Safe Lanes on Campus A Guide for Preventing Impaired Driving and Underage...

A Guide for PreventingImpaired Driving andUnderage Drinking

Robert ZimmermanWilliam DeJong, Ph.D.

A publication of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention

Funded by the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Transportation,National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

SAFELANESON CAMPUS

A Guide for Preventing Impaired Driving andUnderage Drinking

SAFELANESON CAMPUS

ii

Safe Lanes on Campus

Layout and design byDorothy Geiser, Editing andDesign Services, EDC

This publication was produced under U.S. Department of Education ContractNo. ED-99-CO-0094 with the Higher Education Center for Alcohol andOther Drug Prevention at Education Development Center, Inc., in a joint

venture with the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration (NHTSA). Paul Kesner served as the contracting officer’s technicalrepresentative (COTR) for the Department of Education and Ruth Esteban-Muirserved as COTR for NHTSA.The views expressed herein do not necessarily repre-sent the positions or policies of the Departments of Education or Transportation. Noofficial endorsement by the U.S. Departments of Education or Transportation of anyproduct, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intendedor should be inferred.

U.S. Department of EducationRod PaigeSecretary

Office of Safe and Drug-Free SchoolsWilliam ModzeleskiAssociate Deputy Under Secretary

U.S. Department of TransportationNorman Y. MinetaSecretary

National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationJeffrey W. Runge, M.D.Administrator

2003

This publication is in the public domain.Authorization to reproduce it in whole orin part is granted.While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, thecitation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-FreeSchools, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, SafeLanes on Campus:A Guide for Preventing Impaired Driving and Underage Drinking,Washington, D.C., 2003.

To order copies of this publication, write to

The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug PreventionEducation Development Center, Inc.55 Chapel StreetNewton, MA 02458-1060(800) 676-1730Fax: (617) [email protected]

This publication is also available on the following Web sites:

➤ Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/index.html

➤ Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and OtherDrug Prevention at http://www.higheredcenter.org

➤ Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Liii

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1

Organization of the Guide....................................................................................................................................2

Part 1: Scope of the Problem................................................................................................................5

Part 2: Environmental Management—Proven Prevention Practices........................................................................................................................7

A Typology of Campus and Community Interventions ..................................................................................9

What Works? A Review of the Evidence..............................................................................................................11

Part 3: Prevention in Action ................................................................................................................19

Area of Strategic Intervention Environmental Change ......................................................................................21

Area of Strategic Intervention Knowledge, Attitudes,and Behavioral Intentions ........................................................................................................................................31

Area of Strategic Intervention Health Protection ................................................................................................31

Area of Strategic Intervention Intervention and Treatment..............................................................................32

Part 4: Strategic Planning and Evaluation ..........................................................................................35

Developing and Evaluating Prevention Policies and Programs ..............................................................38

Meeting the Challenge........................................................................................................................................42

Part 5: Resources....................................................................................................................................43

CITED PROGRAMS................................................................................................................................................45

Area of Strategic Intervention Environmental Change ......................................................................................45

Area of Strategic Intervention Knowledge, Attitudes,and Behavioral Intentions ........................................................................................................................................48

Area of Strategic Intervention Health Protection ..............................................................................................48

Area of Strategic Intervention Intervention and Treatment..............................................................................48

Strategic Planning................................................................................................................................................49

PUBLICATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................49

RESOURCE ORGANIZATIONS................................................................................................................................52

References ..................................................................................................................................................55

Contents

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

Hbhagadia

The 1990s saw rising concernabout heavy drinking at institu-tions of higher education and

the risks alcohol consumption poses tostudent health, safety, and academic suc-cess.This manual is a response torequests from college and universityadministrators for guidance in preventingtwo of the most serious problems relatedto student alcohol consumption: (1)driving under the influence (DUI) and(2) alcohol use by students under thelegal drinking age.

Awareness programs to inform stu-dents about the risks associated withalcohol use are familiar on the highereducation scene. Experience has shown,however, that the link between providingbasic information and reduced substanceuse is tenuous.1 The most promisingapproach to preventing alcohol problemson and around campus is a broad-basedand comprehensive effort to change thephysical, social, legal, and economic environ-ment in which students make decisions aboutdrinking.2 Accomplishing change of thismagnitude requires a new type of town-gown partnership: a wide spectrum ofcampus and community leaders dedicat-ed to shaping an environment that helpsstudents make healthier choices.3

The operative word is change.Applying the prevention strategies intro-duced in this guide must start with acommitment to change by the senioradministrators, faculty, and staff who arethe principal custodians of the nation’scolleges and universities. Likewise, a

similar commitment must be made bystudents, many of whom recognize theprice they are paying by fostering oracquiescing to a culture of high-riskdrinking.There must also be a commit-ment to change by community leadersand law enforcement agencies, whoseactions influence both how much alco-hol students consume and how theybehave while drinking.

Senior administrators, faculty, andstaff will see that their leadership isessential for organizing and planningprevention activities and for ensuringthat the hard work of addressing studentalcohol problems remains a high priority.Abandonment of the doctrine of in locoparentis, according to which campus offi-cials used to think of themselves as sur-rogate parents to their students, has leftmany school officials in doubt abouttheir responsibilities to monitor andshape student conduct. Recent courtdecisions have made clear that institu-tions of higher education have an obligation to take reasonable protectivemeasures to reduce hazards and risks inthe campus environment, although theyare not expected to control student con-duct.4 The time is long past when senioradministrators could blithely disregardthe effect of alcohol on student life ordismiss high-risk drinking as a “rite ofpassage” or an insoluble problem.Increasingly, academic leaders recognizethat they have a responsibility—and anopportunity—to assemble a campus andcommunity prevention coalition, formu-

1

Introduction

L

late a strategic plan, guide its implemen-tation, chart its progress, and assess itseffect on student alcohol problems.

Students will see that they can alsoplay a key part in making their college abetter school if they are willing toassume a leadership role.Their challengeis to rise above the deep-rooted andoften unquestioned mythology aboutstudent drinking by representing theoften silent desire of the student majori-ty for tougher policies to reduce alco-hol’s negative effect on campus life.Student participation is vital whenassessing aspects of the environment thatcontribute to underage drinking andDUI, and when planning and imple-menting prevention strategies to changethat environment—change that will safe-guard students’ well-being, improve thequality of the academic experience, andenhance the school’s reputation.

Finally, community leaders, includ-ing those in law enforcement and thebusiness world, will see the need towork cooperatively with campus officialsto address this problem. College anduniversity students are an integral part ofthe community in which they live,work, and study. Clearly, it is unfair andshortsighted for neighborhood residents,town officials, or other community lead-ers to expect campus administrators tosolve this problem alone.A communityproblem requires a community solution.Because campus administrators are underintense pressure to reduce student alco-hol problems, community leaders willfind this an opportune time to reach outand offer to work in partnership.5

Safe Lanes on Campus describes avariety of prevention strategies that cam-pus and community prevention coali-tions can consider as they develop astrategic plan for combating underagedrinking and DUI, with a particularemphasis on creating environmentalchange.This analysis is grounded in asummary of the research literature

published in 2002 by the NationalInstitute on Alcohol Abuse andAlcoholism (NIAAA), A Call to Action:Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S.Colleges.6 With Safe Lanes on Campus inhand, prevention planners can developand implement strategies appropriate totheir campus and community, based onan assessment of the environmental fac-tors that encourage alcohol problemsamong local students and on the scien-tific evidence of what works.

Organization ofthe GuidePart 1 of the guide, Scope of theProblem (p. 5), gives a review of thescope of the problem, including recentestimates of the number of alcohol-relat-ed deaths and injuries among college stu-dents each year.These data make clearthat underage drinking and DUI aremajor problems facing U.S. colleges anduniversities and deserve priority attention.

Part 2, Environmental Manage-ment—Proven Prevention Practices(p. 7), describes a classification or typolo-gy of campus and community interven-tions, which can be used to structure areview of current policies and programsand to organize subsequent strategicplanning.The typology distinguishes fiveareas of strategic intervention related towhat is called environmental management:(1) alcohol-free options, (2) normativeenvironment, (3) alcohol availability, (4)alcohol promotion, and (5) policy/lawenforcement.

This section also includes a summa-ry of policy and program recommenda-tions published by the NIAAA TaskForce on College Drinking. Based onexpert review of the scientific literature,this summary underscores the value ofenvironmental change strategies andpoints out those prevention tactics that

2


at present have the strongest evidence ofeffectiveness. Knowledge of what worksto reduce college alcohol problems issparse. Even so, prevention research thathas examined the effect of policies andprograms aimed at the general popula-tion does provide ample guidance.

Part 3, Prevention in Action (p.19), provides descriptions of policies andprograms currently being used through-out the United States to prevent under-age drinking and DUI among collegestudents. Program contact informationcan be found in the Resources section,Part 5 (see below).

Part 4, Strategic Planning andEvaluation (p. 35), begins with anoverview of campus and communitycoalitions, which are the best vehicle fordeveloping effective environmental man-agement strategies. Next, this sectionoutlines the basic elements of strategicplanning and evaluation that campus andcommunity coalitions should follow.Coalitions should incorporate evaluationas an integral part of program planning.Evaluation provides information neededto make midcourse corrections, but hav-ing an evaluator involved from the verybeginning also improves the planningprocess itself.

Part 5, Resources (p. 43), providescontact information for programs citedin the guide, as well as a list of publica-tions and organizations that might behelpful sources of information.Anexpanded and updated list of resourcescan be found through the Web site(http://www.higheredcenter.org) of theU.S. Department of Education’s HigherEducation Center for Alcohol and OtherDrug Prevention.

3

Introduction

Several major reports have pointedto the magnitude of alcohol prob-lems among college and university

students. In 1989, a survey of college anduniversity presidents found that 67 per-cent rated alcohol misuse as a “moderate”or “major” problem on their campus.7 In2002, the NIAAA Task Force on CollegeDrinking characterized heavy drinkingby higher education students as “wide-spread, dangerous, and disruptive.”8

National surveys have found thatapproximately two in five college stu-dents can be classified as heavy drinkers,often defined as having five or moredrinks in a row at least once in the pre-vious two weeks.9 One study estimatedthat 31 percent of college students metthe criteria for a diagnosis of alcoholabuse, while 6 percent could be classifiedas alcohol-dependent, according to self-reported drinking behaviors.10

The damage caused by alcohol con-sumption—to the drinkers themselves,to other individuals, and to institutionsof higher education—is substantial. Byone estimate, more than 1,400 studentsaged 18 to 24 years enrolled in two- andfour-year colleges died in 1998 fromalcohol-related unintentional injuries.Nearly 80 percent of these deaths weredue to motor vehicle crashes. In addi-tion, approximately 500,000 college stu-dents in this age range suffered alcohol-related unintentional injuries.11

According to a National CollegeHealth Risk Behavior Survey by the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC), in 1998 more thantwo million of the nation’s approximatelyeight million college students droveunder the influence of alcohol, and morethan three million rode with a drinkingdriver.12 The 2001 College Alcohol Study(CAS) found that 30 percent of studentswho drank said they had driven afterdrinking during the previous 30 days.13

Research also shows that poor aca-demic performance correlates stronglywith higher levels of alcohol consump-tion. One national survey reported thatstudents with an A average consumed anaverage of 3.4 drinks per week, while B-average students consumed 4.5 drinks,C-average students 6.1 drinks, and D- or F-average students 9.8 drinks.14

College administrators report that manyof the large numbers of students whodrop out each year do so because drink-ing has interfered with their studies, aproblem that has both personal and insti-tutional ramifications.15

Especially salient are the problemsstudents experience due to other stu-dents’ misuse of alcohol—for example,interrupted study and sleep; having aserious argument or quarrel; havingproperty damaged; being pushed, hit, orassaulted; and being a victim of sexualassault or acquaintance rape.16 In 1998,more than 600,000 students wereassaulted by another student who hadbeen drinking, while more than 70,000students were victims of alcohol-relatedsexual assault or acquaintance rape.17

5

Scope of the Problem

PART 1

L

Drug-Free Schoolsand Communities Act

The need for colleges and uni-versities to apply effectiveprevention measures is under-scored by the Drug-FreeSchools and Communities Act(DFSCA), which requires col-leges and universities toadopt and enforce policiesthat include sanctions for ille-gal alcohol and other druguse and to provide studentswith appropriate informationand services to back up thosepolicies. A guide to meetingthe requirements of theDFSCA is available from theHigher Education Center forAlcohol and Other DrugPrevention.21

Underage drinking is a big part ofthe problem.The 2001 CAS found thattwo out of three underage studentsreported drinking in the previous 30days. Students under 21 tended to drinkon fewer occasions than their olderpeers, but they drank more per occasionand had more alcohol-related problemsthan students of legal drinking age.Underage students also reported thatalcohol is easy to obtain, usually at littleor no cost.18

At present, all 50 states maintain aminimum legal drinking age of 21.Theeffect of these laws, despite their imper-fect enforcement, is clear.A recent litera-ture review documented a clear inverserelationship between the legal drinkingage and alcohol use, with consumptiondecreasing as the legal age was raised.Ahigher legal drinking age is also stronglyassociated with decreased motor vehiclecrash rates. Surprisingly, very fewresearchers have examined these associa-tions for college students, but the hand-ful of studies available has not found asignificant relationship between the min-imum legal drinking age and alcoholconsumption or motor vehicle crashrates.19 Additional research is needed togain a clearer picture of the effect of the age 21 limit on college students’alcohol consumption.

The influence of the higher mini-mum drinking age is also apparent froman analysis of alcohol-related fatal auto-mobile crashes.While alcohol wasinvolved in 57 percent of U.S. vehicularfatalities in 1982, the ratio today standsat about 40 percent.The raising of thelegal drinking age to 21 throughout thecountry is credited with significantlyreducing the death toll among youngerdrivers.The National Highway TrafficSafety Administration (NHTSA) esti-mates that state laws establishing 21 asthe minimum legal drinking age havesaved more than 20,000 lives between

1975 and 2000 and will continue to save1,000 lives each year.20

Preventing underage drinking andDUI among college students requires alarge and sustained effort.Alcohol useand its consequences are among themost serious problems facing U.S. col-leges and universities today. Clearly, thegoal is worth the effort.

Research on the effect of raising theminimum legal drinking age also pointsto a fruitful new direction for preventionefforts: using institutional, community, state,and federal policy and other programs tochange the environment in which studentsmake decisions about alcohol consumption.Ultimately, an effective prevention pro-gram grounded in environmental man-agement will enhance campus safety,improve the quality of academic life, andthereby help colleges and universitiesfulfill their basic educational mission.

6


LA Typology of Campus and Community Interventions ......................................................9

What Works? A Review of the Evidence ..................................................................................................11

Tier 1: Evidence of Effectiveness among College Students ............................................................................12

Tier 2: Evidence of Success with General Populations ..................................................................................12

Tier 3: Evidence of Promise ..............................................................................................................................15

Tier 4: Evidence of Ineffectiveness ....................................................................................................................15

Environmental Management—Proven Prevention Practices

7

PART 2

Today’s college and university students live in a world withconfusing and contradictory

messages about alcohol.

➤ Those under 21 are told that the saleof alcoholic beverages to minors isunlawful, yet they find that neigh-borhood liquor stores often fail toask for proof-of-age identification.

➤ Underage students go to partieswhere beer is flowing freely, but noone questions their age before theystep up to the keg.

➤ Students are warned that alcohol canaffect their judgment and coordina-tion and is in fact a drug, but adver-tising makes alcoholic beveragesseem as harmless as soft drinks.

➤ Students are told that driving afterdrinking is risky, but they see party-ing students casually climb into carsfor a ride back to campus with adrinking driver at the wheel.

➤ Students are urged to find entertain-ment and recreational opportunitieswhere alcohol is not part of thescene, but such offerings are few andfar between.

Given such an environment, routinewarnings against underage drinking anddriving under the influence (DUI) will have only a limited effect on students’ behavior.

A prevention approach known asenvironmental management is the founda-tion for a broad set of policies and pro-

grams to reduce underage drinking and DUI among college students.Environmental management rests on theprinciple that the decisions young peo-ple make about alcohol use are shapedby their environment, a complex ofphysical, social, economic, and legal fac-tors that affect alcohol’s appeal and avail-ability.Accordingly, the most effectiveand efficient way of reducing substanceuse problems in the general populationis to change that environment.

