WSLCB - Board Caucus
(May 20, 2025) - Youth Access Compliance Rate Dashboards

Compliance dashboards requested by public health and prevention interests were presented to board members who questioned data about youth access to cannabis and other substances.

Here are some observations from the Tuesday May 20th Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Board Caucus.

My top 3 takeaways:

• Research Manager Sarah Okey introduced two public-facing data dashboards on the agency website related to youth access compliance rates, and addressed a comment on what prompted the presentation (audio - 3m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW).
  • Okey stated that the two new dashboards were available "live on our website for anyone to view and interact with.” The dashboards related to the compliance work of the Enforcement and Education (E&E) Division aimed to "showcase some of the amazing work that they are doing statewide.” Okey said the Research Program’s data dashboards represented part of a "larger, foundational public facing initiative,” geared towards aiding agency officials “to help various internal and external stakeholders understand trends, develop calls to actions, and inform decision making.”
    • Okey also presented on the rollout of prior dashboards on January 7th.
  • Okey noted that the dashboards focused on compliance checks, and had been among the "most frequently requested dashboards to date.” She told board members it represented a recurring component in data dashboard legislation.
    • In 2025, HB 1066 proposed data dashboard requirements for WSLCB which included compliance checks. That bill was initially identical to HB 2182 which was introduced in 2024.
  • Okey thanked Research Analyst Nick Glodosky for his “instrumental part in developing these dashboards.” She also shared her gratitude for “our subject matter experts” in attendance, Program Specialist Season Eckstrom (“our FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] program coordinator”) along with Management Analyst Marc Siegfried and Captain Daniel Rehfield, “our LCB E&E data experts.” She then thanked Director of Enforcement and Education Lawerence Grant, and concluded with recognition that the dashboard effort was “agency wide and includes members and leadership support across each division.”
  • Board Chair Jim Vollendroff noted that Okey mentioned youth access compliance dashboards had been frequently requested. He was curious, “by whom, like, who's interested in these dashboards," and more broadly, “how, perhaps, do you hope they'll use this information?” (audio - 3m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW)
    • Okey explained, “our public health and prevention partners have really been the ones that have really asked for these dashboards.” She said Public Health Education Liaison Kristen Haley, “who is also on this call today, helped organize a listening session, and this stemmed from her public health roundtable last year.” Okey reported, “our public health and prevention folks, and...our coalitions who are really interested in this data” were “interested in drilling down by county as well.”
      • WSLCB staff hosted a focus group specifically on data dashboards for public health and prevention interests in August 2024.
    • “And so one thing that we really wanted to [have was an interactive dashboard] that we can drill down by county,” Okey remarked, as the goal was having interested parties able to “compare how their county differs to another county, or to statewide.” Within a county, the dashboard would show how “compliance rates differ by alcohol or by cannabis or by tobacco…we want people to be able to use it to what's relevant to them,” stated Okey.
    • Vollendroff expressed his satisfaction, stressing how “when I was first considering applying to be a part of the board, one of the things I did was went out and looked at what available data there was, and I was surprised that this was not already provided. So I'm, again, thrilled that we're at this point.”

• Research Analyst Nick Glodosky presented the data dashboards, detailing their content, navigation, and mentioning plans to update them annually (audio - 6m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW).
  • Glodosky showed how to navigate the agency website to find the links to the dashboards titled "FDA Tobacco Youth Access Inspections" and "LCB Youth Access Compliance Checks." He then acknowledged how "dashboards do tend to work better on [a] computer, rather than mobile [phones], although you can access them on your mobile if you want.”
  • The dashboards represented "a new way to visualize compliance rates" for youth access, or what Glodosky said were Enforcement activities “when an officer has an underage person attempt to purchase an age-restricted product using their real ID” to witness "whether a sale is made.”
    • Previously, such data was available on the WSLCB frequently requested list page, but Glodosky observed it was “only provided in an Excel workbook, so it takes a little bit of know-how and digging to actually find the rates."
  • The first dashboard Glodosky reviewed was for checks conducted by agency officials, with compliance rates dating back to 2015. It included a page comparing overall rates for cannabis, liquor, and tobacco/vapor products as well as individual substance pages allowing users to "look into each one more specifically.”
    • Pages for cannabis, alcohol, tobacco, and vapor product compliance checks were filterable by county and statewide, he remarked. Additionally, the dashboard for alcohol sales differentiated between "on site, delivery, and curbside pickup,” Glodosky said. 
  • The second dashboard had data back to 2011 and was tobacco-specific. While conducted by WSLCB staff, Glodosky relayed this was “funded and directed by the FDA," and conducted "completely independently” of agency compliance efforts documented in the first dashboard.
    • Eckstrom previously discussed the program with board members before taking their questions in October 2024 (audio - 20m, Video - TVW, Video - WSLCB).
  • Glodosky mentioned the plan to update “both of these dashboards annually,” and his interest in updating “links to these dashboards" from their frequently requested lists page, and the FDA page on WSLCB’s website. He wrapped up by sharing his gratitude for the work of Rehfield, Siegfried, and Eckstrom in creating the dashboards.
    • The Excel data on compliance checks available on the requested list page was amended throughout the year, and at publication time remained a more timely source of compliance data than the annually updated dashboard.

