The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention CATALYST Fall 1999 -- Volume 5, No.3 A Publication of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention FUNDED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION This document is also available in Acrobat and Text formats. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In this issue: The ABCs of Alcohol Problem Prevention, by Laurie Davidson Setting Up a Social Mentoring Program for Freshmen, by Cathy E. Neuman Fraternity Update for the Year 2000 Creating a Positive Cycle of Change, by William DeJong Creating Healthy Campus Environment Through Volunteer Service, by Judith Robinson Snapshots of Community Colleges: Leveraging Resources for Prevention, by Catherine Meikle Potts Setting Standards for Campus Alcohol and Other Drug Programs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The ABCs of Alcohol Problem Prevention by Laurie Davidson Frustration with fragmented or piecemeal alcohol and other drug prevention activities at colleges and universities has led some states to adopt broader and more comprehensive strategies. Fifteen states across the country have organized regional or statewide efforts as a way to involve a mix of campus, community, business, and governmental agencies in prevention. These collaborative efforts bring together communities and campuses to address the larger environmental and policy issues that can exacerbate alcohol and other drug problems. Statewide initiatives can get started in a number of ways. Some are the result of the leadership of state agencies. Others emerge through college and university administrations or statewide college task forces. And in some states community anti-drug coalitions have taken the lead in pushing for statewide prevention initiatives. In Pennsylvania and Virginia the state alcoholic beverage control agencies (ABCs) took the lead in organizing statewide prevention efforts, with the support of college presidents, state governors, and other top governmental officials in those states. As regulatory agencies, ABCs have the potential to be particularly effective prevention partners in reducing underage access to alcohol as well as high-risk drinking by college students. According to Regulatory Strategies for Preventing Youth Access to Alcohol (Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Rockville, MD, 1999), the right laws and regulations can minimize opportunities for young people to use alcohol and maximize the opportunities for effective enforcement and prevention. Pennsylvania's Liquor Control Board Forges Partnerships In July 1998 a crowd of 1,500 students and nonstudents at an off-campus art festival near Penn State did more than $100,000 worth of damage to public facilities before 150 police officers from six departments broke up the rioting. In the aftermath of this disturbance, Penn State President Graham Spanier, who had gained distinction for confronting alcohol problems on his campus, sought out the assistance of the state's governor to broaden the prevention effort statewide. "This isn't a Penn State problem," Governor Tom Ridge said when he announced the launching of a statewide prevention initiative. "It's a cultural problem, a community problem, an American problem." Solutions to problems related to high-risk drinking by college students in Pennsylvania are focusing on the formation of campus and community partnerships. With the authorization of Governor Ridge, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) has taken the lead in facilitating these partnerships, using $200,000 of its own funds for a minigrant program to colleges and universities. Colleges can apply for funds to underwrite campus-community collaborations to combat underage and high-risk drinking. The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention will provide a comprehensive program of training and technical assistance with strategies designed to create environmental change. "As an alcohol beverage control agency, we have responsibility for both the supply and demand of beverage alcohol and are very actively involved with licensees and community organizations through our education and prevention efforts," said Steve Schmidt, director of the Bureau of Alcohol Education for the PLCB. "From our perspective, linking the community with the college is critical. We feel that our role in trying to solve the problem of inappropriate use of alcohol by college students is to facilitate communities and colleges to solve their complementary problems with this issue." The "Bloomsburg Initiative," a 1997 PLCB project funded by the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency (NHTSA) demonstrated how a state alcohol control agency can work at the community level to reduce problems associated with alcohol use. "We chose Bloomsburg because it is home to Bloomsburg University, which gave us the added twist of being a college town," said Schmidt. The PLCB helped bring together a broad spectrum of representatives from the university and the town to work on a plan to reduce both high-risk and underage drinking among college students. The coalition’s plan focused on development of stricter policy by the university, increased enforcement of policy and town and state laws, and improved measures to limit alcohol availability. Tavern owners offered some creative alternatives, and one owner put aside his license to sell alcohol in favor of a complete alcohol-free operation. Students and the mayor of Bloomsburg have helped get the word out about this establishment, and Schmidt sees it as a sign of success that the owner continues to operate without selling alcohol. The outcome of the town and campus partnership included significant decreases in arrests for alcohol-impaired driving, public drunkenness, and disorderly conduct, while underage drinking arrests increased. Police attribute these changes to stepped-up enforcement efforts, especially in areas surrounding the Bloomsburg campus. According to one counselor at the university, students seem to use alcohol more cautiously, and court- and university-mandated visits to his office have dropped by about 25 percent over the last two years. The PLCB is also engaged in a federally funded "Partnership for Prevention" with the Penn State system. This project helps the university create coalitions in the communities that are home to its 21 campuses. At a meeting in 1998, President Spanier and other senior university officials, including the vice president of student affairs for the system, met with the CEOs of all 21 campuses to ensure that the campuses were actively engaging in community partnerships. The "Partnership for Prevention" is now funding minigrants at 11 campuses, with Penn State committing an additional sum for each grantee. Virginia ABC Implements AG's Task Force Plan After the alcohol-related deaths of four Virginia college students and a faculty member in 1997, then Attorney General Richard Cullen formed the Attorney General's Task Force on Drinking by College Students. In early 1998 the new Attorney General Mark Earley charged the task force with "studying binge and illegal drinking on Virginia's