A Typology ofCampus andCommunityInterventionsPrevention work in public health hasbeen guided by a social ecological framework,which describes the following five levelsof influence on health-related behavior,including college student drinking:

1. Intrapersonal (individual) factors 2. Interpersonal (group) factors3. Institutional factors 4. Community factors 5. State and federal public policy

The U.S. Department of Education’sHigher Education Center for Alcoholand Other Drug Prevention has expand-ed this basic framework to create a fullclassification or typology of campus-based prevention and treatment options.

9

EnvironmentalManagement—ProvenPrevention Practices

PART 2

L

This framework can be used both toprovide a systematic review of currentefforts and to inform future strategicplanning.22

Table 1 below, called the “typologymatrix,” illustrates the framework byshowing the intersection of the levels ofinfluence with different kinds of preven-tion approaches.The columns across thetop of the matrix show the levels ofinfluence listed above (individual, group,institution, community, and state andfederal public policy).The rows downthe side of the matrix show differentkinds of approaches, called “areas ofstrategic intervention”:

1. Changing students’ knowledge,beliefs, attitudes, and behavioralintentions

2. Eliminating or modifying environ-mental factors that contribute to theproblem

3. Protecting students from the short-

term consequences of alcohol con-sumption (“health protection” or“harm reduction” strategies)

4. Intervening with and treating stu-dents who are addicted to alcohol or otherwise show evidence ofproblem drinking

The matrix makes it clear that the dif-ferent areas of strategic intervention canbe pursued at several program and policylevels of the social ecological framework.

Areas of strategic intervention canbe pursued at several program and policylevels of the social ecological framework.In the area of health protection, forexample, a local community coulddecide to establish a “safe rides” programso that students who have been drinkingwill not have to drive to return home.This community-level program could beaugmented by efforts at other levels.Atthe group level, for example, fraternityand sorority chapters might vote to

10


Areas of StrategicIntervention

Public Individual Group Institution Community Policy

Knowledge, Attitudes,Behavioral Intentions

Environmental Change1. Alcohol-Free Options2. Normative

Environment3. Alcohol Availability4. Alcohol Promotion5. Policy/Law

Enforcement

Health Protection

Intervention and Treatment

Program and Policy Levels(Social Ecological Framework)

TABLE 1 Typology matrix for mapping campus and communityprevention efforts

require members to pledge not to drinkand drive and instead to use the newprogram.At the individual level, therecould be a campus-based media cam-paign that explains how to access thenew service.

Consider increased enforcement ofthe minimum legal drinking age.At thecommunity level, local police couldincrease the number of decoy (or“sting”) operations at local bars andrestaurants to see if servers are checkingidentification before serving alcohol.Atthe institutional level, school officialsmight require that trained bartenders behired to serve alcohol at on-campusfunctions.At the group level, schoolofficials—as part of a party registrationprocedure—might require student clubsto submit a plan for preventing alcoholservice to underage students at plannedsocial events. Finally, at the individuallevel, the orientation program for newstudents could publicize these policies,the greater level of enforcement, and thelegal consequences of underage drinking.

Historically, campus-based preven-tion efforts have relied primarily on stu-dent awareness and education programsto address a mix of intrapersonal or indi-vidual factors, such as knowledge, beliefs,attitudes, skills (e.g., how to refuse anoffer of alcohol), and behavioral inten-tions.Another mainstay of campus-basedprevention has been the peer educationprogram, which uses peer-to-peer com-munication to change student socialnorms about alcohol use.The largestsuch program is the BACCHUS andGAMMA Peer Education Network. Ingeneral, there is little evidence that thesetypes of educational programs, when usedalone, are successful in reducing alcoholproblems on campus; 23 however, whenused in combination with other preventionprograms, they can play an important role.

The prevention philosophy of envi-ronmental management hinges on abroader focus on combined institutional,

community, and public policy factors.The underlying premise of this approachis that college students do not makedecisions about alcohol consumption inisolation, but in an environmental con-text that encourages or discourages high-risk consumption.The Higher EducationCenter urges college officials to take ahand in constructing an environment,both on campus and in the surroundingcommunity, that will help students makehealthier choices about drinking.

As shown in table 1, the HigherEducation Center has identified fivegeneral types of environmental manage-ment strategies for effective prevention:

1. Offer and promote social, recre-ational, extracurricular, and publicservice options that do not includealcohol and other drugs.

2. Create a social, academic, and resi-dential environment that supportshealth-promoting norms.

3. Limit alcohol availability both onand off campus.

4. Restrict marketing and promotionof alcoholic beverages both on andoff campus.

5. Develop and enforce campus poli-cies and local, state, and federal laws.

Table 2 (pp. 16–18) shows that all five ofthese categories involve a wide range ofpossible program and policy options.

What Works?A Review of the Evidence

Among these many options, which oneswork best? To answer that question, theNIAAA Task Force on College Drinkingdeveloped research-based recommenda-tions to college and university presidentsfor effective prevention. Its findings werepublished in April 2002 in A Call toAction: Changing the Culture of Drinking atU.S. Colleges (see http://collegedrinkingprevention.gov).

11

Part 2 ❖ Environmental Management—Proven Prevention Practices

Informed by the best scientific evi-dence available, this report strongly rein-forces the environmental managementapproach. For prevention planners con-cerned about underage drinking andDUI, the NIAAA Task Force’s list ofeffective and promising approaches shouldserve as the departure point for crafting acomprehensive prevention program.

The NIAAA report organizes cur-rent programs and policies into four tiersaccording to the quality of research evi-dence that is available at present.

TIER 1: EVIDENCE OFEFFECTIVENESS AMONGCOLLEGE STUDENTSStrategies included in tier 1 have two ormore research studies that prove theireffectiveness. Programs in this categoryare limited to educational and interven-tion programs that target students whoare alcohol-dependent or problemdrinkers. For example, based on theAlcohol Skills Training Program(ASTP),24 the Brief Alcohol Screeningand Intervention for College Students(BASICS) program uses two brief moti-vational interview sessions to give stu-dents feedback about their drinking leveland an opportunity to craft a plan forreducing their alcohol consumption.High-risk drinkers who participated inthe BASICS program significantlyreduced their drinking relative to controlgroup participants, a change that persist-ed even four years later.25

The ultimate challenge may be fig-uring out how to establish the tier 1intervention programs on a scale bigenough to affect the behavior of largenumbers of students, not just a smallnumber of research participants. Usingtrained professionals to conduct one-on-one or small-group sessions, as was donein the research studies, would be prohib-itively expensive. One alternative mightbe to use peer educators.Another alter-

native might be a Web-based screeningtool with computerized feedback andguided development of an individualizeddrinking reduction plan.

Research studies currently underway will determine the feasibility andeffectiveness of these and other low-costoptions. Meanwhile, limited applicationof these programs using one-on-one orsmall-group procedures is clearly war-ranted for students who belong to high-risk social groups (e.g., fraternities andsororities, athletics teams), are being dis-ciplined for violating the school’s alcoholpolicies, or have identified themselves asalcohol-dependent or problem drinkers.

TIER 2: EVIDENCE OF SUCCESSWITH GENERAL POPULATIONSSeveral environmental change strategiesfor reducing alcohol-related problemsthat have not yet been tested with col-lege students nevertheless have beenused successfully with the general popu-lation.These strategies, therefore, meritserious consideration:

➤ Increased Enforcement ofMinimum Legal Drinking Age.As noted, raising the minimum legaldrinking age has proved very effec-tive, resulting in substantial decreasesin alcohol consumption and alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes.This isthe case even though enforcementof the “age 21” laws has been spotty.Studies do show that increasedenforcement can substantially reducesales to minors.26 By extension, col-lege and community officials shouldseriously consider applying a varietyof measures to prevent underagedrinking, including cracking downon fake IDs, eliminating homedelivery of alcohol, registering kegs,and so forth.

12


➤ Implementation andEnforcement of Other Laws to Reduce Alcohol-ImpairedDriving. The best available estimateis that nearly 80 percent of alcohol-related fatalities among college stu-dents are the result of automobilecrashes.27 To date, well over 40 statesand the District of Columbia haveenacted per se .08 percent bloodalcohol concentration (BAC) legisla-tion. In those states that have not yetdone so, campus and communityofficials should call for state lawsthat will lower the legal per se limitfor adult drivers to .08 percentBAC, set legal BAC limits for driv-ers under age 21 at .02 percentBAC or lower, and permit adminis-

trative license revocation after DUIarrests.28 Greater enforcement,including the use of sobriety check-points and targeted patrols, is alsorecommended.

➤ Restrictions on Alcohol RetailOutlet Density. The density ofalcohol licenses or outlets is relatedto alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems, includingviolence, other crime, and healthproblems.29 One influential studyfound that both underage and oldercollege students reported higher lev-els of alcohol consumption whenthere were larger numbers of alcoholoutlets within one mile of campus.30

Additional research could testwhether zoning and licensing regu-

13


A study reported in 2002 by the CDC con-firms the value of strong state laws and poli-cies directed against DUI, especially for driv-ers under the age of 21. Among the most sig-nificant tasks that a campus and communitycoalition can undertake is to influence statepolicymakers to pass more effective laws andregulations.

Researchers made use of ratings of stateanti-DUI laws created by Mothers AgainstDrunk Driving (MADD).34 MADD assignsstates a grade from A to D based on thestrength and comprehensiveness of theirefforts to reduce alcohol-impaired driving.The MADD ratings for 2000 were comparedwith responses to the CDC’s 1997 BehavioralRisk Factor Surveillance System Survey.

The number of survey respondents whoacknowledged driving after drinking in theprevious 30 days was lowest in states withthe highest MADD ratings. Drivers in stateswith D ratings were 60 percent more likely todrive after drinking than those in states withan A rating.

Factors considered in the MADD ratingsinclude (1) provisions of the DUI laws, (2)sanctions and penalties for violating those

laws, (3) resources devoted to enforcement,(4) alcohol licensing regulations and require-ments (e.g., mandatory server training), (5)prevention and education programs directedat youth, (6) mandatory assessment andtreatment for alcohol problems, and (7) politi-cal leadership by the governor and state leg-islature on the issue of DUI.

No state received an unqualified A unlessit (1) had a .08 percent BAC per se law,meaning that anyone with a BAC at that levelor higher is by definition impaired; (2) provid-ed for automatic administrative revocation ofdriver’s licenses after DUI arrests; and (3)mandated the use of seat belts.35

Another CDC study rated the demonstrat-ed effectiveness of five popular preventionstrategies for reducing alcohol-related motorvehicle crashes. The study, published in 2001,found strong evidence for the effectiveness of.08 percent BAC per se laws, minimum drink-ing age laws, and sobriety checkpoints. Itfound sufficient evidence for the effectivenessof lower BAC limits for young and inexperi-enced drivers (“zero tolerance” laws) andRBS training programs for servers of alcoholicbeverages.36

Strong State Laws and Policies Make a Difference

lations can be used to help reducealcohol-related problems, but thestrong correlation between outletdensity and alcohol problems sug-gests that this approach does havemerit.

➤ Increased Prices and ExciseTaxes on Alcoholic Beverages.The effect of price on alcohol con-sumption is well documented. Studieshave shown that when the price ofalcohol goes up, many alcohol-relatedproblems, including fatal motor vehi-cle crashes, go down. Price variationsespecially affect young people, eventhose who are already heavydrinkers.31 Price rises can be effected

through increases in alcohol excisetaxes.Another tactic is to work outcooperative agreements with localmerchants to institute minimum pricing or to limit low-price drinkspecials.32

➤ Responsible Beverage Service(RBS) Policies. RBS involves sev-eral policies to reduce alcohol salesto minors and intoxicated patrons at bars and restaurants, includingchecking for proof-of-age identifica-tion, serving alcohol in smaller stan-dard sizes, limiting the number ofservings per alcohol sale, restrictingsales of pitchers, promoting alcohol-free drinks and food, eliminating

14


Just as students typically overestimate howmuch their fellow students drink, many ofthem correspondingly underestimate howmuch their peers support new policies andstricter enforcement to reduce alcohol prob-lems on campus.

The Social Norms Marketing ResearchProject, based at Education DevelopmentCenter, Inc., in Newton, Massachusetts, askedstudents at 18 colleges and universities howthey felt about each of a dozen alcohol poli-cies, among them banning keg parties oncampus, using decoys to monitor sales tominors, making all campus residences alco-hol-free, restricting advertising that promotesalcohol consumption at on-campus partiesand events, and imposing tougher disciplinarysanctions for students who repeatedly violatecampus alcohol policies.

The proportion of students who personal-ly supported each policy was consistentlyhigher than the proportion thinking thatother students felt that way. For example, 58percent of students surveyed said theyfavored prohibiting kegs on campus, whereasonly 26 percent said they believed there wasgeneral student support for this measure.

While 77 percent were in favor of stricter dis-ciplinary sanctions for students who repeat-edly violate campus alcohol policies, only 46percent believed that other students support-ed the idea.37

On a similar note, some campus adminis-trators fear that parents of students will reactadversely to tough policies that threaten topunish their children for violating college alco-hol rules. Actually, in a survey conducted by theAmerican Medical Association (AMA), 80 per-cent of parents said they would feel more com-fortable sending their child to a college withstrong policies or programs in place to deterunderage drinking and heavy alcohol use.

According to the survey, 93 percent of par-ents believe easy access to alcohol is a majorcause of heavy drinking by students, 80 per-cent believe that low prices for alcohol con-tribute to student drinking, and 79 percentbelieve advertising and promotion by alcoholcompanies add to the problem.

The survey was conducted as part of theAMA’s A Matter of Degree program, whichencourages alliances between campus andcommunity organizations to reduce studentalcohol problems.38

The Silent Majority

last-call announcements, and cuttingoff sales to patrons who might otherwise become intoxicated.Studies suggest that such policies—reinforced by training for both man-agers and staff and by compliancemonitoring—can reduce inappropri-ate alcohol sales significantly.33

TIER 3: EVIDENCE OF PROMISEThe NIAAA Task Force report identifiedadditional program and policy ideas thatmake sense intuitively or seem theoreti-cally sound but so far lack strongresearch-based support.Table 2 (pp.16–18)lists these ideas, along with additionalpromising ideas inspired by the HigherEducation Center’s environmental man-agement approach. Clearly, any tacticsthat might serve to increase alcohol-freeoptions, change the normative environ-ment, reduce alcohol availability, alteralcohol marketing and promotion, orincrease the consistent enforcement ofpolicies deserve to be tried and evaluated.

TIER 4: EVIDENCE OFINEFFECTIVENESSThe programs listed in this final categoryconsistently have been found to be inef-fective when used in isolation. Whetherthey might make an important contribu-tion as part of a more comprehensiveprevention program has not yet beendemonstrated.

Basic awareness and education pro-grams, although a major part of preven-tion work on most college campuses,belong to this tier.Typical among theseefforts are orientation sessions for newstudents; alcohol awareness weeks andother special events; and curriculuminfusion, through which instructorsintroduce alcohol-related facts and issuesinto their regular academic courses.39

While college administrators have anobligation to make sure that studentsknow the facts, such educational pro-

grams do not by themselves generallylead to widespread or consistent behavior change.

A second problematic tactic is usingbreath analysis tests to give studentsfeedback on their BAC levels so thatthey can avoid impaired driving.According to the NIAAA Task Force,anecdotal reports suggest that some stu-dent drinkers will instead compete toreach the highest BAC possible.

15


16


Note: Tactics can be classified according to the level of research evidence for their effective-ness, as suggested by the NIAAA Task Force on College Drinking:*

Tier 1: Evidence of effectiveness among college studentsTier 2: Evidence of success with general populationsTier 3: Evidence of promiseTier 4: Evidence of ineffectiveness

The Task Force did not list any environmental change tactics under Tiers 1 or 4. Tactics listedunder Tier 2 are identified below. The remaining tactics can be classified under Tier 3, althoughthe Task Force did not explicitly list all of them.

ALCOHOL-FREE OPTIONS

Problem: Many students, especially at residential colleges, have few adult responsibilities anda great deal of unstructured free time, and there are too few social and recreational options.

Strategic Objective: Offer and promote social, recreational, extracurricular, and public serv-ice options that do not include alcohol and other drugs.

Tactics (examples):• Create new alcohol-free events.• Promote alcohol-free events and activities.• Create and publicize student service learning or volunteer activities.• Require community service work as part of the academic curriculum.• Open a student center, gym, or other alcohol-free settings.• Expand hours for student center, gym, or other alcohol-free settings.• Promote consumption of nonalcoholic beverages and food at events.• Provide greater financial support to student clubs and organizations that are substance-free.

NORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT

Problem: Many people accept drinking and other drug use as a “normal” part of the collegeexperience.

Strategic Objective: Create a social, academic, and residential environment that supportshealth-promoting norms.

Tactics (examples):• Change college admissions procedures.• Increase academic standards.• Modify the academic schedule (e.g., increase the number of Friday classes).• Offer a greater number of substance-free residence halls.• Increase faculty-student contact.• Employ older, salaried resident assistants.• Create a social norms marketing campaign to correct student misperceptions of

drinking norms.

* Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Instituteon Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges(Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Health, 2002).

TABLE 2 Strategic objectives and tactics focused on environmental change

17


ALCOHOL AVAILABILITY

Problem: Alcohol is abundantly available to students and is inexpensive.

Strategic Objective: Limit alcohol availability both on and off campus.

Tactics (examples):• Ban or restrict use of alcohol on campus.• Prohibit alcohol use in public places.• Prohibit delivery or use of kegs or other common containers on campus.• Prohibit tailgate parties.• Control or eliminate alcohol sales at sports events.• Disseminate guidelines for off-campus parties.• Install a responsible beverage service (RBS) program (Tier 2).

✓ Require use of registered and trained alcohol servers.✓ Provide training programs for both servers and managers.✓ Limit container size and number of servings per alcohol sales.✓ Restrict sales of pitchers.✓ Cut off sales to patrons who might otherwise become intoxicated.✓ Eliminate last-call announcements.

• Limit number and concentration of alcohol outlets near campus (Tier 2).• Increase costs of alcohol sales licenses.• Limit days or hours of alcohol sales.• Eliminate home delivery of alcohol purchases.• Require keg registration.• Increase state alcohol taxes (Tier 2).

MARKETING AND PROMOTION OF ALCOHOL

Problem: Bars, restaurants, and liquor stores use aggressive promotions to target underageand other college drinkers.

Strategic Objective: Restrict marketing and promotion of alcoholic beverages both on and off campus.

Tactics (examples):

On Campus• Ban or restrict alcohol advertising.• Ban or restrict alcohol industry sponsorship of on-campus events.• Limit content of party or event announcements.

Off Campus• Ban or limit alcohol advertising in the vicinity of schools.• Ban alcohol promotions with special appeal to underage drinkers.• Ban alcohol promotions that show drinking in high-risk contexts.• Require pro-health messages to counterbalance alcohol advertising.• Institute cooperative agreement to institute minimum pricing (Tier 2).• Institute cooperative agreement to ban or restrict low-price drink specials (Tier 2).

TABLE 2 Strategic objectives and tactics focused on environmental change (continued)

(Continued on next page)

18


POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND ENFORCEMENT

Problem: Campus policies and local, state, and federal laws are not enforced consistently.

Strategic Objective: Develop and enforce campus policies and local, state, and federal laws.

Tactics (examples):

On Campus• Revise campus alcohol and other drug (AOD) policies.• Disseminate campus AOD policies and publicize their enforcement.• Require on-campus functions to be registered.• Increase ID checks at on-campus functions.• Use decoy operations at campus pubs and on-campus functions.• Increase patrols near on-campus parties.• Increase disciplinary sanctions for violation of campus AOD policies.• Increase criminal prosecution of students for alcohol-related offenses.• Notify parents of rules violations.

Off Campus• Enforce minimum legal drinking age laws (Tier 2).

✓ Increase ID checks at off-campus bars and liquor stores.✓ Use decoy operations at retail alcohol outlets.✓ Enforce seller penalties for sale of liquor to minors.✓ Enforce penalties for possessing fake ID.

• Increase patrols near off-campus parties.• Establish new DUI laws (Tier 2).

✓ Set legal per se limit for adult drivers at .08% BAC.✓ Set legal limit for drivers under age 21 at .02% BAC or lower.✓ Establish administrative license revocation for alcohol-impaired driving.

• Increase enforcement of DUI laws.✓ Use targeted patrols.✓ Use sobriety checkpoints.

• Impose driver’s license penalties for minors violating alcohol laws.• Change driver’s licensing procedures and formats.• Pass ordinances to restrict open house assemblies and noise level.• Educate sellers/servers about potential legal liability.

TABLE 2 Strategic objectives and tactics focused on environmental change (continued)

LPrevention in Action

19

PART 3

Area of Strategic Intervention Environmental Change..................................................................21

Alcohol-Free Options: Offer and promote social, recreational, extracurricular,and public service options that do not include alcohol and other drugs (AOD)................................................................21

■ Alcohol-Free Events ....................................................................................................................................21■ Volunteer Community Service..........................................................................................................................22

Normative Environment: Create a social, academic, and residential environment that supports health-promoting norms ......................................................................................................................................22

■ Social Norms Marketing Campaigns........................................................................................................22■ Focus on College’s Educational Mission ....................................................................................................22

Alcohol Availability: Limit alcohol availability both on and off campus ................................................................................23■ Responsible Beverage Service....................................................................................................................23■ Closing Hours ..............................................................................................................................................23■ Laws That Confine Drinking..........................................................................................................................23■ Limiting the Density of Alcohol Outlets............................................................................................................23■ Keg Registration..........................................................................................................................................23■ Campus Policies to Restrict Alcohol Availability....................................................................................25■ Policies for Fraternities, Sororities, and Other Campus Organizations ..............................................25

Marketing and Promotion of Alcohol: Restrict marketing and promotion of alcoholic beverages both on and off campus ..................................................................................................................................25

■ Alcohol Advertising ..................................................................................................................................25■ Sponsorship of Sports Events ....................................................................................................................26■ Comprehensive Ban on Alcohol Advertising ................................................................................................26■ Price ..............................................................................................................................................................26■ Voluntary Marketing and Advertising Guidelines ....................................................................................26

Policy Development and Law Enforcement: Develop and enforce campus policies and local, state, and federal laws ......................................................................................................................................27

■ Campus Regulations......................................................................................................................................27■ Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA) ..................................................................................27■ Parental Notification ........................................................................................................................................28■ Alcohol Policy Violations off Campus ......................................................................................................28■ Orientation Programs ..............................................................................................................................28■ State and Local Laws ..................................................................................................................................29■ Selling to Minors ....................................................................................................................................29■ Underage Sellers ..........................................................................................................................................29■ Adults Providing Alcohol to Underage Drinkers ....................................................................................29■ Sobriety Checkpoints..................................................................................................................................30■ Fake IDs........................................................................................................................................................30■ “Zero Tolerance” Laws..................................................................................................................................30

Area of Strategic Intervention Knowledge, Attitudes,and Behavioral Intentions ......................................................................................................................................31

■ Effects of Alcohol on Ability to Drive............................................................................................................31

Area of Strategic Intervention Health Protection ..............................................................................31■ Designated Driver Programs..........................................................................................................................31■ Safe Rides Program..................................................................................................................................32

Area of Strategic Intervention Intervention and Treatment..........................................................32■ Interactive Course ..........................................................................................................................................32■ One-on-One Intervention ..........................................................................................................................32

This section describes policies andprograms currently being usedthroughout the United States to

prevent underage drinking and DUIamong college students. Program contactinformation can be found in part 5,Resources (p. 43).The descriptions areorganized according to the typology ofcampus and community preventionefforts developed by the HigherEducation Center for Alcohol and OtherDrug Prevention (see table 1).The fol-lowing section describes four areas ofstrategic intervention: (1) EnvironmentalChange; (2) Knowledge,Attitudes, andBehavioral Intentions; (3) HealthProtection; and (4) Intervention andTreatment.

Area of StrategicInterventionEnvironmental Change

ALCOHOL-FREE OPTIONS:Offer and promote social, recre-ational, extracurricular, and publicservice options that do not includealcohol and other drugs (AOD).Students seeking lively social contactsshould be able to choose between morethan either bars and nightclubs or alco-hol-fueled parties.A comprehensiveeffort to reduce underage drinking andimpaired driving should ensure that stu-dents, especially those under the legal

drinking age, have a choice of alcohol-free activities in a campus and commu-nity atmosphere that supports the decision to avoid drinking.

Alcohol-Free EventsAlcohol-free events might require moreadvertising and promotion than thoserelying on alcoholic beverages to helpdraw attendance. Creating and promot-ing such activities is a challenge andalways runs the risk of failure, but anumber of successful campus-based pro-grams can be used as models:

➤ A program called †WVUp AllNight at West Virginia Universityhas attracted up to 1,000 students onweekend nights with free food,comedy, bowling, live bands, andother activities.

➤ An annual dance for students spon-sored by Boston College’s alumniassociation became notorious forhigh-risk drinking and was canceled.In response, the alumni association† organized sports competi-tions and community serviceprojects, such as providing meals tolocal food banks.

➤ Through a program called † PRIDE(Promoting Responsible andInformed Decisions throughEducation), the University ofRedlands in California offers screen-ings of current hit movies, a coffeeand dessert bar, and weekly eventsfeaturing comedians, musicians, andother live entertainment.

21

Prevention in Action

PART 3

† Please refer to the Resources section for contact information.

L

Volunteer Community ServiceVacation periods are also a time of riskfor student drinking problems.Acrossthe nation, several campus organizationsare now in place to arrange for studentsto do volunteer community service dur-ing spring break and other vacationperiods. Central Michigan University’s†Alternative Breaks provides oppor-tunities during vacation breaks and onseveral weekends during the academicyear.†Alternative Weekends is asimilar program based at the Universityof Michigan. Habitat for Humanity, anorganization that enlists volunteers tohelp build houses in poverty-strickenareas, saw a 15 percent rise in studentparticipation in its 2002 CollegiateChallenge program.

NORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT:Create a social, academic, and resi-dential environment that supportshealth-promoting norms.

Social Norms Marketing CampaignsSocial norms marketing campaigns aredesigned to convey accurate informationto students about “peer drinking norms”or the drinking habits of other students.The idea is to undermine the wildly exag-gerated views of student drinking thatmany students hold and thereby reducethe perceived pressure to drink alcohol inorder to fit in.40 This approach has beenadapted to help dispel similar mispercep-tions about driving after drinking.

The University of Texas (UT) atAustin developed its campaign after asurvey showed that seven out of 10 UTstudents do not drive after drinking, andthat seven out of 10 UT students drinkno more than three drinks at a party, ifthey drink at all.The † “7 out of 10”message saturated the Austin campusduring the 2000–01 academic year,appearing at orientation meetings for

first-year students, on posters, in newspa-per ads, on radio and television, on aWeb site, and on stickers worn by manystaff and students.

†MOST of Us, a statewide cam-paign developed at Montana StateUniversity (MSU), used posters, mediamessages, and other information chan-nels to get out the message that four outof five 18 to 21 year olds on the MSUcampus do not drive after drinking.Afollow-up survey found that only about16 percent of those who recalled theMOST of Us message had driven afterdrinking in the previous month, com-pared with 25 percent of those notrecalling any DUI prevention message.

Focus on College’s EducationalMissionThe normative environment is alsocommunicated by policies and practicesthat either promote or undermine thecollege’s educational mission. For exam-ple, some campus administrators havediscovered that the convenience andpopularity of scheduling all or mostclasses early in the week creates a “three-day weekend.”The NIAAA Task Forcerecommended reinstating Friday (andperhaps even Saturday) classes andexams as a means of reducing high-riskdrinking by students.41

Initial resistance among students maydiminish when voluntary activities oncescheduled for Fridays are moved toWednesdays and regular classes arescheduled on Fridays.42 At ClarkUniversity in Massachusetts, the facultyvoted to schedule more classes onFridays after a survey showed that therewere almost three times as many classmeetings on Mondays and Wednesdaysas on Fridays. Similarly,Wesleyan Collegein Middletown, Connecticut, scheduledmore classes on Fridays after studentscomplained that there were too manyclasses in the middle of the week.43

22



Eyes on the Prize

Several chapters of theAutomobile Association ofAmerica (AAA) and the U.S.Department of Education’sHigher Education Center forAlcohol and Other DrugPrevention cosponsor theannual College andUniversity Drinking andDriving PreventionAwards Program. The pro-gram annually awards one$5,000 grand prize and two$1,000 prizes to colleges anduniversities in a six-stateregion (California, Hawaii,Nevada, New Mexico, Texas,and Utah) for their innova-tive activities to reducedrinking and driving amongtheir students. Other AAAchapters are consideringjoining this recognitioneffort, and it is hoped that itmight some day becomenational in scope. Visithttp://www.higheredcenter.org/grants/aaa/ for moreinformation.

ALCOHOL AVAILABILITY:Limit alcohol availability both onand off campus.

Responsible Beverage ServiceRBS training for owners, managers, andemployees of off-campus alcohol outletsis a key prevention tactic. RBS trainingis a means of reducing underage drinkingand preventing intoxicated patrons fromleaving an establishment to drive a motorvehicle.A special value of RBS training isthat it helps servers detect counter-feit proof-of-age documents andteaches them how to refuse service in away that avoids confrontation.Typically,RBS training also includes informationabout how to recognize signs of intoxica-tion and prevent alcohol misuse.

Asking DUI offenders where theyhad their last drink before being arrestedmay indicate that certain establishmentsare routinely failing to cut off service tointoxicated patrons or not making aneffort to keep them from driving whileimpaired.A “last drink” survey at theUniversity of Delaware found thatbetween 45 and 50 percent of studentsarrested for DUI had their last drink at abar or restaurant, whereas 30 percent hadtheir last drink at someone else’s home.44

Closing HoursIf bars close at 2:00 AM in one city orcounty, drinkers might then go by car toan adjacent city or county where bars stayopen until 3:00 AM.The risk this createsprompted a new ordinance changing thebar-closing hour in Union City, NewJersey, from 3:00 AM to 2:00 AM to bringit in line with closing times in surround-ing towns. Obviously, earlier closinghours also give bar patrons less time todrink, thus reducing the risk of impair-ment before customers drive home.

Laws That Confine DrinkingLaws that confine drinking to licensedpremises and set aside designated areasfor alcohol sales and consumption atpublic events help discourage irresponsi-ble behavior and public disturbances bystudents.45 Such laws also increase vendoraccountability by making it easier totrack which alcohol outlets are servingunderage drinkers or intoxicated persons.Also worth considering is enactment ofalcohol bans at beaches, lakefronts, parks,and other public places in order to keepthese locations safe for family recreation.

Limiting the Density of AlcoholOutletsResearch has shown higher levels of bothunderage and high-risk drinking whenthere is a heavier concentration of alcoholoutlets near campus.46 Although alcohollicensing might be a responsibility of stategovernment, local communities can stilluse zoning powers to control the densityof neighborhood alcohol outlets and torequire that licensees engage in responsi-ble business practices.

The city of Newark, Delaware, actedto reduce the density of bars in thevicinity of the University of Delaware byplacing deed restrictions prohibiting thesale of alcohol on three properties. InLincoln, Nebraska, the University ofNebraska worked for passage of an ordi-nance banning “bottle clubs” that pro-vide drink mixers to patrons who bringtheir own alcohol.

Keg RegistrationAt least 13 states and the District ofColumbia now have keg registrationlaws.The merchant records the buyer'sname, address, telephone number, anddriver’s license number. If police confis-cate a keg being used to supply under-age drinkers, they can easily trace thepurchaser and impose sanctions.

23

Part 3 ❖ Prevention in Action

24


A Community Covenant

The College Bar Task Force in San Diego is onthe front line in the battle against alcohol-impaired driving. Its focus is the beach areasof San Diego—miles from most of the largecampuses, but popular with students whomore than likely come and go there by car.The task force’s mission is to get bar andrestaurant operators who cater to studentsto subscribe to a †“communitycovenant” pledging them to pursue busi-ness policies that will minimize such prob-lems as underage drinking and DUI.

Working with the San Diego Food andBeverage Association and the CaliforniaDepartment of Alcoholic Beverage Control,the task force arranges free classes in RBSfor owners, managers, bartenders, waiters,and other servers who come in regular con-tact with students. The servers learn to detectfake IDs, recognize when customers arebecoming intoxicated, encourage patrons toeat as well as drink, and promote the use ofdesignated drivers among groups of stu-dents. Doormen who check IDs also receivetraining in how to identify counterfeit docu-ments. With the rise of “club drugs” as anew substance abuse problem, bar employ-ees are also receiving training in ways tospot the presence of illegal drugs.