• Board members posed questions on pointed topics such as use of false identification in purchases, how localized dashboard data was, where compliance rates differed between regulated substances, as well as variations in compliance between counties.
  • While not having questions, Board Member Ollie Garrett thanked Okey and Glodosky for the “execellent” work (audio - <1m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW).
  • Board Member Pete Holmes questioned whether the newly presented data dashboards provided insight into the use of false identification by underage individuals attempting to purchase age-restricted products. He wondered whether the dashboards “shed any light on that? Or, can you talk to us about…How big is a problem for fake IDs currently?” (audio - 3m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW)
    • Glodosky felt Rehfield would have a “better answer” to the question. Rehfield suggested the dashboards wouldn’t capture information about instances of false identification being used to buy regulated substances. He added, “we do have methods to captur[e] that kind of data, because we have…a web based application that we use on our phones to check IDs to see whether they're valid or not, and also the data entry from the electronic notebook.” Rehfield indicated he’d need to look into that information to give a more comprehensive answer, “but it depends on communities…Pullman and other college towns, for instance, might have more of that type of scenario than [the] general rural population.”
    • Holmes replied that the answer was helpful, and Rehfield stipulated that a significant amount of fake IDs were “reported by the actual licensees themselves. When we show up at the location, they'll say, ‘hey, we found these fake IDs.’ Or… they have the, their security people find them and they report that to us. Or we have had officers actually be able to ID and find that information out on their visits.”
    • Okey also offered to look into self-report data from the Healthy Youth Survey, which she believed "asks questions...about what percent of youth are obtaining liquor, tobacco, using…a fake ID.” Vollendroff reflected that while there was training around identifying and reporting false IDs, “but I think that fake IDs are still a real issue for some areas in particular.”
      • In October 2024, the board opened a rulemaking project on Identification Reform. At time of publication, the proposed rule language was specific to alcohol, and would expand the pool of accepted IDs to cover any identification issued by a “foreign government.”
    • The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) 2024 State Performance and Best Practices for the Prevention and Reduction of Underage Drinking included a section on policies related to use of false IDs across the U.S.
      • The accompanying exhibit, Procedure for Imposing License Sanction for Use of False ID as of January 1, 2023, indicated Washington state penalties utilized a judicial procedure.
  • Vollendroff questioned the level of detail available in the new data dashboards: "I'm assuming [counties were] as far as we drill down, because I'm wondering about, one, neighborhood data, I'm wondering about city data, I'm wondering about individual retailer data" (audio - 4m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW).
    • Glodosky responded that the dashboard currently limited comparisons to the county level. He explained that a decision had been made to limit dashboards "without being able to identify things like individual businesses."
    • Vollendroff added, “I'm not directing policy by any means. But I…have spoken to community coalitions at the local level, and they're very interested in knowing compliance rates by retailers. And it's public. I'm assuming that's public information.” He felt that being able to find “problem retailers” was important, even as “the vast majority of our retailers, do an excellent job of keeping product out of the hands of people who are age restricted, whether it be alcohol, cannabis, or tobacco. But there are some that do not,” and Vollendroff didn’t “feel like that would be problematic” to make available via the dashboard.
    • Okey spoke up to say the dashboards were at a "very foundational level" and could be further developed to provide data at a finer level. But she stated the agency was “also at a very crucial part…with our system modernization project, where we are really transforming the way that we're dealing with data internally.” Okey emphasized building a "strong base" technologically would ensure project sustainability as they expand in the future, rather than “try to get everything in there all at once.”