campuses and making common sense recommendations to reverse the campus culture that accepts and promotes alcohol abuse." The task force report emphasized four main initiatives: * Design of a campus and community plan to combat alcohol abuse * Rebuilding the campus culture from one that tolerates binge and illegal drinking to one that promotes personal responsibility, scholarship, and citizenship * Enforcement of state alcohol laws on and off campus * Implementation of focused alcohol and other drug education programs for all students As a first step, Earley asked the 14 four-year colleges and universities in Virginia to complete initial prevention plans by the beginning of 1999. Implementation of the strategies described in these plans—including environmental strategies for policy and legal enforcement, development of alcohol-free activities, reducing alcohol availability, and discouraging advertisement and promotion of alcoholic beverages on campus—has begun. The Virginia Department of Alcohol Beverage Control has been involved with campus alcohol issues for 14 years through its annual statewide college prevention conference. "We started working with campuses to build awareness about underage drinking and alternative activities for students during the 1980s, when our top violations were sales to minors and fake IDs," said Craig Vanderland, director of Management Services for the ABC. After a decade of work, awareness was no longer an issue, so the ABC moved four years ago to encourage collaboration on campus and between the campus and the community. The Virginia ABC is responsible for both the licensing of businesses serving alcohol and enforcement of licensing regulations. Because of the strong link the ABC has forged between restaurant owners (there are no bars in Virginia) and the college community, the agency was designated to support campuses in putting their prevention plans into action and to implement the other features of the task force's statewide plan. Governor Jim Gilmore also authorized the ABC to use funding from the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to support campus and community prevention efforts. With financial support and training provided through the ABC, five campuses have implemented social norms marketing programs. Radford University, where two students were killed in an alcohol-related car crash, has joined with Virginia Tech and key community representatives to form the New River Valley Coalition to develop goals for campus and community prevention efforts. The ABC and the Attorney General obtained a small grant from the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association to support the coalition's efforts. In Operation Undergrad, the ABC will award minigrants to college law enforcement officials to develop and enhance partnerships with their local ABC offices and the college alcohol and other drug coordinator. Early evidence suggests that the statewide focus on campus drinking problems may be having some effect. The University of Virginia reports that the number of emergency room visits for alcohol-related problems in the 1998–99 academic year was significantly less than half the number reported in each of the previous four years. Destruction in residence halls has also declined. Jim Turner, director of student health, attributes the positive outcomes to UVa's decision to move fraternity rush week to the second semester and to the wide variety of alternative activities available to students. But Turner cautions that only soft data is available. "It's hard to get excited until we see data across a few more years, but we think [the decline in emergency room visits] is an important and accurate trend, " he said. UVa has implemented a social norms marketing campaign. The ABC is working with the Governor's Safe and Drug Free Schools Office to coordinate collection of data for an evaluation of the impact of statewide initiatives on student drinking behavior and related problems. "We see more resources being brought to bear at the campus level than we've had before. It seems there's a higher commitment from college presidents as well. I give credit to the Governor and Attorney General for making this issue a priority," said Vanderland. Laurie Davidson is the assistant managing director of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. Editor’s note: For more information on ABC regulatory strategies contact the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 11140 Rockville Pike, 6th Floor, Rockville, MD 20852. Tel.: (310) 984-6500. Or visit the Underage Drinking Enforcement Training Center Website at www.pire.org/udetc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Setting Up A Social Mentoring Program For Freshmen by Cathy E. Neuman When the Michigan Coalition to Reduce Underage Drinking announced in fall 1997 that it would provide $5,000 grants for statewide, grass-roots prevention, a group of us at Michigan State University—including students—thought about effective ways a grant of that size might help prevention efforts on campus. We decided that the initiative should build upon our experiences with first-year students, the campus group most vulnerable to abuse of alcohol. A number of previous campus projects, experiences, and research informed our decision-making process. In 1992 our Project IMPACT established educational efforts and social events in 18 residence halls on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. Those experiences showed us that during the first weeks of each academic year we needed to give students messages to counter the myth that "all college students drink" while providing opportunities and support to students looking for non-alcohol-related activities. We also understood that one of the significant developmental tasks for first-year students is to establish a sense of belonging. Students at Michigan State reported that when first arriving on campus they are more anxious about their social transition to college than they are about their academic transition. MSU Core Surveys administered in spring 1992, 1994, and 1996 informed us that more freshmen, most of whom are underage, binge drink than seniors, most of whom are not. In addition, 75 percent of the students responding to a fall 1996 survey of 1,800 MSU freshmen said that they had consumed alcohol since coming to MSU. When asked why they drank, the top three reasons were (1) helps me forget (69 percent), (2) people my age drink (66 percent), and (3) expected to drink (64 percent). The MSU Core Surveys also indicated that at least 25 percent of the student body (10,000 students) did not drink at all. We thought that a social mentoring program could be designed to communicate to all students, including those who do not participate, that some students choose not to drink and enjoy as active a social life as those who do drink. The program would be a deliberate attempt to support the MSU freshmen who choose not to drink but who are not visible to the campus social setting. It would be designed to answer the student question: "What’s there to do at MSU besides drink?" Upperclass students enthusiastically embraced the idea of a mentoring