The task force focuses not only on whathappens in the bars but also on the low-pricedrink specials and other lures commonly fea-tured in bar advertising and promotion. Oneaim is to persuade bars not to compete withone another by cutting drink prices, saysMarian Novak, director of San Diego’sCollegiate-Community Alcohol PreventionPartnership (C-CAPP). Price specials tend toincrease alcohol consumption and thus pro-duce more drinkers at risk for impaired driv-ing and other problems.

C-CAPP has a full menu of preventionactivities aimed at reducing underage andother high-risk drinking among the 140,000college students attending the San Diego

area’s nine colleges and universities. Grantsfrom the U.S. Department of Education andthe NIAAA have helped underwrite thiswork. The coalition includes campus adminis-trators, students, representatives of campuspolice, local police departments, theCalifornia Department of Alcoholic BeverageControl, representatives of alcohol retailersand bars and restaurants, and preventionadvocates from community agencies con-cerned with alcohol issues.

The coalition considers itself to be a pre-vention “system” rather than a program. Itlooks at alcohol problems in terms of several“subsystems,” including advertising and pro-motion of alcohol, social norms influencingdrinking behavior of students, policies andregulations, retail sales and availability, anddrinking in high-risk contexts like tailgateand other student parties.

A Safe and Responsible Party Task Forcehas developed a close relationship with theSan Diego Police Department to carry out aprogram for quelling noisy parties in neigh-borhoods around campuses. The programuses a city antinoise ordinance to ban party-ing at private residences that have generatedtwo or more police visits within a month. Theprogram does not attempt to deal with par-tying at fraternity and sorority houses.Instead, these organizations are urged toinvite nondrinking student monitors to theirparties to prevent underage drinking and dis-courage driving after drinking.

In another activity, Associated Students, aSan Diego State University organization, isproviding free rides home to partying stu-dents who have been drinking at bars in thebeach areas. An airport shuttle service undercontract to Associated Students keeps threevans available between 11:00 PM and 3:00AM on Friday and Saturday nights to pick upstudents who have been drinking and takethem home.† Please refer to the Resources

section for contact information.

The effectiveness of keg registration hasbeen challenged by the alcohol industry,which argues that the law merelyinduces party organizers to buy beer insix-packs or cases instead of kegs. Even ifthat is the case, this in itself might be anet benefit, as beer purchased in cansand bottles is more expensive than beerpurchased by the keg, a factor that coulddrive down consumption.

Campus Policies to Restrict AlcoholAvailabilityOn campus, an institutional policy thatpermits the sale and consumption ofalcoholic beverages by persons of legaldrinking age should include provisionsto help prevent underage drinking.Facilities where alcohol is sold—a facul-ty lounge, student union, or pub—should be required to adhere to thestrictest possible RBS code, not onlyrefusing to serve minors and intoxicatedpatrons but also refraining from anyprice reductions or promotions thatencourage the choice of alcoholic overnonalcoholic beverages.

Many campuses specify times andplaces where alcohol cannot be con-sumed, such as substance-free residencehalls or residence halls for students under21.An alcohol-free policy can also beextended to all public areas of the campus,athletics facilities, parking lots, fraternityand sorority recruiting functions, and anysocial events where a significant numberof those in attendance are under age.

Policies for Fraternities, Sororities,and Other Campus Organizations Alcohol policies that affect fraternities,sororities, and other campus organiza-tions should be adopted and enforced aspart of an environmental preventionprogram. Now that fraternities andsororities increasingly face civil lawsuitsconnected with alcohol use, many cam-pus chapters and their national officeshave become potential sources of sup-

port for effective policies.Their activerole in supporting these policies canrange from requiring RBS training foralcohol servers at social events to out-right bans on alcohol whenever eventsmight attract persons under age 21.Arule requiring social events to be regis-tered and approved by college adminis-trators can help ensure that organizersknow the school’s policies. Sanctionsagainst organizations can include tempo-rary or permanent suspension, whichwould then preclude them from recruit-ing new members or otherwise partici-pating in campus life.

❖ ❖ ❖

The set of events covered by arestrictive alcohol policy should beclearly specified.The University of Tulsamakes its alcohol policy sweeping in itsapplication:“The Alcohol Policy shallapply to every function or event, includ-ing but not limited to receptions, ban-quets, dinners, picnics, or any outdoorevent, social event, and campuswideactivity sponsored by organizations orindividuals associated with theUniversity of Tulsa. In addition, otheroff-campus University of Tulsa eventsthat imply or express university affilia-tion are bound by this policy.”47

MARKETING AND PROMOTIONOF ALCOHOL:Restrict marketing and promotion of alcoholic beverages both on andoff campus.

Alcohol AdvertisingThe National Commission on Drug-Free Schools has called for a prohibitionof all alcohol advertising in campusnewspapers, at sports stadiums, and at allcampus events.48 One justification is thatalcohol marketing often targets youthand young adults without distinguishingbetween minors and those of legaldrinking age, even though more than

25


Chief to Chief

According to the Lincoln Star-Journal, Police Chief TomCasady of Lincoln, Nebraska,fired off a scolding letter to thepolice chief in a Florida beachresort after ads in the Universityof Nebraska campus paper sug-gested that underage drinkingand drunkenness would be tol-erated at the resort duringspring break. The police chief inFlorida responded that he toowas upset about the implica-tions of the advertising, and heassured Chief Casady that thelaws would be enforced regard-less of what the ads implied.

The Lincoln chief has beena supporter of tough enforce-ment of underage drinking lawsin Lincoln as a member of the

† NU Directions campusand community coalition, whichpursues a number of strategiesaimed at reducing alcohol-relat-ed problems among students.Chief Casady has complainedabout ads in homegrown publi-cations, too, chastising severallocal bars for promotions thatseem to encourage high-riskdrinking.

The efforts of Chief Casadyand the NU Directions coalitionappear to be paying off. Theircity had the lowest rate of alco-hol-related motor vehicle deathsamong the 97 largest cities inthe country, according to a studyreleased in 2001 by The RobertWood Johnson Foundation.49 TheUniversity of Nebraska has alsoreported lower rates of heavydrinking among its students, incontrast with national trendsreported in the 2001 CollegeAlcohol Study.50

half the students on many campuses areunder 21. Moreover, such advertisingfrequently associates alcohol consump-tion with tasks that require skilled andquick reactions, including operation of motor vehicles. Independent publica-tions cannot be compelled to eliminatealcohol advertising, but a preventioncoalition should still seek voluntaryagreements with them to restrict theadvertising’s content.

Sponsorship of Sports EventsSponsorship of sports events by alcoholmanufacturers reinforces the mistakenidea that drinking goes with activitiesrequiring physical agility and coordina-tion, including operating a motor vehi-cle. Campuses such as Fresno StateUniversity, the University of Minnesota,the University of Kentucky, and theUniversity of North Carolina at ChapelHill have successfully diminished theirdependence on alcohol advertising forintercollegiate athletics, either removingpromotional displays from arenas orshifting to other corporate sponsors fortelevision and radio broadcasts.

Comprehensive Ban on AlcoholAdvertisingA comprehensive ban on alcohol adver-tising and promotion should also excludeuse of college logos, insignia, or mascotsby alcohol manufacturers and prohibittheir sponsorship of educational pro-grams and fraternity and sorority events.In addition, these companies should beprohibited from placing sales or promo-tional representatives on campus.51

Some institutions might resist a poli-cy banning or otherwise restricting alco-hol advertising and promotion becausecampus publications, athletics depart-ments, or other extracurricular programshave become dependent on advertisingincome from the alcohol industry.Togain acceptance of a ban, campus admin-istrators should ensure that educational,

sporting, cultural, and prevention-orientedactivities are adequately funded withoutthe industry’s money. Other potentialsources of support include special contri-butions by alumni, paid advertising byother types of businesses (e.g., soft drinkdistributors, restaurants, sportswear companies), and higher student fees.52

PriceCollege students, like other consumers,are sensitive to price in making decisionsabout drinking. Researchers at theUniversity of Arkansas found that stu-dents agreed they would drink morewhen “all you can drink” specials wereavailable.The study found that high-riskdrinkers were more likely than others todrink more when prices were lower.Urging bars and restaurants to avoidprice specials as an advertising lure is animportant prevention tactic.53

Voluntary Marketing andAdvertising GuidelinesLed by the Albany, New York, mayor’soffice and officials from the University atAlbany, State University of New York(SUNY), the city Committee onUniversity and Community Relationsworked with the Empire State Restaurantand Tavern Association to persuade own-ers of bars and restaurants in off-campusstudent neighborhoods to subscribe tothe following † voluntary marketingand advertising guidelines:54

➤ Include a statement asking patronsto be respectful of neighborhoodresidents and to behave responsiblyand in a civil manner when leavingthe establishment.

➤ Eliminate low-price drink promo-tions, which encourage high rates ofalcohol consumption.

➤ Emphasize the legal necessity ofbeing 21 years of age or older, witha valid form of identification, toobtain alcohol.

26



➤ Avoid language or illustrations thatpromote irresponsible alcohol consumption.

➤ Promote nonalcoholic beverages andfood specials to the same extent asalcoholic beverage specials.

Establishments that agree to thisadvertising code are allowed to display aCooperating Tavern logo in their ads.The committee monitors publications toassure compliance and works with tavernowners to revise ads that do not comply.Since the program’s inception, hotlinecomplaints about students’ off-campusconduct have dropped dramatically.

Officials at SUNY New Paltz havealso worked with local police and busi-ness leaders to promulgate a TavernOwner’s Agreement, with the followingadditional features:

➤ The campus newspaper will acceptadvertising only from establishmentswhose owners signed the agreement.

➤ A copolicing arrangement betweenSUNY campus police and the NewPaltz police calls for collaborativeproblem solving, including policingof off-campus parties where under-age drinking may occur.

The number of low-price drink specialsadvertised by local bars has droppedsharply since the inception of the TavernOwner’s Agreement.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND LAWENFORCEMENT:Develop and enforce campus policiesand local, state, and federal laws.

Campus RegulationsCampus alcohol policies should be re-viewed periodically to ensure that theyare comprehensive, clearly written, con-sistently enforced, and include appropri-ate sanctions for violations.The policiesmust be specific and detailed so that allconcerned understand precisely what is

expected of them.Various policy optionsand suggestions for wording can befound in Setting and Improving Policies forReducing Alcohol and Other Drug Problemson Campus:A Guide for Administrators (seeResources, p. 43).

A participatory process will buildgreater support for new policies. Senioradministrators should seek the participa-tion of diverse campus constituencies inthis process, including faculty, staff, cam-pus police, alumni, students, and parents.Community activists, such as representa-tives from MADD or Students AgainstDestructive Decisions (SADD), can pro-vide community input for campus policydevelopment.

Drug-Free Schools and CommunitiesAct (DFSCA)The DFSCA specifies important contentfor an institution’s alcohol policies.Theact requires institutions of higher educa-tion to maintain a written policy that setsforth standards of conduct clearly pro-hibiting the unlawful possession, use, ordistribution of alcohol or illicit drugs onschool property or as part of any schoolactivity.The policy must also make clearthat certain sanctions apply to studentacts committed under the influence, suchas public disturbances, endangerment toself or others, or property damage.

According to the DFSCA, the policymust include a clear statement that theinstitution will impose sanctions up toexpulsion or termination of employmentand referral for prosecution for viola-tions of its standards of conduct.55

Additional sanctions for violations mightinclude mandatory attendance at a pre-vention education program, loss of privi-leges, community service, fines, or evic-tion from college-owned or college-controlled housing.The University ofKentucky’s alcohol policy, for example,provides that an athlete convicted ofDUI will be suspended from competi-

27


tion for a year and will be on probationwhile at the university.

Parental NotificationA survey of judicial affairs officers at 189institutions in January 2000 by researchersat Bowling Green State University foundthat 59 percent had parental notificationpolicies in effect, while 25 percent wereactively considering adopting such a poli-cy. Some institutions reported lower ratesof recidivism after they began notifyingparents of violations.56

The University of Missouri atColumbia in 2001 adopted a two-stepprocess for parental notification. First, aninformation packet is sent to underagestudents and their parents urging themto discuss drinking and other drug use.The materials explain that unless parentschoose otherwise, they will be notifiedwhen the student commits an alcohol orother drug violation.With 13,600 pack-ets mailed before the 2001–02 academicyear, only 121 parents chose not to benotified. During the year, the universitysent 48 letters informing parents thattheir underage children had committedviolations. More than half of the viola-tions were for DUI.57

Alcohol Policy Violations off Campus The jurisdiction of campus preventionpolicies should be carefully defined, gen-erally including all college property aswell as events controlled by or associatedwith the institution, including off-campus events.

The extent to which policies coveroff-campus behavior should reflect com-munity norms.Town-gown agreementssometimes provide for local police tonotify campus authorities when a stu-dent is arrested or ticketed for an alco-hol-related offense. Several colleges anduniversities have specified that an inci-dent occurring off campus will still beconsidered a violation of the studentconduct code.

Orientation ProgramsThe National Resource Center for theFirst-Year Experience® and Students inTransition estimates that as many as2,000 U.S. institutions of higher educa-tion offer a comprehensive orientationprogram that includes familiarizing newstudents with the school’s alcohol andother drug policies and with substance-free activities both on and off campus.

Campus officials must also take stepsto ensure that students—especially newstudents—are familiar with the policies,including sanctions. Potential civil liabili-ty should be discussed as well. For exam-ple, party hosts should be informed thatthey might be held legally responsiblefor having provided alcohol to a minorif underage guests are found to bedrinking, and that they might be liablefor any physical harm caused by anunderage guest who was drinking.

At SUNY New Paltz the studenthandbook,†Campus Regulations andJudicial Procedures, is distributed to bothstudents and parents to clarify policiesand sanctions concerning alcohol.Anorientation program—called Where’s the Party?—reviews the university’sexpectations for student conduct.The Collegiate-Community AlcoholPrevention Partnership in San Diego dis-tributes door-hangers in campus neigh-borhoods to explain laws and penaltiesfor providing alcohol to minors and localordinances regarding noisy parties.

The Underage Drinking EnforcementProgram at the University of NorthernColorado in Greeley offers † “Stop,Look, and Listen,” a two-hour presenta-tion on alcohol laws and policies, for stu-dents and parents attending summer ori-entation. During the academic year theprogram requires underage students whoare ticketed for alcohol-related offenses(either on or off campus) to attend a six-hour seminar on alcohol issues.

28



State and Local LawsCampus and community coalitionsshould also work to ensure that prevail-ing state and local laws and regulationsare enforced and that proposals fortougher laws receive vocal support fromthe community.

Selling to MinorsYouth in Action teams organized bylocal MADD chapters have enlistedunderage high school and college stu-dents to serve as “decoys” for policepatrols that monitor whether alcoholoutlets are selling to minors. Mostenforcement agencies have strict guide-lines for such operations to ensure thatthey are fair to the alcohol licensees, forexample, testing retail clerks only withwould-be purchasers who have a youth-ful appearance and are carrying identifi-cation showing that they are indeedunder age.

In Hawaii, a decoy operation testing295 stores found that 39 percent werewilling to sell alcohol to a minor.After ayear of random testing, the number haddeclined to 19 percent. In Iowa City,home of the University of Iowa, policereported a 30 percent decline in DUIarrests involving underage drivers afterthe introduction of a decoy programtesting compliance with the law at thecity’s 50 bars.58 Successful use of decoysin the community suggests that the sametactic could be used to test adherence tothe law at on-campus pubs and eventswhere alcohol is served.

The Century Council’s Cops inShops® program uses law enforcementofficers posing as retail clerks to deterattempts by underage customers to buyalcohol.The tactic has been used withsome success in outlets that are consid-ered popular sources of alcohol forunderage drinkers, but its actual effecton illegal sales has not been measured.Some enforcement agencies avoid it

because of the amount of time and ener-gy required to address each violation.Aparticipating officer can monitor onlyone or two stores in an evening, whereasthe same officer running a decoy pro-gram can test a dozen or more establish-ments for compliance in the same lengthof time.

Underage SellersThe age at which young people canlegally sell and serve alcohol ranges from16 to 21 and varies from state to state.California, for example, allows 18 yearolds to sell alcohol if they are under“continuous supervision” by someoneover 21. Some state laws differentiatebetween those who serve alcohol andthose who merely sell packaged alco-holic beverages over the counter in retailestablishments.

Underage sellers have greater diffi-culty than those over 21 refusing sales tounderage buyers.They are more likely tomisjudge the customer’s age, makeexceptions for friends and acquaintances,and respond to peer pressure. Even so,efforts to pass state laws that prohibitunderage sellers may encounter resist-ance from the business communitybecause of the effect such legislationwould have on employment policies.

