the state-run stores, in that the privatized group will not be available for comparison because they will no longer be present after the intervention.\u00a0 The state-run stores can only be compared to the privatized stores that were present before the intervention takes place.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Short-term or Intermediate Outcome Variable<\/strong><\/td>\nScale, Questionnaire, Assessment Method<\/strong><\/td>\nBrief Description of Instrument<\/strong><\/td>\nExample item (for surveys, scales, or questionnaires)<\/strong><\/td>\nReliability and\/or Validity Description<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Decrease Consumption of Alcohol<\/span><\/td>\n Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) will be used to monitor the amount of alcohol being consumed.\u00a0 Telephone calls will be placed to random homes to determine risk behaviors<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0BRFSS is a questionnaire distribute at the state level now.\u00a0 It is valuable in determining risk behaviors of a population.\u00a0 We will use it to assess alcohol consumption in this study (CDC, 2014).<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0Question 1:\u00a0 How many alcoholic beverages do you consume in one week.<\/span><\/p>\n

Question 2:\u00a0 Has your drinking behavior changed since the passing of the new law to ban privatization of retail alcohol stores?<\/span><\/td>\n

BRFSS is the gold standard in risk behavior surveys and public health surveillance (CDC, 2014).<\/span><\/p>\n

Continuous use of this instrument will occur.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Decrease access to alcohol by reducing amount of retail stores<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

\u00a0Geographic Information Systems (GIS)will be used to determine the number of retail liquor stores in the state.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0GIS is a valuable instrument that will allow us to track each state-run liquor store that opens and see trends in area where they are put up.<\/span><\/td>\nGIS mapping can be layered to show where previous privately-owned stores once were located and where new state-run stores currently reside.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0GIS is not 100% reliable all the time.\u00a0 Each store will be confirmed of location using the internet or phonebook.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Part V. Process Evaluation and Data Collection Forms <\/u><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Recruitment and Enrollment<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Privately-owned liquor stores will receive a letter before the intervention requesting that they provide information about price per unit alcohol and amount purchased. The state-owned liquor store will be given a similar letter one year after the intervention has taken place:<\/span><\/p>\n

    Price per Unit of Alcohol and Number of Units Purchased<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n

    Dear _____________,<\/span><\/p>\n

    The College of Public Health at UGA is conducting a study on the price of alcohol per unit alcohol and the amount of units sold. This research is being conducted to compare the prices of the private alcohol industry with the state-run system. Privately-owned stores are asked to take part in this survey before new legislation takes effect and the system becomes state-owned. State-owned store will be asked to take this survey one year after the law has changed.<\/span><\/p>\n

    If you are willing to participate in this survey, please respond via email to bbm56232@uga.edu. Please indicate if you will be participating as a privately owned store or a new state-owned store.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Sincerely,<\/span><\/p>\n

    Brooks Moeller<\/span><\/p>\n

    UGA College of Public Health<\/span><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    2.\u00a0 Attrition<\/span><\/p>\n

    Privately owned stores will not be asked for a follow-up because they will no longer exist after the intervention. A letter will be written to state lawmakers asking for mandatory participation in an annual survey:<\/span><\/p>\n

    Dear ___________,<\/span><\/p>\n

    The UGA College of Public Health is doing extensive research in the state-owned alcohol retail system to determine the health effects of the newly run system compared to the former privately-owned system. Participation from each store is vital to our research, and we would like to ask you to require these stores to put effort in our surveys. Please email me at bbm56232@uga.edu with any questions regarding our research. Thanks.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Sincerely,<\/span><\/p>\n

    Brooks Moeller<\/span><\/p>\n

    UGA College of Public Health<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Fidelity of the Program<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      To ensure fidelity of the program, each store will be given the following survey:<\/span><\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      <\/td>\nYES<\/span><\/td>\nNO<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Were the questions on the survey clear and easy to understand?<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Do you understand why you are being asked to take part in this survey?<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Did you answer all questions honestly to the best of your knowledge?<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      What can we do to improve the quality of this survey?<\/span><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

      References<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).\u00a0 About the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (2014).\u00a0 http:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/brfss\/about\/about_brfss.htm.\u00a0 Accessed June 7th, 2016.<\/p>\n

      Community Guide.\u00a0 Preventing Excessive Alcohol Consumption: Privatization of Retail Alcohol Sales.\u00a0 http:\/\/www.thecommunityguide.org\/alcohol\/privatization.html.\u00a0 Access May 17th, 2016.<\/p>\n

      Hahn, R., Middleton, J., Elder, R., Brewer, R., Fielding, J., Naimi, T., Toomey, T., Chattopadhyay, S., Lawrence, B., Campbell, C.\u00a0 Effects of Alcohol Retail Privatization on Excessive Alcohol Consumption and Related Harms.\u00a0 (2012).\u00a0 American Journal of Preventive Medicine.<\/em>\u00a0 418-427.<\/p>\n

      Rimer, B., Glanz, K.\u00a0 Theory at a Glance:\u00a0 A Guide for Health Promotion Practice (2005).\u00a0 National Institute of Health<\/em>.\u00a0 2nd Edition.\u00a0 1-52.<\/p>\n

      Stockwell, T., Zhao, J., Marvell, M., Greenwald, P., MacDonald, S., Panicky, W., Martin, G.\u00a0(2015).\u00a0 Relationship Between Minimum Alcohol Pricing and Crime During the Partial Privatization of a Canadian Government Alcohol Monopoly.\u00a0 Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. <\/em>628-634.<\/p>\n

      Treno, A., Panicky W., MacDonald S., Greenwald, P., Zhao, J., Martin, G., Greer, A. (2013).\u00a0 Alcohol Outlet Densities and Alcohol Price:\u00a0 The British Columbia Experiment in the Partial Privatization of Alcohol Sales Off-Premise.\u00a0 Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 37(5). <\/em>854-859.<\/p>\n

      Zhao. J., Stockwell, T., Martin, G., Vallance, K., Trejo, A., Panicky, W., Tu, A., Buxton, J. (2013).\u00a0 The Relationship Between Minimum Alcohol Prices, Outlet Densities and Alcohol-Attributable Deaths in British Columbia, 2002-2009.\u00a0 Society for the Study of Addiction.\u00a0 <\/em>1059-1069.<\/p>\n

       <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Part I. Community Guide Update and Rationale for Intervention Author & Year Intervention Setting, Description, and Comparison Group(s) Study Population Description and Sample Size Effect Measure (Variables) Results including Test Statistics and Significance Follow-up Time \u00a0Stockwell, et al., 2015 \u00a0In British Columbia, Canada, this study shows the correlation between an increase in the density of … Continue reading Privatization of Retail Alcohol Sales<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":834,"featured_media":986,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-153","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ctlsites.uga.edu\/hprb7010may2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/153","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ctlsites.uga.edu\/hprb7010may2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ctlsites.uga.edu\/hprb7010may2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ctlsites.uga.edu\/hprb7010may2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/834"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ctlsites.uga.edu\/hprb7010may2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=153"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ctlsites.uga.edu\/hprb7010may2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/153\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ctlsites.uga.edu\/hprb7010may2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/986"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ctlsites.uga.edu\/hprb7010may2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}