program to assist first-year students in establishing an alcohol-free social life their first six weeks on campus. They immediately identified how helpful that would have been for them and others. The project included three sections: recruitment and training of mentors, recruitment and matching of freshmen participants to mentors, and implementation of the program. Social connections, activities, and resources on campus were a primary focus. Our goal was to train 50 mentors and connect them with two to three hundred freshmen the first year of the program. After only two weeks of promotion 60 students applied to be mentors and signed up for interviews. Fifty-three were selected and completed training on three evenings in April. The goals of spring training included establishing ownership of the program by the mentors and a thorough understanding of the goals and expectations of the program. Students named the program S.T.A.F.F. (Students Teamed with Alcohol-Free Freshmen) and designed project T-shirts. To recruit freshmen for the program, we sent a letter, brochures, and sign-up cards to every Michigan high school counselor to pass along to the seniors planning to attend MSU. Additionally, two mentors presented a brief skit at every required summer academic orientation program. One clear message of the skit was that the program was for freshmen who wanted to establish a social life without alcohol. By the end of July we had over 400 names in our database. First-day-on-campus connections with freshmen who signed up for mentors included e-mail messages, notes—and possibly a treat—in mailboxes, and phone calls. The next level of connection was one-on-one interaction with introductory visits and presentation of a mentor-created resource folder and/or lunch in the residence hall. Within the first week each mentor was expected to arrange for all six to ten of the freshmen assigned to them to meet via activities such as tours of campus, going to the bookstore, getting a "slurpy," attending fall welcome activities, and so on. At the end of September the S.T.A.F.F. Finale took place at the Ice Arena on campus. There was something for everyone: ice skating, a different variety of food at each hour, icebreakers on the ice, line and swing dancing and lessons, karaoke, board and group games, and a broom ball (on ice) team competition. More than 300 students participated, many reporting it was the best part of the entire program. Jerry Anderson of the Prevention Network, a statewide grass-roots prevention organization, observed and assisted with our program on numerous occasions. Later that semester, he recommended our efforts for a model program award that we received. And the director of Michigan’s Office of Drug Control Policy (ODCP) remembered our brief presentation from the awards luncheon and, partially in reaction to the four recent alcohol-related deaths of Michigan college students, explored duplicating this model throughout Michigan with a $400,000 grant targeting underage drinking. Thirteen universities applied for and received funding. A number of campus personnel report successful recruitment of mentors (ranging from 20 to over 100). Outreach to freshmen is in process. Michigan Leadership Services, the coordinator of over 500 Michigan SADD Chapters, encouraged participation at their spring activities. The project has developed outreach and training materials, including 100 thousand copies of the social mentoring brochure Campus Connections and the parent brochure A Few Words for Parents About Alcohol and College. The project developed a Social Mentor Training Manual, which was sent to each participating campus. Over 600 high schools received posters and brochures. Evaluation instruments are in process. As we move forward, the impact of this program on the individual freshmen, the mentors who served them, and the campus environment itself needs to be assessed. As more underage students who choose not to drink are empowered, provided a network, and connected to campus opportunities, we believe that the norms of college student drinking will change. The myth that "all college students drink" will be known as just that. And students will enjoy a rich social life on campus that does not rely on alcohol use. Cathy E. Neuman is the assistant director in the Department of Student Life and serves as the Judicial Affairs Officer at Michigan State University. Editor's note: For additional information on the Social Mentoring Project on Michigan campuses, contact Jerry Anderson, campus coordinator and Social Mentoring Project coordinator at the Michigan Prevention Network at (800) 968-4968 (or at www.preventionnetwork.org). In addition, Neuman and Anderson will present a skill-building workshop at the National Meeting on Alcohol, Other Drug, and Violence Prevention in Higher Education, Albany, N.Y. November 6–9, 1999. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fraternity Update for the Year 2000 The National Interfraternity Council (NIC) embarked in the mid-1990s on an effort to persuade fraternity chapters at colleges and universities to make their residences alcohol free by the year 2000. That year is close at hand, yet there has been no stampede to take alcohol off the menu at the 5,000 fraternity houses across the country. Not that there hasn't been progress. "Like many things in this business, it's moving very slowly," says Steve Zizzo, an executive of the NIC. Two years ago only two fraternities—Sigma Nu and Phi Delta Theta—had formally adopted a policy calling on their campus chapters to go substance free. Today, says Zizzo, eight fraternities have climbed on the bandwagon, though not all chapters are abiding by the policies laid down by their national offices. Some fraternity leaders appear to be hesitant, not only because they want to continue having alcohol-fueled parties at their houses, but because they fear their ability to recruit new members will be hurt. As long as "social life" means drinking at some frat houses, those not allowing alcohol may have trouble recruiting freshmen eager to experience what they've heard about free-wheeling campus life. That hasn't been the experience of Phi Delta Theta, which remains out in front in the alcohol-free movement. Bob Biggs, national director of the fraternity, points to solid evidence that its no-alcohol policy is the way to go. "You can measure scholarship performance. You can measure how many men pledged this year as opposed to last year. On those measures our alcohol-free chapters have improved across the board." Improved scholarship suggests that residents of alcohol-free houses drink less than those in more traditional houses even though they don't give up drinking altogether. However, one "Phi Delt" at Arizona State University in Tempe told a reporter from the Arizona Republic that he didn't think the no-alcohol rule at his house had affected anyone's social life. "I really don't think it's much different from other fraternities at all. Instead of drinking at home, we just go to a bar." The entire 34 members of one Phi Delt chapter resigned rather than go along with the new alcohol policy. Biggs explains, "They said they'd