Adults Providing Alcohol toUnderage DrinkersTougher state laws can also help discour-age adults from providing alcohol tounderage drinkers. In Minnesota, arecent law makes it a felony to have pro-vided alcohol to a minor who suffersserious injury or death as a result, whileanother new law allows persons harmedby an underage drinker to sue any adultswho provided alcohol to that person.Says an advocate of these recentMinnesota laws:“Our message is, sellingor giving alcohol to kids is wrong andwill get you in a world of trouble.”59

29


Keeping Up with the Law

All states make it illegal tosell or provide alcohol to per-sons under age 21 and tointoxicated persons, but theway the laws are interpretedand applied varies from stateto state. Generally, the lawsprovide for criminal penaltiessuch as fines or administra-tive remedies, including forfei-ture of alcohol licenses. Civilcourt decisions in differentstates have led to variationsin legal liability for cases inwhich alcohol service can belinked to death, injury, orproperty damage. College anduniversity administratorsshould work with legal coun-sel to keep careful watch onnew legislation and case lawin their state and to assesstheir implications for theschool’s AOD policies.

“Shoulder-tap” enforcement pro-grams use underage decoys to discourageadult purchases of alcohol on behalf ofminors.The term derives from theimage of minors approaching adults out-side an alcohol retail outlet, tappingthem on the shoulder, and asking themto purchase alcohol on the minors’behalf. Retailers are often willing to helpwith shoulder-tap programs because lawsin many states hold them responsible forsuch activities in the immediate vicinityof their establishments.

Sobriety CheckpointsSobriety checkpoints are an importanttool for DUI enforcement.A police offi-cer detecting evidence of alcohol use bya driver can ask the driver to take abreath test to establish BAC. In manystates, refusal to take the test leads toimmediate driver’s license suspension.

The value of sobriety checkpointsgoes beyond apprehending drunken driv-ers. In fact, relatively few drivers arearrested at checkpoints.Yet with appro-priate publicity, the checkpoints can havea significant dampening effect onimpaired driving.The knowledge thatpolice may be conducting checkpointscan be a deterrent to those who mightotherwise decide to drive after drinking.60

The Colorado State Patrol (CSP)works closely with city, county, and cam-pus police forces during high-risk peri-ods. In 2001, the CSP took note of therising rate of alcohol use at Halloweenparties. In response, more than 500police and sheriff ’s officers throughoutthe state were assigned to checkpointsand other DUI enforcement measuresduring the Halloween party season.Colorado members of the BACCHUSand GAMMA Peer Education Networkhelped spread the word about the†Halloween crackdown in order toenhance its deterrent effect and to

encourage partying students to use desig-nated drivers or alternative transportation.

Fake IDsLaws covering fake IDs vary from stateto state, as do policies and programs fortheir enforcement. Police departmentsand other enforcement agencies canconduct workshops for alcohol licenseesto teach them how to spot counterfeitor altered IDs, usually driver’s licenses. InBoston, fake IDs are confiscated byservers and retailers and turned over topolice, who fax copies to college anduniversity officials for whatever actionthey choose to take.At Boston College,for example, the consequences include a$100 fine and suspension of eligibilityfor campus housing until the studentreaches age 21. In addition to thesesanctions, the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts suspends the offender’sdriver’s license for six months.

“Zero Tolerance” LawsAll states have adopted “zero tolerance”laws that set a lower (.00 to .02 percent)BAC limit for drivers under age 21.These laws have been credited withreducing alcohol-related automobilecrashes among young people by 20 per-cent.61 Research shows that the deterrenteffect of such laws is magnified throughpublic awareness.62 Information about“zero tolerance” laws should be includedin all alcohol education programs andorientation sessions for first-year students.

Young people taking part inMADD’s Youth in Action program havehelped draw the attention of policedepartments to the importance ofenforcing “zero tolerance” laws.63 Policein some states have maintained that thelaws, as written, make them difficult toenforce. In this case, a campus and com-munity coalition can seek legislativechanges to correct the problem.

30



Spring Break

Underage drinking and otheralcohol problems duringspring break have led authori-ties in many resort areas tostep up enforcement whenstudents flood their communi-ties. The strain on localenforcement agencies may besuch that they will need toseek special funding from thestate government to cover theexpense of enhanced patrols.In Texas, a state grant allowedthe Texas Alcoholic BeverageCommission to assign 36agents to join local lawenforcement officers inpatrolling beach areas nearBrownsville and on SouthPadre Island during the 2002spring break.

Other resort communitiesare trying to discourage theflood of vacationing students.In 2002, the influx of 150,000students who converged onDaytona Beach, Florida, dur-ing spring break led to “fist-fights, underage drinking,trashed hotel rooms, andpolice-supervised evictions,”according to local pressreports. Under pressure fromthe Volusia County Council,the Daytona region’s springbreak advertising budget forthe following year was cut inhalf (from $125,000 to$62,500); the goal of thisdown-sized campaign is todraw in more family-orientedtourists.64

Campus and community coalitionsworking on enforcement of zero toler-ance and other traffic safety measuresmay find valuable assistance from theGovernors Highway Safety Association.More information about this nationwideprogram is available at its Web site (statehighwaysafety.org).

Area of StrategicInterventionKnowledge, Attitudes,and Behavioral Intentions

Effects of Alcohol on Ability to DriveStudents should make decisions aboutdrinking based on fact rather than myth.For example, each semester ColoradoState University (CSU) presents†Rights, Responsibilities, andRamifications, a workshop that tells stu-dents about the effects of alcohol on theirreflexes and ability to drive, discusses whatis likely to happen if they are caught driv-ing under the influence, and explains theirlegal rights.Also included is a descriptionof Colorado’s “zero tolerance” law forunderage drinking drivers.A CSU policeofficer and the university’s director of legalservices present the workshop.

The workshop features a demonstra-tion of how alcohol can affect a would-be driver. Under police supervision, aresident assistant who is over 21 drinksto the point of impairment—a pointthat comes sooner than most studentswould expect. Students at the workshopare also invited to use goggles that simu-late impaired vision and then ride tricy-cles through an obstacle course to get anidea of what driving after drinking canbe like. By the time they leave, studentsnot only know a lot more about drivingafter drinking but have also received

information about campus resources thatcan help them with alcohol problems.

Area of StrategicInterventionHealth Protection

Designated Driver ProgramsSince 1993, NHTSA and the Center forSubstance Abuse Prevention have rec-ommended designated driver programsas a means for drinkers of legal age toavoid driving after drinking.With thisstrategy, a group going out to a socialevent where alcohol is to be consumedselects one person to abstain and beresponsible for driving.An importantaspect of designated driver programs isthat publicity about them reminds thepublic that it is irresponsible to driveafter drinking.65

Designated driver programs haveflourished in spite of reservations bysome prevention advocates, who worrythat the programs may encourage high-risk drinking by the designated driver’spassengers. In fact, a 1993 survey ofmore than 17,000 U.S. college studentsestablished that designated driver pro-grams have a net beneficial effect.Among drinkers, 1,908 students whocould be classified as heavy drinkersreported not drinking heavily the lasttime they served as a designated driver.At the same time, only 1,031 studentswho normally would not be classified asheavy drinkers reported drinking heavilythe last time they rode with a designateddriver.The study’s authors note, howev-er, that the exact contribution of thisstrategy to reducing motor vehiclecrashes still needs to be determined.66

Some designated driver programs arebased on working relationships with barsand restaurants popular with students.

31



32



“We Want You toTurn 22 . . . ”

Many colleges and universi-ties must cope with a recenttradition among some stu-dents calling for a night ofheavy drinking to celebrate a21st birthday, when purchas-ing alcohol becomes legal.Georgetown University’sHealth Education Servicessends students turning 21 abirthday card with the mes-sage, “We want you to turn22 . . . celebrate responsibly.”Cal Poly, Pomona, came upwith a variation on the sametheme: a program remindingbirthday celebrants that their21st birthday “does not equal21 drinks.”

The establishment agrees to provide freebeverages such as coffee or soft drinks tothe designated driver and in returnreceives free publicity.A program at theUniversity of New Mexico,†Designated Drivers Do It forFriends, uses free movie passes and otherrewards to enlist designated drivers.Theprogram also has persuaded many localbars and restaurants to provide free non-alcoholic drinks and waive cover chargesfor the nondrinking driver.

Safe Rides ProgramDesignated driver programs work whendrinkers are part of a group. For drinkerswho would otherwise be driving homealone or riding with an impaired driver,an alternative is a “safe rides” programthat provides safe and sober transporta-tion.The ride home is provided free or ata reduced rate.A student-managed pro-gram called †CARPOOL at TexasA&M University offers rides home tostudents on Thursday, Friday, and Saturdaynights between 10:00 PM and 3:00 AM.The program uses rented cars and enlistsand trains students as volunteer drivers.The $200,000 budget is covered by fund-raising events and donations from sourcesin the community.

Area of StrategicInterventionIntervention andTreatment

A new study recommends that collegesand universities implement strategies toidentify and screen high-risk studentdrinkers and to ensure that treatment isreadily available for those who are diag-nosed with alcohol disorders.The study,based on questionnaires filled out by14,000 students at 119 four-year U.S.colleges, indicated that 31 percent ofstudents meet the clinical criteria for

misuse of alcohol, while 6 percent meetthe criteria for alcohol dependency.67

Interactive CourseThe University of New Mexico (UNM)developed the Alcohol Awareness andEducation program for students adjudi-cated for first-time alcohol infractions.The UNM course is a † three-hour,interactive session facilitated by atrained graduate student and an under-graduate assistant.The course emphasizesdecision-making, risk reduction, andmoderation in alcohol use rather thanabstinence.

One-on-One InterventionA program at Auburn University inAlabama calls for † one-on-oneintervention with students who violatean alcohol policy or are having otheralcohol-related problems.The programprovides a motivational interview con-ducted by a doctoral student in clinicalpsychology.The approach is neitherpunitive nor confrontational, but insteadseeks to encourage a self-appraisal of thestudent’s drinking habits and a full con-sideration of whether and how to makelifestyle changes.

❖ ❖ ❖

While informative, this review ofcurrent prevention policies and programscannot be translated into a simple for-mula to follow. Members of a campusand community coalition can learn fromwhat others have tried, but ultimatelythey must devise, through trial and error,a tailored approach that fits the needs oftheir own community.This means,therefore, that each coalition will needto have a feedback and evaluation mech-anism in place to monitor its preventionefforts, verify that they are being fullyimplemented as planned, and ensure thatthey are actually working well to reducealcohol-related problems.

33



Reshaping the Campus and Community Environment atUC Santa Barbara—†Case Study of a Comprehensive Approach

The University of California, Santa Barbara(UCSB), was one of the first universities inthe nation to recognize alcohol use as a seri-ous issue for students when it introduced analcohol awareness program in 1980. In the1990s, UCSB was also in the forefront inadopting an environmental managementapproach for AOD prevention efforts and intargeting DUI in particular.

UCSB has 17,000 undergraduate and2,000 graduate students. Many of them driveregularly to the nearby city of Santa Barbarafor the music, dancing, and alcohol outlets tobe found there, creating obvious risks foralcohol-impaired driving. Those who staycloser to the campus—in the adjacent com-munity of Isla Vista—are also at risk forinjury due to alcohol. Because bicycles arethe favorite mode of short-trip transportationin and around Isla Vista, UCSB’s preventionprogram targets both DUI and BUI (bicyclingunder the influence).

Grants from the California Office ofTraffic Safety helped cover the start-up costsfor a set of prevention initiatives that ulti-mately evolved into a comprehensive pro-gram involving students, staff, faculty, admin-istrators, and the Isla Vista community. UCSBreceived an award from the Automobile Clubof Southern California for its concerted effortto reduce driving after drinking and otherhigh-risk use of alcohol.

Before the students return each fall, asteering committee called the AODWorkgroup formulates a strategic plan forthe coming year, based on a review of theprior year’s prevention activities and whathas been learned about their strengths andweaknesses. The committee, representing uni-versity departments and organizationsresponsible for prevention work, meetsbiweekly throughout the academic year tomonitor programs and revise strategies asnecessary. Once each quarter, a larger cam-pus and community coalition and the IslaVista Ad Hoc Task Force on Community

Standards come together to discuss the rec-ommendations and strategies proposed bythe AOD Workgroup.

UCSB’s current program includes a rangeof activities, outlined below.

AREA OF STRATEGIC INTERVENTION:Environmental ChangeAlcohol-Free Options: Weekly alcohol-freesocial activities are offered for studentsthrough on- and off-campus residence halls,sports clubs, and a recreation center. TheOffice of Student Life hosts student focusgroups to plan and organize new activitiesthat reflect current interests and populartastes and can compete with entertainmentand recreational activities where alcohol is available.

Normative Environment: UCSB stu-dents, like students at other colleges and uni-versities, typically overestimate the amountof drinking that is “normal” in the campuspopulation.68 To correct this misperception,the university’s social norms marketing cam-paign uses posters, cups, key chains, andmedia advertising to convey accurate infor-mation about current drinking levels.

Alcohol Availability: UCSB’sSubstance Abuse Policy ImplementationGuidelines require training for all servers ofalcoholic beverages at campus events.Through the Isla Vista Responsible Landlordprogram, the university works with landlordsin the area to help them establish and imple-ment policies that will reduce disorderly par-tying and other problems resulting from theirtenants’ alcohol use. The university alsoworks with the district office of the CaliforniaDepartment of Alcoholic Beverage Control tomaintain a moratorium on issuing new alco-hol outlet licenses in Isla Vista.

Policy Development and LawEnforcement: Law enforcement officersfrom the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’sDepartment, the California Highway Patrol,and the UCSB campus police jointly patrol

34


the Isla Vista community, adhering to a policyof zero tolerance for alcohol violations. Theuniversity applies its campus policies cover-ing alcohol use to several large, privatelyowned student residence halls in Isla Vista tomaintain consistency in sanctions for viola-tions. Managers of the residence halls wel-comed the extension of university authorityto their tenants as a means of reinforcingtheir own rules of behavior.

AREA OF STRATEGIC INTERVENTION:Knowledge, Attitudes, and BehavioralIntentionsUCSB health educators produced “DrinkingStories,” a video that recounts how AODaffected the lives of four typical UCSB stu-dents. The video is shown to stimulate discus-sions in workshops with students consideredat high risk for alcohol problems, includingfirst-year students and members of fraterni-ties and sororities.

Sociology Department courses—“Drugsand Stress,” “Substance Abuse,” and“Community Health”—include lectures andassignments related to alcohol risks and DUI.Department faculty teamed up with col-leagues from the Dramatic Art Department toteach a “Reader’s Theater” class that trainsstudents to perform skits and facilitate dis-cussions with first-year students about AODuse, including driving after drinking and BUI.

AREA OF STRATEGIC INTERVENTION:Intervention and TreatmentIndividual counseling and support groups areoffered through the Career Services andStudent Health and Counseling offices,including programs for DUI offenders undercourt mandate to participate. Staff memberswho work with large numbers of students,such as coaches and residence hall monitors,receive “gatekeeper training” so that theycan assess and refer students who appear toneed counseling. Similarly, parents of stu-dents are offered workshops to help themrecognize and intervene if their child exhibitssigns of AOD-related problems. The emer-gency room at a hospital near campus reportsstudents involved in alcohol-related cases tothe student health service for follow-up.

In its annual Core Survey, UCSB has foundthat rates of heavy, episodic drinking havenot changed significantly in the last decade.Even so, there is substantial evidence that theprogram is changing student behavior. Thenumber of students who say they have everdriven after drinking declined from 36 percentin 1992 to 24 percent in 2001. The percent-age reporting some form of misconduct thatgot them into trouble with the police or otherdisciplinary action declined from 56 percentin 1992 to 41 percent in 2001.

Case Study of a Comprehensive Approach (continued)

L35

PART 4

Developing and Evaluating Prevention Policies and Programs ................................38

1. Conduct a Risk Assessment..............................................................................................................................39

2. Identify Specific Goals and Objectives....................................................................................................................39

3. Review the Evaluation Research on Policy and Program Options ..........................................................39

4. Outline How the Intervention Will Work..............................................................................................39

5. Create and Execute a Data Collection Plan ....................................................................................................40

❖ ❖ ❖

Meeting the Challenge..................................................................................................................................42

Strategic Planning and Evaluation

Community mobilization, involv-ing a coalition of civic and governmental officials, is widely

recognized as a key to the successful prevention of alcohol and other drugproblems.69 Recently formed campusand community coalitions have beeninspired by several community-basedinterventions to reduce alcohol-relatedproblems among youth and the generaladult population.

