Determinants of Youth Attitudes and Skills towards Which Drinking/Driving Prevention Programs Should Be Directed. Volume 2, an In Depth Review of Twelve Youth DWI Prevention Programs
archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified
Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)
Summary
This interim report, produced by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), addresses the need to improve youth drinking and driving (DWI) prevention programs. The research was motivated by a desire to analyze existing nationwide programs to understand their underlying assumptions, objectives, activities, and outcomes. The goal was to identify determinants of youth attitudes and skills to guide the development of more effective prevention strategies. This document constitutes Volume II of a two-volume report, focusing specifically on an in-depth review of twelve selected youth DWI prevention programs across the United States. The methodology involved a multi-component approach, including a review of programmatic, conceptual, and empirical literature, a broad overview of existing programs, and intensive on-site visits to twelve specific programs. These programs were selected to represent diversity in location, intensity, message orientation, implementation scope, focus, target population, and evaluation activities. Data collection during site visits included face-to-face interviews with program personnel and community representatives, observation of program activities, and review of program materials. This ethnographic approach aimed to provide an "inside" perspective on program operations, successes, and challenges. The twelve programs included local community efforts and statewide coordinating initiatives, targeting populations ranging from teenagers (ages 13–18) to young adults (ages 19–25), with some focusing on high-risk youth already experiencing substance abuse problems. The report provides detailed descriptive analyses of the twelve programs, such as Project SMASH in California, which utilized a comprehensive systems approach involving law enforcement, media, and community groups, and the NEAT Family program, which focused on peer support and alternative teen culture for youth with existing drug and alcohol problems. Key findings highlight the variety of strategies employed, including public information campaigns, safe ride services, server awareness training, jail education, and sobriety checkpoints. For instance, Project SMASH’s sobriety checkpoints were found to have a deterrent effect and high public approval, while its server training faced low initial participation. The NEAT Family program demonstrated the effectiveness of peer-led support groups in promoting abstinence and life skills. The report also identifies common implementation issues, such as resource allocation challenges, funding sustainability, and difficulties in engaging target populations like alcohol retailers. The significance of this study lies in its comprehensive documentation of the operational realities of youth DWI prevention programs. By detailing the assumptions, premises, and practical challenges of these initiatives, the report provides valuable insights for program planners, educators, and policymakers. It underscores the importance of community involvement, peer influence, and multi-faceted approaches in addressing youth drinking and driving. The findings suggest that while diverse strategies exist, success often depends on strong community support, effective resource management, and tailored interventions that address the specific needs and contexts of the target populations. This analysis serves as a foundation for developing more effective, evidence-based prevention programs in the future.
Key finding
The study provides descriptive profiles of twelve distinct youth DWI prevention programs, detailing their operational structures, target populations, and implementation challenges without reporting quantitative outcome data.
Methodology
other
Provenance
The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | rosap | — | — | 2 | 2026-05-23 |
| archive | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| extract | success | cached | — | — | 4 | 2026-06-10 |
| clean | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| chunk | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| embed | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-02 |
| enrich | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 3 | 2026-06-10 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 19 | 2026-06-11 |
| verify | success | — | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.
Topics
Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.
Information type
What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).
- Applied Guidance: countermeasure evaluation