been told that they could drink beer and party at the house even though they were underage. That's what they were mainly interested in. We closed a social club. We didn't close a fraternity chapter." Despite opposition, Biggs expresses confidence in the no-alcohol policy. "When we started we had 11 chapters going alcohol free. Today we have 90. We expect another 50 to make the transition by our deadline of July 1, 2000." The Sigma Nu chapter at Arizona State was one of the first to adopt alcohol restrictions. Membership in the chapter at first dropped from 40 to 25 but has since risen to 45. The chapter still promotes its social program but makes clear that if there's going to be alcohol served at a party, the party won't be held at the fraternity house. Like others going alcohol free, Sigma Nu emphasizes the positive aspects of the change, such as offering members a chance to study without the disruptions of partying. Mo Littlefield, who recently retired as national director of Sigma Nu after a long career in fraternity administration, points out that university and college administrators are taking a more active role in efforts to reduce high-risk drinking by students. "Prior to 1970 most college deans didn't allow alcohol on their campuses and maintained pretty strict control on student behavior," he said in an interview with Catalyst. "When in loco parentis went out the door, that went with it, and alcohol and drugs came in behind." Now, with heavy media coverage of embarrassing, and sometimes tragic, incidents involving heavy drinking by students, administrators are showing a greater willingness to risk a negative reaction when they lower the boom on the free flow of alcohol. Littlefield is quick to point out that due to an "Animal House" reputation, fraternities get more blame than they deserve for campus alcohol problems, which are common among the nonfraternity population as well. Littlefield credits the willingness of some fraternities to adopt restrictions on alcohol use with raising the general level of awareness of alcohol as a malaise on many campuses. There is a need, he says, for more ethical leadership among everyone concerned—college administrators, faculty, state and federal lawmakers, parents, alumni, and students. His fraternity, Sigma Nu, is putting special emphasis on leadership development as part of its effort to dispel the notion that fraternities must allow alcohol on their property in order to enhance the social lives of their members. Bob Biggs said fraternities choosing to ban alcohol are getting "tremendous support" from women's organizations—sororities and others. "What many of them are saying is that by fall 2000 they will not cosponsor a function at a men's fraternity house unless the function is alcohol free." A university administration can exert similar pressure by telling fraternities that allow alcohol in their houses that they will lose their right to participate in various university-sponsored activities. According to Biggs, the role of local alumni has turned out to be a "mixed bag." In some cases alumni have sided with those resisting the alcohol ban, but in other cases they have supported it. How these efforts to change the fraternity scene are affecting drinking patterns for campuses as a whole is so far hard to measure. "The bottom line is that we're changing the environment," says Biggs. "And that doesn't happen overnight." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Creating a Positive Cycle of Change by William DeJong Whatever the true level of high-risk drinking is on campus, college students tend to greatly overestimate the percentage of their peers who engage in dangerous alcohol consumption. In many instances, the disparity between reality and perception is enormous. Sociologist Wesley Perkins, Ph.D., at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, contends that this pattern of misperception—what he has called a "reign of error"—can have severe repercussions. If college students believe that most of their peers drink heavily, then rates of high-risk drinking may rise in response. Perkins and other prevention experts have begun to explore whether this dynamic can be turned around by informing students about how much drinking is really going on. The effort to get this message out—using publicity events, student newspaper advertisements, posters, e-mail messages, and other campus-based media—is called a "social norms marketing campaign." People underestimate the level of student support that exists for policy reform. Prevention coordinators have mounted such campaigns at Northern Illinois University, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, the University of Arizona, and Western Washington University. At these schools a consistent and impressive pattern of results has emerged—years of relative stasis, followed by a social norms marketing campaign, reduced misperceptions of student drinking, and then an approximate 10 to 25 percent drop in the high-risk drinking rate. Further research is needed to test how successful these campaigns can be and under what conditions. But while that research continues, findings to date have encouraged several other colleges to begin experimenting with this innovative, yet low-cost prevention program. There is another important value of social norms marketing campaigns: by putting people in touch with the positive social norms that exist on campus, they can set the stage for pursuing policy reforms that will change the environment in which students make decisions about alcohol consumption. Policy reforms cannot go too far beyond existing social norms without provoking resistance. If students, faculty, and administrators have an exaggerated view of student drinking norms, they will be less likely to support change. With a social norms marketing campaign, people learn that the majority of students are already practicing safe, moderate behaviors, and leaders can more easily enlist the support they need to advance a policy agenda. A critical early step in policy reform is to demonstrate solid support for new policies to help students make healthier decisions. This support has to be documented, not assumed. Misperceptions are likely to come into play here. Exaggerated views of how many students are engaged in high-risk drinking also lead people to underestimate the level of student support that exists for policy reforms. In 1998 the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation issued the results of a national opinion poll on how to control alcohol-related problems in the United States. One question asked, "How strongly would you favor or oppose lowering the minimum drinking age from 21 to 19?" What percentage of young adults 18 to 24 years old would you guess opposed a lower minimum drinking age? Last fall, at a student leadership training event sponsored by the Higher Education Center, I asked a group of approximately 50 college students what they thought the answer would be. Most guessed 20 or 30 percent, and only a few ventured that the level of opposition might reach 40 percent. The surprising answer is that 69 percent of young adults in the United States do not want