The Community Prevention Trial(CPT), for example, was implemented inthree small towns in California andSouth Carolina.70 Community coalitionswere formed to drive several major envi-ronmental change strategies: RBS train-ing; zoning restrictions to reduce alcoholoutlet density; stricter enforcement ofunderage drinking laws; and enhancedDUI enforcement, which included policeofficer training, additional officerenforcement hours, monthly sobrietycheckpoints, and use of passive alcoholsensors. Results included the following:71

➤ Increased adoption of RBS policies

➤ Reduced alcohol sales to minors

➤ A 6 percent decline in self-reportedalcohol consumption

➤ A 51 percent decline in self-reporteddriving after drinking

➤ A 6 percent drop in single-vehiclenighttime crashes (a proxy measurefor alcohol-related motor vehiclecrashes)

➤ Fewer drivers with measured BACsof .05 percent or higher

➤ A 43 percent decline in assaultinjuries reported by emergencydepartments

For many years, community-basedprevention coalitions have made changesin state, local, and institutional policy apriority. Part of what is happening todayis that campus officials are beginning tothink about a similar set of preventionstrategies.Where a community preven-tion coalition already exists, college offi-cials should be invited to join.Where nocoalition is in place, higher educationofficials, especially college and universitypresidents, can take the lead with com-munity partners to form the coalitionand move it toward an environmentalmanagement approach to prevention.

The planning committee or taskforce charged with organizing a campusand community coalition should seek thebroad participation of campus and com-munity leaders. Possible choices for coali-tion membership include the following:

➤ Campus leaders: senior administra-tors, faculty and staff, students,campus police chief

➤ Business representatives: liquor storeowners, bar and restaurant owners,apartment owners

➤ Local government leaders: electedofficials, public health director,community development and zoning officials

➤ Local law enforcement officials:municipal police chief, alcohol beverage control (ABC) officials

37

Strategic Planning and Evaluation

PART 4

L

➤ Prevention and treatment experts:AOD treatment directors, communi-ty-based prevention leaders (e.g.,MADD representative), community-based traffic safety leaders

➤ Other community leaders: neighbor-hood coalition leaders, faith-basedorganization leaders, local newsmedia representatives

Potentially conflicting viewpointsamong the coalition members can bereconciled when all segments of thecommunity work together and eventual-ly agree on the need to take action toreduce the incidence of underage drink-ing and alcohol-impaired driving, notjust among college students but amongall young people in the community.

As the campus and community coali-tion begins its strategic planning work, itshould embrace intervention developmentand evaluation as an iterative process, inwhich evaluation findings help to informmidcourse corrections and alterations.72

This approach requires prevention plan-ners to consider evaluation from thebeginning, not as an afterthought.

Developing and EvaluatingPrevention Policiesand ProgramsThe process for developing and evaluat-ing prevention policies and programs canbe divided into five basic stages: (1) con-duct a risk assessment, (2) identify specificgoals and objectives, (3) review the evalu-ation research on policy and programoptions, (4) outline how the interventionwill work, and (5) create and execute adata collection plan. Basic considerationsfor each stage are described below.Afuller description of these steps can befound at the Web site of the U.S.Department of Education’s HigherEducation Center for Alcohol and OtherDrug Prevention (http://www.higheredcenter.org/eval).

38


Two Enforcement Systems

Working out a collaborative relationshipbetween campus-based and community lawenforcement agencies is vital if there is to bea comprehensive and coordinated effort toaddress underage drinking and DUI in thecommunity. Meeting this challenge requirescareful negotiation, open communication,and an understanding of agency differencesin their approach to enforcement. This cancome about more easily when law enforce-ment officials fully understand the organiza-tional pressures and cultural context in whichthe other agency operates.

In Ames, Iowa, the 30 officers of the IowaState University campus police collaborateclosely with the 50 officers of the AmesPolice Department. Charles Cychosz, who

served on the faculty and staff of the univer-sity before becoming an administrator in thePolice Department, notes that both enforce-ment agencies are represented on the cam-pus and community alcohol task force, whichmeets once a month. One result is that cam-pus and city police sometimes † operatejoint enforcement teams to check forfake IDs at the city’s bars.

For more on the issue of campus andcommunity law enforcement collaboration,see Law Enforcement and Higher Education:Finding Common Ground to Address UnderageDrinking on Campus, published in 2001 by theU.S. Department of Justice, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.


1. CONDUCT A RISKASSESSMENTConducting a risk assessment is an essen-tial first step in understanding the prob-lem and identifying the factors thatmight be supporting or encouragingunderage drinking and DUI.The CollegeAlcohol Risk Assessment Guide 73 provides astep-by-step procedure and several work-sheets for conducting such an assessment.Depending on the time and resourcesavailable, the assessment can range fromfocus groups, one-on-one interviews,and a tour of entertainment spots onweekend nights to conducting studentsurveys and analyzing data on DUIarrests, emergency room visits, and otheralcohol-related incidents on campus andin the surrounding community.Thetypology of campus and community pre-vention efforts presented in table 1, com-bined with the list of strategic objectivesand intervention tactics presented intable 2, can be used to generate a list ofassessment issues and questions.

2. IDENTIFY SPECIFIC GOALSAND OBJECTIVESProgram planners should take sufficienttime to specify their precise goals andobjectives.This guide focuses on reduc-ing underage drinking and DUI, butthat still leaves open several other possi-ble goals. Should campuses try to pre-vent underage drinking? Eliminate allstudent drinking? Limit excessive con-sumption? Reduce alcohol-relatedbehavior problems? Protect studentsfrom harm? Significantly, having an eval-uator be part of the planning processwill help the planning group developclear and specific goals and objectives.

Caution should be used in statingthat a prevention intervention program’sgoal is to eliminate underage drinking.Upholding the law is an appropriategoal. But with the widespread use ofalcohol among underage college stu-

dents, a bold declaration of this intentmay badly undermine support amongthose administrators, faculty, and studentswho deplore the “age 21” laws. In manycases the coalition might be on surerfooting politically—and therefore have agreater chance of success—if it were tofocus on addressing alcohol-relatedproblems in the community, especiallyDUI. Such an approach would likelyproduce a list of policy and programobjectives not very different from whatwould emerge from a narrower focus onalcohol consumption—for example,cracking down on the manufacture anduse of fake IDs, checking compliance atretail alcohol outlets, eliminating homedelivery of alcohol, increasing alcoholexcise taxes, eliminating low-price drinkspecials, and installing RBS programs.

3. REVIEW THE EVALUATIONRESEARCH ON POLICY ANDPROGRAM OPTIONSThe next step is to review policy and pro-gram options that might be applied toachieve the outlined goals and objectives.A review of available research, plus consul-tations with other prevention specialists,will suggest a set of programmatic optionsthat can be adopted.As noted in part 2,Environmental Management—ProvenPrevention Practices (p. 7), the NIAAATask Force on College Drinking identifiedseveral effective and promising approachesin its report A Call to Action: Changing theCulture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges.Additional information describing selectedpolicies and programs can be found in part3, Prevention in Action (p. 19).

4. OUTLINE HOW THEINTERVENTION WILL WORKThe next planning step is to outline thechain of events that will lead from eachpolicy or program to its specific andmeasurable objective, and from there toits ultimate goal. Describing this chain of

39

Part 4 ❖ Strategic Planning and Evaluation

events is often called building the logicmodel for the intervention. In essence, thelogic model clarifies the intervening stepsthat are projected to lead from specificactivities to specific outcomes. For theevaluation, data can be collected to doc-ument progress at each step.With thisinformation in hand, evaluators can diag-nose what went wrong if a program orpolicy fails to meet its ultimate objective.

5. CREATE AND EXECUTE ADATA COLLECTION PLANSelf-report surveys are a primary datasource for policy and program evalua-tions, especially if the goal is to reduceconsumption or alcohol-related problembehaviors. Several alternative surveyinstruments can be used as sources ofquestions.74 Surveys should be adminis-tered at a time that reflects typical

drinking patterns. Surveys conductedshortly after the start of the school year,after traditional social events (e.g.,homecoming), or close to midterms orfinal exams will not provide representa-tive data. Hence, most national studentdrinking surveys are conducted in theearly part of the spring semester beforespring break.

Most important, the sample of stu-dents asked to participate in the surveymust be drawn at random. It may betempting to administer the survey inclassrooms, but this will not result in asample that is truly representative of allstudents.There must also be a set of pro-cedures in place to boost the responserate.Achieving a response rate of 70 per-cent or more for student surveys isextremely difficult. More typical are ratesbetween 50 and 60 percent.

40


Going Statewide

More than 40 states are working with theHigher Education Center for Alcohol andOther Drug Prevention to explore the benefitsof having their institutions of higher educa-tion adopt unified policies and strategies tocombat underage drinking and impaired driv-ing. These statewide initiatives call forunprecedented levels of cooperation amongstate and local agencies and college and university systems.

The Ohio College Initiative to ReduceHigh Risk Drinking brings together more than40 public and private institutions in a sharedeffort to change the college and communityenvironment surrounding alcohol use. Thepresident of each institution has made a com-mitment to address high-risk drinking and to“encourage and support the collaboration of

† campus and community in approach-ing this issue.”

The California State University (CSU) system has entered into a † formal part-nership with six state agencies to develop

coordinated policies and programs aimed atreducing alcohol problems among the388,000 students at 23 CSU campusesthroughout the state. A memorandum ofunderstanding setting up the partnership wassigned by the CSU chancellor and representa-tives of the Department of Alcoholic BeverageControl, Department of Alcohol and DrugPrograms, California Highway Patrol,Department of Motor Vehicles, Office of TrafficSafety, and the Secretary of Business,Transportation, and Housing.

The California partnership commits boththe state university system and the stateagencies to work cooperatively on prevention,jointly collecting and sharing data; developjoint alcohol education, enforcement, training,and prevention programs for campus andcommunity leaders; cooperate on a legislativeagenda; and participate in an annual confer-ence on alcohol issues. Underage drinkingand DUI prevention figures prominently inplans for the California initiative.


Colleges and universities shouldalso put in place a system for recordingalcohol-related incidents involving stu-dents. Especially important are inci-dent-reporting forms used by the cam-pus police, which should require offi-cers to indicate whether a studentbeing investigated, cited, or detained hasbeen using alcohol. A direct BAC read-ing using a “passive” breathalyzer, whichanalyzes exhaled air in front of themouth, is the best means of assessment.Absent that, the officers can be asked to

make a judgment about alcoholinvolvement.

Ideas regarding evaluation can alsobe found in NHTSA’s booklet The Art of Appropriate Evaluation:A Guide forHighway Safety Program Managers.75 Inaddition, the U.S. Department ofEducation’s Higher Education Centerfor Alcohol and Other Drug Preventionmaintains an evaluator database as well as other evaluation resources, including a guide on how to work with an outside evaluator.76

41

Part 4 ❖ Strategic Planning and Evaluation

Getting MADD

MADD, which has more than 600 affiliatesacross the country, states that its mission isto “stop drunk driving, support the victims ofthis violent crime, and prevent underagedrinking.” In pursuit of that mission, localMADD affiliates are urged to participate incampus and community coalitions to assistwith planning and implementing preventionstrategies to combat underage drinking andDUI. In 2001, the organization launched aprogram to create on-campus MADD chap-ters led by students (UMADD).

These efforts are in line with a report byMADD’s College Commission, which offeredthe following recommendations:■ Work with researchers and practitioners

to set a national standard for collegealcohol policies.

■ Assess institutions of higher education onthe basis of their alcohol policies andoffer that assessment to parents and students as a guide in selecting collegesand universities.

■ Involve college students in preventionactivities through policy summits, advoca-cy training programs, and student-led college chapters of MADD.

■ Support campus and community coali-tions in their efforts to reduce underageand heavy drinking.

■ Create a campaign to support and promote campus alcohol policies.

More information about MADD and itscampus initiatives can be obtained atMADD’s Web site: http://www.madd.org.

that many students begin drinking in highschool, so that by their college years it istoo late to do anything about it. Othersthink that bearing down on enforcementof the minimum legal drinking age simplywill not deter young people from seekingout other opportunities to obtain alcohol.Some have even argued that cooperatingwith enforcement agencies regarding stu-dents’ off-campus behavior is inappropri-ate for an educational institution.

A successful prevention program mustrecognize the ambivalence felt by manyadults toward underage drinking. Evenlaw enforcement agencies might resistgiving priority to underage drinking onthe grounds that their limited resourcescan better be devoted to crime problemsthey regard as more serious—even thoughunderage drinking is a factor in manycommunity problems that townspeople dotake very seriously.

In response, campus and communityleaders must remind people that underagedrinking and DUI are serious problemsaffecting the entire community, not justthe drinkers themselves.They need tohighlight the fact that colleges and univer-sities have a legal duty to take reasonableprotective measures to reduce hazards andrisks in the campus environment.78 Theyshould cite research evaluations showingthe positive effect of the increased mini-mum legal drinking age and other policiesand programs that can change the envi-ronmental context in which young peoplemake decisions about drinking.

Most of all, town and gown leadersneed to dedicate themselves to workingon this problem over the long term.Thereis no quick fix, but over time a persistentand multifaceted effort can succeed inchanging the culture of drinking, buildinga safer and healthier campus and commu-nity environment, and maximizing theopportunity for all students to achievetheir potential.

Meeting theChallengeThis guide cites numerous examples ofhow U.S. colleges and universities, in part-nership with their communities, haveapproached the issues of underage drink-ing and DUI. Obviously, there is no one-size-fits-all formula for this type of preven-tion work.The environmental manage-ment strategies outlined here have hadgood results where they have been imple-mented, but each campus and communityenvironment is different, shaped by its ownblend of history, tradition, politics, eco-nomics, and other influences.What isimportant, therefore, is that preventionplanners use the research literature toidentify potentially useful policies and pro-grams but then evaluate how well theseefforts can work on their own campus.77

Campus and community leaders mustbe prepared to overcome indifference, ifnot outright hostility, toward certain pre-vention efforts. Many faculty, staff, andstudents over the age of 21 drink alcoholin ways that incur little risk to themselvesor others and therefore may object topolicies that limit their own access toalcohol in the name of preventing under-age drinking and impaired driving.

Students in their late teens are oftenreluctant to accept restrictions on theirbehavior that appear to be coming fromadult authorities. Many regard alcohol as ahelpful social lubricant and are quick toreject what they hear about the risks asso-ciated with drinking. Still other students,as well as faculty and staff, might arguethat hard drinking by students, even thosewho are under age, is a part of long-standing campus traditions or that beingintroduced to alcohol is a “rite of passage”from adolescence to adulthood.

Even those who sympathize withprevention goals might be doubtful thatanything can be done. Skeptics may argue

42


L43

PART 5Resources

CITED PROGRAMS..........................................................................................................................................................45

Area of Strategic Intervention Environmental Change ..................................................................45

Alcohol-Free Options: Offer and promote alcohol-free social, recreational,extracurricular, and public service options that do not include alcohol and other drugs..................................................45

■ Alcohol-Free Events......................................................................................................................................45■ Volunteer Community Service..................................................................................................................46

Normative Environment: Create a social, academic, and residential environment that supports health-promoting norms ..........................................................................................................................46

■ Social Norms Marketing Campaigns ......................................................................................................46Alcohol Availability: Limit alcohol availability both on and off campus ............................................................................46

■ A Community Covenant..............................................................................................................................46Marketing and Promotion of Alcohol: Restrict marketing and promotion of

alcoholic beverages both on and off campus ........................................................................................................................47■ Alcohol Advertising ....................................................................................................................................47■ Voluntary Marketing and Advertising Guidelines ......................................................................................47

Policy Development and Law Enforcement: Develop and enforce campus policies and local, state, and federal laws ..........................................................................................................................47

■ Orientation Programs................................................................................................................................47■ Sobriety Checkpoints......................................................................................................................................47■ Two Enforcement Systems....................................................................................................................47

Area of Strategic Intervention Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions ............48■ Effects of Alcohol on Ability to Drive......................................................................................................48

Area of Strategic Intervention Health Protection..................................................................................48■ Designated Driver Programs......................................................................................................................48■ Safe Rides Program......................................................................................................................................48

Area of Strategic Intervention Intervention and Treatment........................................................48■ Interactive Course....................................................................................................................................48■ One-on-One Intervention..............................................................................................................................48■ Case Study of a Comprehensive Approach ................................................................................................49

Strategic Planning............................................................................................................................................49

Going Statewide: Develop a statewide or regional prevention initiative to develop andsupport new campus and community coalitions ................................................................................................................49

■ Formal Partnerships........................................................................................................................................49

PUBLICATIONS..................................................................................................................................................................49

From the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ................49From the U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education

Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention ............................................................................................50From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes

of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism ..................................................................51From the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention....................51

RESOURCE ORGANIZATIONS......................................................................................................................................52

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)................................................................................52Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS) ....................................................................................................52The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention..........................................................52Automobile Club of Southern California............................................................................................................53BACCHUS and GAMMA Peer Education Network ..............................................................................................53Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) ..........................................................................................................53National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI) ..............................................................54National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)............................................................................54The Network: Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues..............................................................54

The resources listed here include a selection of the programs cited in theguide, publications, and resource organizations. No official endorsement bythe U.S. Departments of Education or Transportation of any product, com-

modity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should beinferred.To identify additional resources, contact the U.S. Department of Education’sHigher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (see below forcomplete contact information).