    • Vollendroff reflected on the value of data transparency and accessibility. He observed, “I just had a conversation this morning where somebody was asking for information from us, and they were directed to submit a public disclosure request, and to me, when we can provide data outside of having somebody do that, it's great."
  • Vollendroff was also curious about notable differences in youth access compliance rates, pointing out that, “in cannabis, it was 94.4[%] liquor: 81.8[% statewide] and then vapor and tobacco: 86.4[%].” He reflected on how cannabis licensees “do a fantastic job” of age gating their products. “So I have a two part question, why the difference, And then…is there a national benchmark? I think 81% is low” (audio - 8m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
    • Grant offered potential reasons for the higher compliance rate observed in the cannabis sector compared to liquor. First, "the sheer number of licensees, the sheer number and types of establishments" being much greater for liquor licensees made it challenging to “actually get out there and get people to those locations.” He elaborated that sometimes there was a greater focus on one type of license, “you may be doing well in the bars and the other retail establishments, but you may be impacted by some of the larger stores, or some of the smaller gas stations who have compliance rate issues.”
    • As for how Washington compared to other states for compliance rates, Grant was "not sure,” mentioning he’d consult with data experts on his team, such as Siegfried. “I haven't seen a national benchmark and where we stand in comparison to it, yet,” he added. Vollendroff asked him to brief them again if he identified a national compliance rate, “so that we can set our goal towards achieving that benchmark.”
    • Garrett said the high compliance rate for cannabis could have something to do with how “retailers know that cannabis is still not totally federal regulated.” She remarked that these businesses “have other…issues where, if they get a[n Administrative Violation Notice] AVN, it prohibits some of their banking relationships, different things that don't apply to the liquor industry, so it makes sense that the cannabis would be higher to me.” Vollendroff agreed that many cannabis stores checked identification upon entry, a practice less common for liquor licensees. He nonetheless remained interested in hearing “about what is a national benchmark, and just so we can see if there's things that we can learn from our counterparts in the cannabis industry to increase that rate.”
    • Okey observed that anyone entering a cannabis retailer was assumed to be “purchasing cannabis,” while many liquor licensees sold other products. The Research Program had met “with a researcher who used our compliance rates in their research because they couldn't find other compliance rates. He was on the East Coast, and he [commented] how he was excited that we were transparent in sharing the work that we're doing and, and our youth access efforts and compliance rates.” She suggested that Washington could potentially "play a role in setting that standard" nationally.
    • Director of Policy and External Affairs Justin Nordhorn offered historical context around the high cannabis compliance rate, explaining that the program had been initially established with "three compliance checks per year per location, which was a best practice" at that time. He noted that even with later reductions in frequency of the checks, the high rate was maintained. Nordhorn advised looking at information from the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association (NABCA)-organized Responsible Retailer Forums, as well as the analysis on compliance staff did as part of preparing a legislative report: “Comprehensive Alcohol Delivery Policy Recommendations” mandated as part of a 2023 law, SB 5448.
      • Grant stipulated that each cannabis business still got at least one compliance check a year.
  • Vollendroff inquired about the reasons for variation in alcohol compliance rates observed between counties, noting some counties had rates "as low as 77" (audio - 1m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW).
    • Grant speculated that counties with lower compliance rates, such as "Clallam, Ferry County, some of these further out counties," might show variations due to more widespread locations and fewer visits by Enforcement Officers. Moreover, there "may be fewer licensees, or less opportunities to visit" less populated counties, but he offered to research further and bring information back.
  • In his concluding remarks on the dashboard presentation, Vollendroff acknowledged that the "vast majority of our licensees do an amazing job" of preventing underage access. He stressed that keeping products out of the hands of young people was "paramount to the work that we do here at the LCB," along with aiming to "create a good business environment” (audio - 1m, video - WSLCB, video - TVW).