to see the minimum drinking age lowered from 21 to 19. Another question assessed the level of support for a keg registration law, which requires every beer keg to have a registration number by which it can be traced to the person who bought it. Most of the students at the training event expected few 18 to 24 year olds to support this measure, and, again, they were wrong. In fact, 62 percent supported the proposed law. Likewise, a strong majority supported a law setting the minimum age to sell or serve alcoholic beverages at 21 (70 percent approval). They also supported increasing alcohol excise taxes by five cents per drink to pay for programs to prevent minors from drinking and to increase the reach of alcohol treatment programs (79 percent approval). In both cases, students at the training event greatly underestimated the actual level of support. Is this misperception of the true level of support for effective alcohol policies a widespread phenomenon? If so, this would be another significant barrier to policy reforms on college campuses. Few academic leaders want to introduce policies that will be openly resisted by a majority of students. Clearly, then, correcting these misperceptions becomes vital. Not all policy proposals will receive majority support, and the level of actual support will vary from campus to campus. The key is to demonstrate where support exists and then to move forward. The point is not that higher education administrators should never install policies that a majority of students do not want, but that, whenever they can, they should find and build on student support. Then, as the new policies take hold, and the rate of high-risk drinking declines, support is likely to be found for even tougher policies that will protect the rights of the majority to a safe campus. Some prevention experts have divided themselves into two camps—those who favor environmental management approaches to prevention versus those who favor using social norms marketing campaigns. What I suggest instead is that the two approaches be applied together. To put it simply, efforts to correct misperceptions of drinking norms and to demonstrate majority support for reasonable policy reforms should be used to set the stage for institutional and community change. Over time, changes in policy will alter the perceived norms, and a cycle of positive change will begin. William DeJong, Ph.D., is the director of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Creating Healthy Campus Environments through Volunteer Service by Judith Robinson One of the goals of alcohol, other drug, and violence prevention in higher education is to create healthy campus environments where students can reach their academic and social potential. According to some recent studies, students who are involved in volunteer service reap benefits both in their own development and in reduced alcohol and other drug use. Volunteer service can help create what researchers Catherine McHugh Engstrom and Vincent Tinto of Syracuse University call "seamless educational environments that enable students to bridge the gap between the academic and social domains of their college experience" (About Campus, July/August 1997). When asked, most students say that they volunteer so they can help other people. Other reasons for volunteer service include to "feel personal satisfaction," "improve the community," and "improve society as a whole." But what do students gain? Researchers Alexander Astin and Linda Sax of the University of California at Los Angeles say that the effects of volunteer service include enhanced civic responsibility, academic development, better grade point averages, and aspirations for advanced degrees. Volunteering also leads to increased time studying, greater contact with faculty members, increased social self-confidence, life skills development, and leadership ability (Journal of College Student Development, May/June 1998). Researchers Julie Neururer of the University of South Carolina and Robert Rhoads of Michigan State University report that volunteer service also provides students with opportunities for personal growth, developing relationships, and exploring values and ethics. Volunteer service instills values of community and social responsibility. Through service experiences, students develop an appreciation of others in the community, challenge personal stereotypes, and learn to understand differences (Journal of College Student Development, July/August 1998). Who gets involved in volunteer service? About 30 percent of students responding to surveys from the Core Institute at the University of Illinois, Carbondale, say that they do some volunteer service. Most students who volunteer do so between one and four hours each month. While the number of students who volunteer are distributed fairly evenly across all class years, the greatest level of involvement in volunteer activities seems to take place in the junior and senior year. Women tend to volunteer more often than men. One side benefit of volunteer service is lower levels of alcohol use. Students who spend more time engaged in volunteer service tend to use less alcohol. The Core Survey shows that 15.2 percent of students who volunteer from one to four hours each month report using alcohol once a week, while 69.6 percent of their nonvolunteering counterparts report weekly use. The trend continues: 6.9 percent of students who volunteer between five and nine hours each month and 4.1 percent of students volunteering between 10 and 15 hours each month report weekly alcohol use. Volunteer service is also connected with academic performance. Core Survey data indicates that students participating in volunteer service have higher overall grade point averages than students who do not volunteer. The highest percentage of these students fall into the A, A-, and B+ grade range. According to researchers Tovah Sands and James Archer of the University of Florida and Stephanie Puleo of the University of Montevallo, social influence is one of the greatest predictors of alcohol use. In other words, one’s peer group and the overall campus climate affect drinking and abuse. Self-efficacy (confidence in one’s ability to control or limit use) is also related to alcohol use. Thus, campuses providing service programs in an effort to encourage civil behavior and enhance self-efficacy are likely to see a reduction in alcohol and other drug use and its consequences (Journal of College Student Development, July/August 1998). What does this information mean for the creation of healthy and safe campus environments? The research literature suggests that the more hours students spend in volunteer service, the greater their development of civic responsibility, life skills, and self-efficacy, which has a likely outcome of reduced alcohol use. So how can colleges and universities better use volunteer service programs to support alcohol and other drug prevention initiatives? Several possibilities exist. Colleges can "infuse" service throughout the curriculum, which can lead to several outcomes. First, it delivers the message to all students, faculty, and administrators that service is a valued part