CITED PROGRAMS

The following section provides contact information for the college-based programs(in order of appearance) described in part 3, Prevention in Action.The programs areorganized according to the typology matrix for mapping campus and communityprevention efforts (see table 1, p.10) and cross-referenced to their description in themain text.

Area of Strategic InterventionEnvironmental Change

ALCOHOL-FREE OPTIONS:Offer and promote alcohol-free social, recreational, extracurricular, andpublic service options that do not include alcohol and other drugs.

Alcohol-Free Events

† WVUp All Night, West Virginia University, Office of Student Affairs,Morgantown,WV 26506. (304) 293-5811.A social and recreational program thatprovides free food and entertainment to students as an alternative to the weekendbar scene (p. 21).

† Boston College, Office of the Dean for Student Development, 140Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467. (617) 552-3470.A commu-nity service program and sports competition designed to replace an annualdance notorious for high-risk drinking (p. 21).

45

Resources

PART 5

L

† PRIDE (Promoting Responsible and Informed Decisions throughEducation), University of Redlands, Student Services, P.O. Box 3080, Redlands,CA 92373-0999. (909) 335-4079.An ambitious social and recreational programthat features a weekly schedule of alcohol-free events, including live entertain-ment and hit movies (p. 21).

Volunteer Community Service

† Alternative Breaks, Central Michigan University,Volunteer Center, MountPleasant, MI 48859. (989) 774-7685.A community service program that organiz-es groups of students for off-site, community-based volunteer work during holi-day breaks (p. 22).

† Alternative Weekends, University of Michigan, Center for Community Serviceand Learning,Ann Arbor, MI 48109. (734) 936-2437.A community service pro-gram that organizes groups of students for local, community-based volunteerwork on weekends (p. 22).

NORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT:Create a social, academic, and residential environment that supportshealth-promoting norms.

Social Norms Marketing Campaigns

† 7 out of 10, University of Texas, Longhorns Against Drunk Driving, StudentHealth Center,Austin,TX 78712. (512) 475-8465.A social norms marketingcampaign based on a student survey showing that 7 out of 10 UT students don’tdrink and drive.The 7 out of 10 Web site is at http://www.socialnorm.org/texasaustin.html (p. 22).

† MOST of Us, Montana Social Norms Project, Montana State University,Department of Health and Human Development, Bozeman, MT 59717. (406)994-7873.A social norms marketing project based on a random sample surveyindicating that four out of five 18 to 21 year olds in Montana don’t drink anddrive (p. 22).

ALCOHOL AVAILABILITY:Limit alcohol availability both on and off campus.

A Community Covenant

† San Diego State Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, San Diego StateUniversity, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-1931. (619) 594-6859.A “community covenant” by which bar and restaurant operators catering tostudents pledge to pursue several policies to minimize underage drinking anddriving under the influence (p. 24).

46


MARKETING AND PROMOTION OF ALCOHOL:Restrict marketing and promotion of alcoholic beverages both on and off campus.

Alcohol Advertising

† NU Directions, University of Nebraska, Student Involvement, Lincoln, NE68588. (402) 472-2454.A campus and community coalition, funded by TheRobert Wood Johnson Foundation, emphasizing enforcement of underage drink-ing laws and restrictions on alcohol advertising and promotion (p. 25).

Voluntary Marketing and Advertising Guidelines

† University at Albany, State University of New York, Coordinator for Alcohol andDrug Prevention, 1400 Washington Avenue,Albany, NY 12222. (518) 442-5800.A joint university-community committee that works with owners of bars andrestaurants in off-campus student neighborhoods to implement a voluntary setof guidelines to reform alcohol advertising and promotion (p. 26).

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT:Develop and enforce campus policies and local, state, and federal laws.

Orientation Programs

† State University of New York, University of New Paltz, Division of StudentAffairs, 75 S. Manheim Boulevard, New Paltz, NY 12561. (845) 257-3261.Ahandbook, Campus Regulations and Judicial Procedures, distributed to both par-ents and students that explains campus policies and state and local laws regardingalcohol use and what disciplinary actions can result for violations (p. 28).

† University of Northern Colorado, Student Activities, 501 20th Street, Greeley,CO 80639. (970) 351-2245.A summer orientation for new students and parents,which includes “Stop, Look, and Listen,” a two-hour presentation on alcohollaws and policies (p. 28).

Sobriety Checkpoints

† The BACCHUS and GAMMA Peer Education Network, BACCHUS andGAMMA, P.O. Box 100430, Denver, CO 80250-0430. (303) 871-0901.A collab-orative effort with the Colorado State Patrol to crack down on DUI duringColorado’s “Halloween Heatwave” (p. 30).

Two Enforcement Systems

† Ames Police Department,Ames, IA 50011. (515) 239-5311. Contact: CharlesCychosz, Support Services Manager. A joint enforcement program in whichcampus police officers join city police on random patrols to bars in the city tocheck drinkers’ IDs (p.38).

47

Part 5 ❖ Resources

Area of Strategic InterventionKnowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions

Effects of Alcohol on Ability to Drive

† Colorado State University, Center for Drug and Alcohol Education, Fort Collins,CO 80523. (970) 491-0262. Rights, Responsibilities, and Ramifications, a workshop that informs students about alcohol’s effect on their reflexes and driv-ing ability and what is likely to happen if they are caught driving under theinfluence (p. 31).

Area of Strategic InterventionHealth Protection

Designated Driver Programs

† University of New Mexico, Campus Office of Substance Abuse Prevention,Albuquerque, NM 87131. (505) 277-2795.A program called DesignatedDrivers Do It for Friends uses free movie passes and other rewards to enlistdesignated drivers (p. 32).

Safe Rides Program

† CARPOOL,Texas A & M University, College Station,TX 77843. (979) 693-9905.A student-managed program, which provides rides home to students onThursday, Friday, and Saturday nights between 10:00 PM and 3:00 AM (p. 32).

Area of Strategic InterventionIntervention and Treatment

Interactive Course

† University of New Mexico, Campus Office of Substance Abuse Prevention,Albuquerque, NM 87131. (505) 277-2795.A three-hour course, emphasizingdecision making, risk reduction, and moderation in alcohol use rather than absti-nence, for students who violate the university’s alcohol policies (p. 32).

One-on-One Intervention

† Auburn University, Health Behavior Assessment Center,Auburn,AL 36849. (334)844-4889.A brief, one-on-one motivational interview for students who vio-late the school’s alcohol policies or have other alcohol-related problems (p. 32).

48


Case Study of a Comprehensive Approach

† University of California, Santa Barbara,Alcohol and Other Drug Program,Student Health Service Building 588, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. (805) 893-2263.A comprehensive approach that includes environmental change as well as inter-vention and treatment (pp. 33–34).

Strategic Planning

GOING STATEWIDE:Develop a statewide or regional prevention initiative to develop and support new campus and community coalitions.

Formal Partnerships

† Ohio College Initiative to Reduce High Risk Drinking, Ohio Parents for DrugFree Youth, 6185 Huntley Road, Suite P, Columbus, OH 43229-1094. (614) 540-9985.A statewide initiative that brings together campus and communitycoalitions representing more than 40 public and private institutions of highereducation in Ohio (p. 40).

† California State University (CSU) Partnership, Office of the Chancellor, 401Golden Shore, Long Beach, CA 90802-4210. (562) 951-4000.A formal part-nership with six state agencies to develop coordinated policies and programsaimed at reducing alcohol problems among students at 23 CSU campuses (p. 40).

PUBLICATIONS

The publications listed here can provide additional information on underage drink-ing and DUI prevention, environmental management approaches, coalition building,strategic planning, evaluation, and other subjects covered in this guide.

FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Alcohol and Highway Safety 2001:A Review of the State of Knowledge (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration, 2001).Available only at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/AlcoholHighway/index.htm.

“Alcohol Poisoning” [Fact Sheet] (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofTransportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1998).

“Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention in the Medical Setting” [Kit](Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway TrafficSafety Administration, 2002).

49


The Art of Appropriate Evaluation:A Guide for Highway Safety Program Managers(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway TrafficSafety Administration, 1999).

Balmforth, D. National Survey of Drinking and Driving,Attitudes and Behavior(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway TrafficSafety Administration, 1997).

“Card Tricks: How to Spot Fake ID Cards” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofTransportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1992).Available on1/2 inch VHS Video [item 2A0107], with accompanying brochure [item 2P0908].

Community How-to Guides on Underage Drinking Prevention (Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2001).

Designated Driver/Safe Ride Program: Community Action Guide (Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002).

“Designated Driver/Safe Ride Program: Community Action Guide” [CD-ROM](Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway TrafficSafety Administration, 2001).

The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002).Availableonly at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/economic/EconImpact2000/.

A How-to Guide for Victim Impact Panels (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofTransportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2001).

State of Knowledge of Alcohol-Impaired Driving: Research on Repeat DWI Offenders(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway TrafficSafety Administration, 2000).

“Traffic Safety Facts 2001” [Fact Sheet] (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofTransportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2001).

FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, HIGHER EDUCATIONCENTER FOR ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG PREVENTION

DeJong,W. Preventing Alcohol-Related Problems on Campus: Impaired Driving(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center forAlcohol and Other Drug Prevention, reprinted 1998).

DeJong,W., and Langenbahn, S. Setting and Improving Policies for Reducing Alcohol andOther Drug Problems on Campus:A Guide for Administrators (Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other DrugPrevention, reprinted 1997).

DeJong,W.;Vince-Whitman, C.; Colthurst,T.; Cretella, M.; Gilbreath, M.; Rosati, M.;and Zweig, K. Environmental Management:A Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Alcoholand Other Drug Use on College Campuses (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1998).

Presidents Leadership Group. Be Vocal, Be Visible, Be Visionary: Recommendations forCollege and University Presidents on Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (Newton, Mass.:Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention/EDC, 1997).

50


Ryan, B. E.; Colthurst,T.; and Segars, L. College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide:Environmental Approaches to Prevention (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention,revised 1997).

Ryan, B. E.; and DeJong,W. Making the Link: Faculty and Prevention (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol andOther Drug Prevention, 1998).

FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ONALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM

A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health,TaskForce of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002).

Goldman, M. S.; Boyd, G. M.; and Faden,V. (Eds.).“College Drinking,What It Is, andWhat to Do about It:A Review of the State of the Science.” Journal of Studies onAlcohol, supplement no. 14, March 2002.

Saltz, R. F.; and DeJong,W. Reducing Alcohol Problems on Campus:A Guide to Planningand Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,National Institutes of Health,Task Force of the National Advisory Council onAlcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002).

FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUVENILEJUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Costs of Underage Drinking (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Pacific Institute for Research andEvaluation, 1999).

A Guide for Enforcing Impaired Driving Laws for Youth (Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, PacificInstitute for Research and Evaluation, 2000).

Law Enforcement and Higher Education: Finding Common Ground to Address UnderageDrinking on Campus (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2001).

A Practical Guide to Preventing and Dispersing Underage Drinking Parties (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2000).

Regulatory Strategies for Preventing Youth Access to Alcohol: Best Practices (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, undated).

Strategies to Reduce Underage Alcohol Use:Typology and Brief Overview (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 1999).

51


RESOURCE ORGANIZATIONSNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)400 7th Street, SWWashington, DC 20590http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/(888) 327-4236

Established under the U.S. Department of Transportation by the Highway Safety Actof 1970, NHTSA is responsible for reducing deaths, injuries, and economic lossesresulting from motor vehicle crashes.The agency investigates safety defects in motorvehicles; sets and enforces fuel economy standards; helps states and local communitiesreduce the threat of drunken drivers; promotes the use of seat belts, child safety seats,and air bags; investigates odometer fraud; establishes and enforces vehicle antitheftregulations; and provides consumer information on motor vehicle safety topics.NHTSA also conducts research on driver behavior and traffic safety to develop themost efficient and effective means of bringing about safety improvements.

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS)U.S. Department of Education400 Maryland Ave, SWWashington, DC 20202-6123http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/index.html(202) 260-3954

OSDFS supports efforts to create safe schools, respond to crises, prevent alcohol andother drug abuse, ensure the health and well-being of students, teach students goodcitizenship and character, and provide national leadership on issues and programs in correctional education.The agency provides financial assistance for drug abuse andviolence prevention activities and activities that promote the health and well-being of students in elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education.OSDFS participates in the development of Department program policy and legisla-tive proposals and in overall administration policies related to drug abuse and vio-lence prevention. It also participates with other Federal agencies in the developmentof a national research agenda for such prevention.

The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug PreventionEducation Development Center, Inc.55 Chapel StreetNewton, MA 02458-1060http://www.higheredcenter.org(800) 676-1730

Established by the U.S. Department of Education in 1993, the Higher EducationCenter for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention is the nation’s primary resource cen-ter for alcohol, other drug, and violence prevention at U.S. colleges and universities.In addition to providing leadership in defining the nation’s college prevention agen-da, the Center acts as a catalyst to advance collaborative campus and communityteams across the nation.The Center offers an integrated array of services to helpcampuses and communities come together to identify problems; assess needs; andplan, implement, and evaluate alcohol and other drug prevention programs. Servicesinclude training; technical assistance; publications; support for The Network:Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues; and evaluation activities.TheCenter’s publications are free and can be downloaded from its Web site.

52


Automobile Club of Southern California2601 S. Figueroa StreetLos Angeles, CA 90007http://www.aaa-calif.com(213) 741-3686

The Automobile Club of Southern California organized the College and UniversityDrinking and Driving Prevention Awards Program in 1997. It is now run jointly by sev-eral chapters of the American Automobile Association (AAA) and the U.S. Departmentof Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention.Theprogram’s goal is to identify and disseminate innovative and effective approaches toreduce drinking and driving on campus and prevent AOD use that can result inimpaired driving. Since its inception, the program has presented 22 awards to schools ina six-state region (California, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico,Texas, and Utah).

BACCHUS and GAMMA Peer Education NetworkP.O. Box 100430Denver, C0 80250-0430http://www.bacchusgamma.org(303) 871-0901

BACCHUS (Boosting Alcohol Consciousness Concerning the Health of UniversityStudents) and GAMMA (Greeks Advocating Mature Management of Alcohol) is aninternational association of college- and university-based peer education programsfocusing on alcohol abuse prevention, sexual assault prevention, and other studenthealth issues.The group provides training, technical assistance, educational materials,and national and regional forums to support campus peer educators and offers spe-cialized materials for use with fraternity and sorority chapters. BACCHUS andGAMMA has more than 700 campus chapters and 25,000 active members aroundthe country.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)National Headquarters511 East John Carpenter FreewaySuite 700Irvine,TX 75062http://www.madd.org(800) GET-MADD (438-6233)

MADD’s mission is to stop drunken driving, support the victims of this violentcrime, and prevent underage drinking.A grassroots organization, MADD has morethan 600 chapters nationwide. MADD’s program to prevent underage drinking andDUI includes improving enforcement of the minimum legal drinking age, adoptingtougher alcohol advertising standards, encouraging enforcement, and increasingawareness of the law. MADD has several programs and resources designed to help getyouth, including college students, involved in creating change in their communities.

53


National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI)11426-28 Rockville Pike, Suite 200Rockville, MD 20852http://www.health.org/(800) 729-6686

NCADI is the information service of the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention(CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S.Department of Health and Human Services. NCADI is the world’s largest resourceclearinghouse for current information and materials concerning substance abuse.NCADI distributes publications and other materials on substance abuse from variousfederal government agencies (e.g., study reports, surveys, guides, videos), many ofwhich are free of charge.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)6000 Executive Boulevard,Willco Building Bethesda, MD 20892-7003http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/(301) 496-4000

NIAAA supports and conducts biomedical and behavioral research on the causes,consequences, treatment, and prevention of alcoholism and alcohol-related problems.In 2002, NIAAA’s Task Force on College Drinking published the first NationalInstitutes of Health report on college drinking, A Call to Action: Changing the Cultureof Drinking at U.S. Colleges. The report reveals new findings on the extent and natureof the problem, reviews the current research literature, and provides guidance to col-lege presidents, administrators, and other policymakers on effective programs andpolicies. NIAAA offers a Web site on college drinking prevention: http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/.

The Network: Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issuesc/o The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug PreventionEducation Development Center, Inc.55 Chapel StreetNewton, MA 02458-1060http://www.thenetwork.ws/

The Network (formerly known as the Network of Colleges and UniversitiesCommitted to the Elimination of Drug and Alcohol Abuse) is a national consortiumof colleges and universities formed to promote healthy campus environments byaddressing the issues of alcohol, other drugs, and violence. Begun in 1987 by the U.S.Department of Education,The Network comprises member institutions that volun-tarily agree to adhere to a set of standards aimed at reducing AOD problems at col-leges and universities. It has close to 1,500 members nationwide.The Network devel-ops collaborative alcohol and other drug prevention efforts among colleges and uni-versities through electronic information exchange, printed materials, and sponsorshipof national, regional, and state activities and conferences.

54


55

References

L1 Larimer, M. E., and Cronce, J. M.“Identification, Prevention, and Treatment:A Review of Individual-Focused Strategies to Reduce Problematic AlcoholConsumption by College Students.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no.14: 148–163, 2002.

2 DeJong,W.;Vince-Whitman; C.; Colthurst,T.; Cretella, M.; Gilbreath, M.; Rosati,M.; and Zweig, K. Environmental Management:A Comprehensive Strategy for ReducingAlcohol and Other Drug Use on College Campuses (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention,1998).

3 Hingson, R.W., and Howland, J.“Comprehensive Community Interventions toPromote Health: Implications for College-Age Drinking Problems.” Journal of Studieson Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 226–240, 2002.

4 Bickel, R. D., and Lake, P. F. The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University:WhoAssumes the Risks of College Life? (Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 1999).

5 DeJong,W., and Epstein J. C. Strategizer 34:Working in Partnership with Local Colleges andUniversities (Alexandria,Va.: Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, 2000).

6 Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes ofHealth, 2002).

7 Presidents Leadership Group. Be Vocal, Be Visible, Be Visionary: Recommendations forCollege and University Presidents on Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (Newton, Mass.:Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention/EDC, 1997).

8 Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. A Call to Action: Changing theCulture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Health,2002).

9 O’Malley, P. M., and Johnston, L. D.“Epidemiology of Alcohol and Other Drug Useamong American College Students.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14:23–39, 2002.

10 Knight, J. R.;Wechsler, H.; Kuo, M.; Seibring, M.;Weitzman, E. R.; and Schuckit, M.“Alcohol Abuse and Dependence among U.S. College Students.” Journal of Studies onAlcohol 63: 263–270, 2002.

11 Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. A Call to Action: Changing the

Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Health,2002).

12 Hingson, R.W.; Heeren,T.; Zakocs, R. C.; Kopstein,A.; and Wechsler, H.“Magnitude of Alcohol-Related Mortality and Morbidity among U.S. CollegeStudents Ages 18–24.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63: 136–144, 2002.

13 Wechsler, H.; Lee, J. E.; Kuo, M; Seibring, M; Nelson,T. F.; and Lee, H.“Trends inCollege Binge Drinking during a Period of Increased Prevention Efforts: Findingsfrom 4 Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study Surveys,1993–2001.” Journal of American College Health 50: 203–217, 2002.

14 Presley, C.A.; Meilman, P.W.; and Cashin, J. R. Alcohol and Drugs on American CollegeCampuses: Use, Consequences, and Perceptions of the Campus Environment Vol. IV,1992–94 (Carbondale, Ill.: Core Institute, Southern Illinois University, 1996).

15 Perkins, H.W.“Surveying the Damage:A Review of Research on Consequences ofAlcohol Misuse in College Populations.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no.14: 91–100, 2002.

16 Ibid.17 Hingson, R.W.; Heeren,T.; Zakocs, R. C.; Kopstein,A.; and Wechsler, H.

“Magnitude of Alcohol-Related Mortality and Morbidity among U.S. CollegeStudents Ages 18–24.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63: 136–144, 2002.

18 Wechsler, H.; Lee, J. E.; Nelson,T. F.; and Kuo, M.“Underage College Students’Drinking Behavior,Access to Alcohol, and the Influence of Deterrence Policies:Findings from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study.” Journalof American College Health 50: 223–236, 2002.

19 Wagenaar,A. C., and Toomey,T. L.“Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws:Review and Analyses of the Literature from 1960 to 2000.” Journal of Studies onAlcohol, supplement no. 14: 206–225, 2002.

20 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Alcohol and HighwaySafety 2001:A Review of the State of Knowledge (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Transportation, NHTSA, 2001).

21 Pittayathikhun,T.; Ku, R.; Rigby, D.; Mattsson, M.; and DeJong,W. Complying with theDrug-Free Schools and Campuses Regulations [34 CFR Part 86]: A Guide for Universityand College Administrators (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, HigherEducation Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1997).

22 DeJong,W., and Langford, L. M.“A Typology for Campus-Based AlcoholPrevention: Moving toward Environmental Management Strategies.” Journal ofStudies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 140–147, 2002.

23 Larimer, M. E., and Cronce, J. M.“Identification, Prevention, and Treatment:AReview of Individual-Focused Strategies to Reduce Problematic AlcoholConsumption by College Students.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14:148–163, 2002.

24 Baer, J. S.; Marlatt, G.A.; Kivlahan, D. R.; Fromme, K.; Larimer, M.; and Williams, E.“An Experimental Test of Three Methods of Alcohol Risk Reduction with YoungAdults.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 60: 974–979, 1992.

25 Baer, J. S.; Kivlahan, D. R.; Blume,A.W.; McKnight, P.; and Marlatt, G.A.“BriefIntervention for Heavy Drinking College Students: Four-Year Follow-Up andNatural History.” American Journal of Public Health 91: 1310–1316, 2001.

56


26 Wagenaar,A. C., and Toomey,T. L.“Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws:Review and Analyses of the Literature from 1960 to 2000.” Journal of Studies onAlcohol, supplement no. 14: 206–225, 2002.

27 Hingson, R.W.; Heeren,T.; Zakocs, R. C.; Kopstein,A.; and Wechsler, H.“Magnitude of Alcohol-Related Mortality and Morbidity among U.S. CollegeStudents Ages 18–24.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63: 136–144, 2002.

28 DeJong,W., and Hingson, R.“Strategies to Reduce Driving under the Influence ofAlcohol.” Annual Review of Public Health 19: 359–378, 1998.

29 Toomey,T. L., and Wagenaar,A. C.“Environmental Policies to Reduce CollegeDrinking: Options and Research Findings.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplementno. 14: 193–205, 2002.

30 Chaloupka, F. J., and Wechsler, H.“Binge Drinking in College:The Impact of Price,Availability, and Alcohol Control Policies.” Contemporary Economic Policy 14: 112–124,1996.

31 Toomey,T. L., and Wagenaar,A. C.“Environmental Policies to Reduce CollegeDrinking: Options and Research Findings.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplementno. 14: 193–205, 2002.

32 Gebhardt,T. L.; Kaphingst, K.; and DeJong,W.“A Campus-Community Coalition toControl Alcohol-Related Problems off Campus.” Journal of American College Health28: 211–215, 2000.

33 Saltz, R. F.“The Roles of Bars and Restaurants in Preventing Alcohol-ImpairedDriving:An Evaluation of Server Intervention. Evaluation in Health Professions 10:5–27, 1987.

34 Russell,A.;Voas, R. B.; DeJong,W.; and Chaloupka, M.“MADD Rates the States:AMedia Advocacy Event to Advance the Agenda against Alcohol-Impaired Driving.”Public Health Reports 110: 240–245, 1995.

35 Shults, R.A.; Sleet, D.A.; Elder, R.W.; Ryan, G.W.; and Sehgal, M.“Associationbetween State-Level Drinking and Driving Countermeasures and Self-ReportedAlcohol-Impaired Driving.” Injury Prevention 8: 106–110, 2002.

36 Shults, R.A.; Elder, R.W.; Sleet, D.A.; Nichols J. L.;Alao, M.A.; Carande-Kulis,V. G.;Zaza, S.; Sosin, D. M.;Thompson, R. S.; and Task Force on Community PreventiveServices.“Reviews of Evidence Regarding Interventions to Reduce Alcohol-ImpairedDriving.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 21(4S): 66–88, 2001.

37 “New Study Results Demonstrate Strong Student Support for Alcohol PreventionPolicies” (press release). Newton, Mass.: Education Development Center, February28, 2001.

38 “What Do Parents Think about College Drinking?” Prevention File:Alcohol,Tobaccoand Other Drugs 16: 4, Fall 2001.

39 Ryan, B. E., and DeJong,W. Making the Link: Faculty and Prevention (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol andOther Drug Prevention, 1998).

40 Perkins, H.W.“College Student Misperceptions of Alcohol and Other Drug Normsamong Peers: Exploring Causes, Consequences, and Implications for PreventionPrograms.” In U.S. Department of Education, Designing Alcohol and Other DrugPrevention Programs in Higher Education: Bringing Theory into Practice (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and OtherDrug Prevention, 1997).

57

References

41 Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. A Call to Action: Changing theCulture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Health,2002).

42 DeJong,W., and Winsten, J.“The Use of Designated Drivers by U.S. CollegeStudents:A National Study.” Journal of American College Health 47: 151–156, 1999.

43 “Some Colleges Call an End to Fridays off,” Boston Globe, May 3, 2002.44 “Alcohol Ingrained in Local Social Culture,” Newark Post, January 8, 2002.45 Toomey,T. L., and Wagenaar,A. C.“Environmental Policies to Reduce College

Drinking: Options and Research Findings.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplementno. 14: 193–205, 2002.

46 Chaloupka, F. J., and Wechsler, H.“Binge Drinking in College:The Impact of Price,Availability, and Alcohol Control Policies.” Contemporary Economic Policy 14: 112–124,1996.

47 DeJong,W., and Langenbahn, S. Setting and Improving Policies for Reducing Alcohol andOther Drug Problems on Campus:A Guide for Administrators (Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other DrugPrevention, 1995, reprinted 1997).

48 National Commission for Drug-Free Schools. Toward a Drug-Free Generation(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1990).

49 Cohen, D.A.; Mason, K.; and Scribner, R.“The Population Consumption Model,Alcohol Control Practices, and Alcohol-Related Traffic Fatalities.” Preventive Medicine34: 187–197, 2002.

50 Wechsler, H.; Lee, J. E.; Kuo, M; Seibring, M; Nelson,T. F.; and Lee, H.“Trends inCollege Binge Drinking during a Period of Increased Prevention Efforts: Findingsfrom 4 Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study Surveys,1993–2001.” Journal of American College Health 50: 203–217, 2002.

51 Ryan, B. E., and Mosher, J. F. Progress Report:Alcohol Promotion on Campus (SanRafael, Calif.: Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other DrugProblems, 1991).

52 DeJong,W., and Davidson, L. Building Long-Term Support for Alcohol and Other DrugPrevention Programs (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, HigherEducation Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 2000).

53 Gardner,A.“Don’t Drink and Drive? Binge Kids Don’t Care.” HealthScout, February6, 2002.

54 Gebhardt,T. L.; Kaphingst, K.; and DeJong,W.“A Campus-Community Coalition toControl Alcohol-Related Problems off Campus.” Journal of American College Health28: 211–215, 2000.

55 Pittayathikhun,T.; Ku, R.; Rigby, D.; Mattsson, M.; and DeJong,W. Complying withthe Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Regulations [34 CFR Part 86]:A Guide forUniversity and College Administrators (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1997).

56 Zweig, K. L., and Thompson, J. Prevention Update: Parental Notification (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol andOther Drug Prevention, 2001).

58


57 “Misdeeds Prompt MU Letters: Campus Issues Data on Parental Notification.”Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune, August 4, 2002.

58 “Alcohol Arrests Climb: OWIs Decline as Other Citations Rise,” Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 22, 2002.

59 Minnesota Institute of Public Health.“Effective Response to College DrinkingExists” (press release, http://www.jointogether.org/y/0,2521,266187,00.html),February 23, 2001.

60 DeJong,W., and Hingson, R.“Strategies to Reduce Driving under the Influence ofAlcohol.” Annual Review of Public Health 19: 359–378, 1998.

61 Ibid.62 Balmforth, D. National Survey of Drinking and Driving,Attitudes and Behavior

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway TrafficSafety Administration, 1997).

63 Stewart, K. A Guide for Enforcing Impaired Driving Laws for Youth (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2000).

64 “Ax Falls on Spring-Break Cash,” Orlando Sentinel, July 12, 2002.65 Winsten, J.A., and DeJong,W.“The Designated Driver Campaign.” In Rice R. E.,

and Atkin, C. K. (eds.), Public Communication Campaigns, 3d ed. (Thousand Oaks,Calif.: Sage, 2000), pp. 290–294.

66 DeJong,W., and Winsten, J.“The Use of Designated Drivers by U.S. CollegeStudents:A National Study.” Journal of American College Health 47: 151–156, 1999.

67 Knight, J. R.;Wechsler, H.; Kuo, M.; Seibring, M.;Weitzman, E. R.; and Schuckit,M.“Alcohol Abuse and Dependence among U.S. College Students.” Journal ofStudies on Alcohol 63: 263–270, 2002.

68 Perkins, H.W.“Social Norms and the Prevention of Alcohol Misuse in CollegiateContexts.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 164–172, 2002.

69 Hingson, R.W., and Howland, J.“Comprehensive Community Interventions toPromote Health: Implications for College-Age Drinking Problems.” Journal of Studieson Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 226–240, 2002.

70 Holder, H. D.; Saltz, R. F.; Grube, J.W.;Treno,A. J.; Reynolds, R. I.;Voas, R. B.; andGruenewald, P. J.“Summing Up: Lessons from a Comprehensive CommunityPrevention Trial.” Addiction 92, supplement 2: S293–S301, 1997.

71 Holder, H. D.; Gruenewald, P. J.; Ponicki,W. R.;Treno,A. J.; Grube, J.W.; Saltz, R. F.;Voas, R. B.; Reynolds, R.; Davis, J.; Sanchez, L.; Gaumont, G.; and Roeper, P.“Effectof Community-Based Interventions on High-Risk Drinking and Alcohol-RelatedInjuries.” Journal of the American Medical Association 284: 2341–2347, 2000.

72 Saltz, R., and DeJong,W. Reducing Alcohol Problems on Campus:A Guide to Planningand Evaluation (Rockville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002).

73 Ryan, B. E.; Colthurst,T.; and Segars, L. College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide:Environmental Approaches to Prevention (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention,revised 1997).

59

References

74 Presley, C.A.;Austin, B. S.; and Jacobs, J. Selecting the Right Tool:A Compendium ofAlcohol and Other Drug Assessment and Evaluation Instruments for Use in HigherEducation (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher EducationCenter for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1998).

75 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The Art of AppropriateEvaluation:A Guide for Highway Safety Program Managers (Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 1999).

76 For the evaluator database and other evaluation resources, visit http://www.higheredcenter.org/eval; for the guide, see Langford, L. M., and DeJong,W. Prevention Update:How to Select a Program Evaluator (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 2001).

77 Saltz, R., and DeJong,W. Reducing Alcohol Problems on Campus:A Guide to Planningand Evaluation (Rockville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002).

78 Bickel, R. D., and Lake, P. F. The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University:WhoAssumes the Risks of College Life? (Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 1999).

60


U.S. Department of TransportationNational Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration

People Saving Peoplewww.nhtsa.dot.gov

Office of Safe andDrug-Free Schools

Date post:	14-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Safe Lanes on Campus A Guide for Preventing Impaired Driving and Underage...

Documents