of the institution and matches the institutional mission. Second, it can enable students of all class years to get involved in volunteer service and reap the benefits cited in the literature. One study found that students who volunteered in high school are more likely to volunteer in college, yet most students devote time to volunteering when in the second half of their college years. College officials can tap the interest and commitment to service of entering students and provide service opportunities for all students through their coursework. Third, infusing volunteer service into the academic curriculum allows for a partnership between academic disciplines and student affairs, which is another important factor in designing environmentally based alcohol and other drug prevention efforts. With the support of senior administrators, this partnership can lead to an appreciation of the knowledge and skills of faculty and administrators of varied disciplines. Integrating volunteer service programs into the curriculum is not the only strategy to encourage students to engage in this type of activity. Other strategies include * training student leaders to initiate service activities for their clubs and organizations * on residential campuses, teaching resident assistants how to coordinate hall or building service activities * building a volunteer service program into first-year student orientation * working with Greek advisors and student leadership on developing ways to focus on the founding principles of philanthropy * organizing alumni service programs What makes a good service program? In their recent book, Where’s the Learning in Service-Learning? (1999), researchers Janet Eyler and Dwight Giles, Jr., of Vanderbilt University assert that quality service programs include the following components: * Strong academic programs tying service activity to course work * High-quality placements * Building application of knowledge into service learning * Planning for reflection * Preparation for dealing with diversity and conflict Eyler and Giles offer a compelling argument for requiring service. Service is part of civic duty and contributes to the development of a sense of citizenship, and research indicates that service is a useful component of academic development. However, they point out that students most in need of the developmental benefits of volunteer service are less likely to choose this activity on their own. A number of colleges and universities require service activity as a judicial sanction. In order for this strategy to be effective, it needs to include appropriate follow-up with students, including the opportunity to reflect on the experience and discuss its value. To merely place a student in a volunteer activity with no follow-through can make the experience nothing more than an administrative task and a headache for the volunteer coordinator. Implications for Colleges The most effective way to create healthy campus environments is to apply strategies of environmental management, which include assessment, strategic planning, evaluation, and coalition building. Volunteer service programs that are an integral part of the academic and social mission of a college or university are one promising step in this process. College officials, in collaboration with students and community members, need to create a sense of civic responsibility and community connectedness, contributing to a climate that does not tolerate alcohol and other drug abuse and violence. Service programs clearly enhance students’ self-efficacy, as well as their commitment to academics, to campus life, and to the surrounding community. Colleges that implement such programs will contribute to the creation of healthy campus environments. Judith Robinson, Ph.D., is adjunct assistant professor, School of Education, Boston College,and former associate director for IHEs at the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Snapshots of Community Colleges: Leveraging Resources for Prevention by Catherine Meikle Potts When it comes to problems related to alcohol use by college students, most of the public's attention focuses on universities and four-year colleges. However, alcohol is also the drug most widely used by students at two-year colleges. Forty-four percent of all U.S. undergraduates— more than 10 million students—attend community colleges. Community colleges do face special challenges when it comes to alcohol and other drug prevention. Community college students tend to be older than their counterparts at four-year institutions, and they are more likely to attend school part-time while they hold down full-time jobs. Since most community colleges do not have residential facilities, these commuter students tend to spend little time on campus outside of class and make little use of campus services, resulting in lower levels of affiliation with their colleges. Community colleges also have to make do with less. Most allocate relatively lean budgets for prevention activities and other student services. Prevention coordinators—who often have other responsibilities within student or health services—must be creative about making resources go a long way. They may be responsible not only for prevention but also for early identification, intervention, referral, and even counseling services. Nevertheless, many community colleges across the country have flourishing prevention programs. The following snapshots of four community colleges illustrate some of the ways prevention coordinators have successfully leveraged limited resources and engaged others on campus and in the community in supporting prevention programs and policies. Santa Barbara City College Like many community college prevention coordinators, Susan Broderick wears many hats and regularly appeals to a variety of funders and community resources to support her work at Santa Barbara City College in California. As director of Project HOPE (Helping Others through Peer Education), Broderick recruits and trains a cadre of student health educators. These students share information and make presentations about prevention topics to their peers on campus as well as to local youth groups and at nearby high schools. As director of Student Health Services, Broderick serves on a task force that works on student-related health issues in tandem with staff from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Broderick recently helped to persuade administrators at her college to institutionalize a service learning internship by stressing the importance of compensating faculty for this work. "It took a lot of time and effort to put this program in place, but it was well worth the wait. Faculty members get paid, and students get academic credit for their community service. Everybody wins," she explained. Berkshire Community College Each fall Berkshire Community College in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, hosts a "welcome back" barbecue where students learn about the rewards of peer prevention and opportunities for service learning. "Our most popular campus programs are student-generated," explained Christine DeGregorio, Ph.D., who is the campus substance abuse prevention coordinator. "We make sure that students have incentives to get involved in prevention, whether it's special recognition or the opportunity to attend a BACCHUS and GAMMA peer education conference. Even providing a free T-shirt or serving pizza at regular meetings helps." To sustain these prevention activities, DeGregorio lines up support from local groups as well as from national funders. "I've gotten a phenomenal response when I've asked for help. You'd be surprised how many resources are available just for the asking," she said. Valencia Community College The peer advisor program at Valencia Community College in Orlando, Florida, develops and delivers health and wellness presentations and materials to its 33,000 commuter students. The program benefits from strong presidential leadership. President Paul Gianini institutionalized the program in the late 1980s and has made sure that it has received funding ever since. "He truly understands that for students to be successful academically, they need to be healthy. By speaking out about alcohol and other drug topics and supporting the peer advisor program, he demonstrates his commitment to educating students holistically," explains Lori Bevel, the campus peer advisor coordinator. Northwestern Connecticut Community Technical College Since the early 1990s, a consortium of administrators from the 12 community technical colleges in Connecticut have collaborated to assess students' alcohol- and other drug-related perceptions and behaviors and to address students' needs. "Through surveys we've learned that the best way to reach our students is in the classroom, since we're a commuter campus," explained Kathy Kinane, Ph.D., who directs the Center for Student Development at Northwestern Connecticut Community Technical College (NCCC) in Winsted, Connecticut. "We developed a successful curriculum infusion minigrant competition in which winning instructors received monetary awards for creating lesson plans that incorporate AOD-related information," said Kinane. Curriculum infusion involves faculty in integrating prevention content into courses regularly offered across the curriculum. "Our students learn facts about alcohol and other drugs not only in psychology, sociology, and biology classes, but also in computer science, statistics, sign language, and many other courses. We share these curricula with the faculty members at other colleges in our consortium so that they don't have to reinvent the wheel." Catherine Meikle Potts is a former research and development associate at the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. Editor's note: Visit the Center's Website at www.edc.org/hec/ to read, download, or order a copy of Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Challenges at Community Colleges.Or call (800) 676-1730 to order this publication. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Setting Standards for Campus Alcohol and Other Drug Programs The Standards of the Network of Colleges and Universities Committed to the Elimination of Drug and Alcohol Abuse have always been at the heart of the organization. Developed in 1986, the Standards have been undergoing a review process since 1997 to assure that they both reflect the state of the art in prevention of alcohol and other drug problems in higher education and continue to meet the needs of postsecondary institutions. The review was aided by position papers that outlined approaches to prevention objectives within the four areas of policy, education, enforcement, and assessment (see Catalyst Vol.3, No.1, Fall 1997). According to outgoing Network Chair Chuck Cychosz, Ph.D., of Iowa State University, the position papers were intended to provoke member discussion on the Standards. "Several messages emerged from the discussions around the position papers. One was that the core concepts of the Standards were relatively durable. The ideas were sound, and articulating some of those principles out there was indeed quite helpful," said Cychosz. "What was crystal clear, however, was that our understanding of how to address these problems had evolved, and that the Standards had not necessarily kept pace with that evolution." According to Cychosz, the Standards are being revised to reflect a broader, more comprehensive view of community and a better understanding of the context in which alcohol and other drug use behaviors and problems occur. "It's not just prevention that has evolved—colleges have evolved as well. Our students are increasingly diverse, and they're part of our community. We have to take that into account in our activities," he said. For Cychosz, the Standards are most powerful when they can become a unifying force. But when working with other postsecondary organizations, some Network members were concerned that the Standards might have been viewed as contributing to fragmentation in the field. "That prompted us to take a closer look at what other organizations are doing. It's an extension of this community message—we can't just have a set of standards and pretend that they aren't connected to anything else. We needed to look at those connections and that's a big job." The Network started down that path at the 1998 Senior Administrators Forum last fall in Washington, D.C. The Network invited the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) to meet with Network members to explain what it has done in the area of alcohol and other drug program standards. CAS has developed a series of standards built around a self-assessment process that encourages campuses to take a look at how they are doing and how they can do better. Cychosz says that the philosophical approach to standards at CAS fits in with what the Network is doing. "CAS has an alcohol and other drug program standards component and is very interested in working with the Network to bring their standards into some agreement with Network Standards. We see this as an opportunity to build stronger partnerships and institutionalize some of the approaches to considering these issues," he said. Carole Middlebrooks, of the University of Georgia, is chair-elect of the Network and has been meeting with people at CAS to bring more congruence between the CAS and Network standards. Middlebrooks points out that CAS standards are used primarily by campuses to do an internal assessment of how their student affairs programs are working. The alcohol and other drug standards are part of that larger quality assurance process. "Network Standards are more a set of guidelines for establishing and maintaining a campus alcohol and other drug program. CAS alcohol and other drug standards are used to evaluate how the program is doing," she said. However, Middlebrooks says that the Network will continue its discussions with CAS on how best to coordinate the two sets of standards in order to avoid confusion in the field. The goal is to bring some of the Network Standards into the CAS self-assessment process, while at the same time integrating the CAS quality assurance with the Network Standards. Cychosz explains that the Network decided to take its own advice about building stronger networks in the community. "In this revision of the Standards the Network wants to walk the talk of broader community collaboration in what we do. It's taking us in a new direction, but I think it's the right direction." The Network Standards The Standards of the Network of Colleges and Universities Committed to the Elimination of Drug and Alcohol Abuse define criteria for institutional membership in the Network. The standards are organized within four areas of policy, education, enforcement, and assessment. A. Policy—Network members shall . . . 1. Annually promulgate policy, consistent with applicable federal, state, and local laws, using such means as the student and faculty handbooks, orientation programs, letters to students and parents, residence hall meetings, and faculty and employee meetings. 2. Develop policy that addresses both individual behavior and group activities. 3. Define the jurisdiction of the policy carefully to guarantee the inclusion of all campus property. Apply campus-based standards to other events controlled by the institution. 4. Stipulate guidelines on marketing and hosting for events involving students, faculty, staff, and alumni at which alcoholic beverages are present. 5. State institutional commitment to the education and development of students, faculty, and staff regarding alcohol and other drug use. B. Education—Network members shall . . . 1. Provide a system of accurate, current information exchange on the health risks, violent behavior, and other consequences of alcohol abuse and other drug use for students, faculty, and staff. 2. Promote and support alcohol-free institutional activity programming. 3. Provide, with peer involvement, a system of intervention and referral services for students, faculty, and staff. 4. Establish collaborative relationships between community groups and agencies and the institution for alcohol- and other drug-related education, treatment, and referral. 5. Provide training programs for students, faculty, and staff to enable them to detect problems of alcohol abuse and other drug use and to refer persons with these problems to appropriate assistance. 6. Include alcohol and other drug information for students and their family members in student orientation programs. The misuse and abuse of prescription and over-the-counter drugs should also be addressed. 7. Support and encourage faculty in incorporating alcohol and other drug education into the curriculum, where appropriate. 8. Develop a coordinated effort across campus for alcohol- and other drug-related education, treatment, and referral. C. Enforcement—Network members shall . . . 1. Publicize all alcohol and other drug policies. 2. Consistently enforce alcohol- and other drug-related policies. 3. Exercise appropriate sanctions for violent acts and other counterproductive behavior. 4. Exercise appropriate sanctions for the illegal sale or distribution of drugs; minimum sanctions normally would include separation from the institution and referral for prosecution. D. Assessment—Network members shall . . . 1. Assess the institutional environment as an underlying cause of alcohol abuse and other drug use. 2. Assess campus awareness, attitudes, and behaviors regarding the abuse of alcohol and use of other drugs and employ results in program development. 3. Collect and use alcohol- and other drug-related information from police or security reports to guide program development. 4. Collect and use summary data regarding health and counseling client information to guide program development. 5. Collect summary data regarding alcohol- and other drug-related disciplinary actions, including violent and other counterproductive behavior and use it to guide program development. How to Join the Network To join the Network, the president of your college or university must submit a letter indicating the institution's commitment to implement the Network's Standards on your campus. Please include the name, address, and phone number of the contact person for the institution. Mail or fax to: The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Education Development Center, Inc. 55 Chapel Street Newton, MA 02458-1060 Fax: (617) 928-1537 The Network is committed to helping member institutions promote a healthy campus environment by decreasing alcohol and other drug abuse. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Our Mission The mission of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention is to assist institutions of higher education in developing alcohol and other drug (AOD) prevention policies and programs that will foster students’ academic and social development and promote campus and community safety. Get in Touch Additional information can be obtained by contacting: The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Education Development Center, Inc. 55 Chapel Street Newton, MA 02458-1060 Website: www.edc.org/hec/ Phone: 800-676-1730 Fax: 617-928-1537 E-mail: HigherEdCtr@edc.org How We Can Help The Center offers an integrated array of services to help people at colleges and universities adopt effective AOD prevention strategies: * Training and professional development activities * Resources, referrals, and consultations * Publication and dissemination of prevention materials * Support for the Network of Colleges and Universities Committed to the Elimination of Drug and Alcohol Abuse * Assessment, evaluation, and analysis activities This project has been funded at least in part with Federal funds from the U.S Department of Education under contract number ED-99-CO-0094. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Higher Education Center Training Opportunities The Center's two-day Team Training event brings together teams from IHEs and their local communities to address alcohol and other drug issues on their campus. Team members represent key campus and community systems such as AOD coordinators, senior administrators, faculty, other student service personnel, athletes, public safety/security, student leaders, community representatives, and others. The training provides an opportunity for teams to develop coalition-based action plans. Call the Center to participate in one of the following events. Dates and locations are subject to change, so please check our Website for up-to-date information. Upcoming Team Trainings * February 3–4, 2000 Northern Calif. * February 7–8, 2000 W.Va. * February TBA, 2000 P.R. * March 7–8, 2000 Boston, Mass. * March 13–14, 2000 St. Louis, Mo. Catalyst is a publication of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. Product Development Manager: Karen Zweig Editor: Barbara E. Ryan Production Manager: Anne McAuliffe Graphic Designer: Kay Baker Center Director: William DeJong Other Staff: Elizabeth Collins, Tom Colthurst, Michelle Cook, Maggie Cretella, Laurie Davidson, Joel Epstein, Michael Gilbreath, Laura Gomberg, Theresa Hassen, Andrew Hill, Rob Hylton, Irma Iturralde, Linda Langford, Peter Leis, Michelle Maillet, Shirley Marotta, Robyn Priest, Michael Rosati, Helen Stubbs Funded by the U.S. Department of Education Last Update: November 10, 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [HEC Home]Higher Ed Center -|- About Us -|- Feedback -|- Shortcuts: