CATALYST, Spring/Summer 2001 Vol. 6 No. 3 A Publication of the U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Campuses and the Club Drug Ecstasy by Amy Powell Although alcohol is the drug that college students use most frequently and in greatest quantity, use of a new club drug called ecstasy has grown significantly in the last few years among young people, including college students. Despite a reputation as a harmless pleasure enhancer, ecstasy is responsible for a range of adverse consequences among users and is causing concern at colleges and universities-as well as within communities-across the country. What Is Ecstasy? Ecstasy is one of the names used to refer to the chemical structure 3-4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine. This synthetic, psychoactive substance is also known as methaline dioximethamphetamine (MDMA); street names are adam, XTC, bean, roll, E, M, X, doves, rave energy, cloud nine, and the hug drug. Its chemical composition is similar to mescaline and methamphetamine, two synthetic drugs known to cause brain damage. Ecstasy is usually taken in pills or capsules, although it is occasionally used in powder form. Most varieties are stamped with a distinguishing logo, such as a green triangle or a brand name. In the United States, ecstasy generally sells for about $20 to $30 per pill. Along with gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB) and rohypnol, ecstasy is frequently called a "club drug." This categorization comes from its widespread use at clubs, concerts, and raves-large, all-night dance parties. Young people use ecstasy in these settings to experience the euphoria and the energetic feeling that the drug can provide, seeming to enhance their ability to dance, socialize, and stay awake for extended periods of time. How Prevalent Is Ecstasy? The actual number of students using ecstasy and other club drugs remains relatively low. However, recent surveys indicate that use is, in fact, increasing. According to surveys from the Core Institute,^1 the number of college and university students reporting use of designer drugs at least once in the previous 30 days rose from 1.4 percent in 1998 to 2.4 percent in 1999. Additionally, the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse^2 indicates that the heaviest ecstasy use is among young adults of traditional college age (18 to 25 years old), with 5 percent using the drug at least once in their lifetime. Campuses face the possibility that more incoming students will have already experimented with ecstasy. According to the 2000 Monitoring the Future Survey,^3 the numbers of middle and high school students using the drug remain low, but are increasing, as follows: * Eighth graders reporting ecstasy use in the past year rose from 1.7 percent in 1999 to 3.1 percent in 2000. * Tenth graders reported a slight increase in past- year use of the drug, moving from 4.4 percent in 1999 to 5.4 percent in 2000. * Past-year use among 12th graders rose from 5.6 percent in 1999 to 8.2 percent in 2000. Ecstasy also appears to be becoming more available. From 1993 to 1999, seizures of ecstasy tablets submitted to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) by various law enforcement agencies rose from 196 to 143,600. According to the DEA, this increase suggests that a greater quantity of the drug is now coming into the United States, making it easier for potential users to obtain. This influx of ecstasy poses new challenges to law enforcement. Unlike some other popular drugs, ecstasy and its derivatives are not easily manufactured in makeshift labs. The DEA estimates that 80 percent of ecstasy is produced in sophisticated, clandestine labs in the Netherlands. U.S. enforcement agencies at the national, state, and local levels are, therefore, working to expand their attention and operations to take into account this relatively new source. Consequences of Ecstasy Use People who have taken ecstasy and professionals encountering those under its influence (e.g., medical personnel, law enforcement agents, counselors) report an array of possible effects from the drug, such as enhanced self-confidence, energy bursts, disinhibition, confusion, depression, sleep problems, hallucinations, drug craving, severe anxiety, paranoia, muscle tension, increased heart rate, increased blood pressure, increased body temperature, dehydration, involuntary teeth clenching, nausea, blurred vision, rapid eye movement, faintness, chills, and sweating. In addition, a small number of deaths has been reported among ecstasy users. It is unclear, however, whether these deaths were the direct result of taking ecstasy or are attributable to other factors. That is because users often take ecstasy in conjunction with alcohol or other drugs while dancing in overheated venues, a combination that can lead to a range of adverse consequences. Research continues to focus on the potential long-term consequences of ecstasy use. A recent study^4 found that exposure to MDMA in laboratory animals caused brain damage that was present six to seven years after testing; the parts of the brain affected were those critical to thought and memory. Another preliminary study^5 suggests that human use of ecstasy as a recreational drug may be related to elevated impulsivity. Other problems with ecstasy are related to adulteration, with enforcement agencies and antidrug groups reporting that ecstasy that has been laced with a variety of additives poses additional risks for users. Such additives include amphetamines, Valium, caffeine, and dextromethorphan (DM), an ingredient in many over-the-counter cough suppressants. In addition, ketamine, ephedrine, and other substances are commonly peddled as ecstasy. Thus ecstasy users may unknowingly ingest other potentially harmful substances. In order to determine what pills purchased by club-goers as ecstasy actually contain, groups such as DanceSafe test pills on-site at raves and clubs to identify ingredients-including adulterants. But some people oppose the testing, saying that it condones illicit drug substances. Test advocates say that tests reduce the risk of young people ingesting unknown substances that could prove harmful or even fatal. *Strategies for Institutions of Higher Education *Although the number of students involved with ecstasy is relatively low, the recent increase in use challenges colleges and universities to include ecstasy in their prevention and enforcement efforts. The following are some strategies that are consistent with an environmental management approach on campuses: * Survey students to determine the prevalence of ecstasy and other club drugs on campus and tailor social norms marketing campaigns to address ecstasy if it emerges as an issue of concern. * Work with campus and community coalitions to address the availability and use of ecstasy at the institution and in the surrounding community. * Be aware of flyers, Web sites, and other material advertising clubs and raves where ecstasy may be present and its use encouraged or tolerated. * Attend rave events to become familiar with settings, related activities, and who is attending them. * Work with local law enforcement to stay current with trends related to ecstasy's prevalence in the area. * Use alternative events to simulate the club and rave atmospheres that are so appealing to students. * Incorporate rave-type activities into alcohol- and drug-free events. * Revise campus alcohol and other drug policies as necessary to include club drugs specifically- and enforce those policies. * Communicate campus alcohol and other drug policies clearly and frequently to the community, including the possible consequences for violations. Efforts are under way to raise awareness and to learn more about the prevalence, effects, and potential dangers of this drug among youth, college and university students, and the adults working and living with them. For example, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) offers a Web site (www.freevibe.com ) to educate and encourage discussion about ecstasy and other club drugs. In addition, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has committed a total of $54 million toward research about club drugs, their effects, and effective strategies for curbing use. Notes 1 Core Institute. "1999 Statistics on Alcohol and Other Drug Use on American Campuses." http://www.siu.edu/departments/coreinst/public_html/recent.html. 2 Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (DHHS/SAMHSA). "1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse" (Washington, D.C.: DHHS/SAMHSA, 1999). 3 L. D. Johnston; P. M. O'Malley; and J. G. Bachman. "The Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings, 2000 (NIH Publication No. 01-4923) (Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2001). 4 National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health (NIDA/NIH). "Infofax-MDMA (Ecstasy) 13547." http//165.112.78.61/Infofax/ecstasy.html. 5 M. J. Morgan. "Recreational Use of 'Ecstasy' (MDMA) Is Associated with Elevated Impulsivity," Neuropsychopharmacology 19, no. 4 (October 16, 1998): 252-64. Amy Powell is a freelance writer based in Washington, D.C./ Editor's Note: A fact sheet on ecstasy developed by the Higher Education Center is available online at http://www.higheredcenter.org/ . ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Understanding the Jeanne Clery Disclosure Act* by Joel C. Epstein* Jeanne Clery In the aftermath of the death of Jeanne Clery, a 19-year-old Lehigh University freshman who was assaulted and murdered in her dorm room in April 1986, her parents began lobbying state lawmakers for statutes requiring colleges to publicize their crime statistics. In May 1988, Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey signed the first such bill, mandating that all state colleges and universities publish three years' worth of campus crime statistics. President George Bush signed a similar federal bill, the Student Right-To-Know and Campus Security Act, into law on November 8, 1990. The 1998 amendments to the law formally renamed the act in memory of Clery. The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act is a federal law that requires colleges and universities to disclose information about crime on and around their campuses. The requirements of the Clery Act are straightforward. Colleges and universities must perform the following: 1. Publish and distribute an annual campus security report by October 1 of each year. This report should provide on- and off-campus crime statistics for the prior three years, policy statements, campus crime prevention program descriptions, and procedures to be followed in the investigation and prosecution of alleged sex offenses. 2. By October 1 of each year, distribute to all current students and employees a copy of the annual security report, or a notice including a brief description of the report's contents that announces the report's availability on the Internet, the exact electronic address for the report, and a statement on how to obtain a paper copy if desired. 3. Inform prospective students and employees about the existence of the campus security report and how to access it on the Internet or request a paper copy. 4. Provide timely notice to the campus community of crimes considered threats to the public safety. 5. Maintain a public log of all crimes reported to the institution's campus police or security departments, if any. The U.S. Department of Education is charged with enforcing the Clery Act and may level civil penalties, up to $25,000 per violation, against institutions of higher education or may suspend those in violation from participating in federal student financial aid programs. What Is a "Reported" Crime? According to the Clery Act, a crime is "reported" when a victim or witness brings it to the attention of the local police or a campus security authority. A crime report does not have to be made to, or be investigated by, the police or a security officer, nor must a finding of guilt or criminal responsibility be made. Debate rages, however, over what is meant by "on campus." A good operative definition for "on campus" is property within a reasonably contiguous geographic area of the college or university that is owned by the institution but * is controlled by another person or institution * is frequently used by students or supports institutional purposes, such as a restaurant or retail business frequented by students Reportable Crimes Under the Clery Act, colleges and universities are required to report crimes in the following categories: * Criminal homicide: * Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter * Negligent manslaughter * Sex offenses: forcible * Sex offenses: nonforcible * Robbery * Aggravated assault * Burglary * Arson * Motor vehicle theft * Arrest and/or disciplinary referrals for * Liquor-law violations * Drug-law violations * Illegal weapons possession Crimes that occur in student residence halls, apartments, and houses operated by officially recognized student groups are considered "on campus" crimes, and crimes that occur on all public property that passes through or is adjacent to campus must be reported in a separate "public property" category. This important provision of the act means that crimes committed on any thoroughfares, streets, sidewalks, or parking facilities that are within the campus, or immediately adjacent to and accessible from the campus, must be counted as campus crimes. If a college or university is in doubt about whether a crime has been reported or whether the crime occurred "on campus," the institution should defer to the judgment of recognized law enforcement professionals. Compliance and Prevention Compliance with the Clery Act is far more than just a data collection exercise. It really is intended that campuses use the information to better understand crime and violence at and around their institutions. The information collected can inform prevention efforts and lead to policy changes that will enable colleges and universities to improve their responses to campus community crime and violence generally. It also is important consumer information to families and students in the process of selecting a college or university. Since no campus security or police department is big enough to do the job alone, promoting campus safety requires the involvement and cooperation of students, faculty, and staff. For example, students can help make the campus a safer place by assuming responsibility for their own safety and by looking out for their friends and other classmates. Campus officials can organize safe-ride and campus-escort services at night and ensure that doors to residence halls are secure. And those students who drink alcoholic beverages can protect themselves by never accepting an open container at a party or in other social settings. In addition, by conducting frequent campus safety audits-including walks around the campus by trained crime prevention specialists-colleges and universities can identify areas of the campus that may require enhanced lighting at night or physical redesign to reduce the risk of pedestrians becoming crime victims. A number of campus security Web resources are available to assist campuses both understand the requirements of the Clery Act and make their environments safer for students, faculty, staff, and community members. Here are some of those resources: * The Council on Law in Higher Education (CLHE), a nonprofit, independent educational organization dedicated to identifying and explaining important legal issues to the higher education community and policymakers: http://www.clhe.org/issues/security.htm. * The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, established to advance public safety for educational institutions by providing educational resources, advocacy, and professional development: http://www.iaclea.org. * Security On Campus, Inc., "Jeanne Clery Act Information Page," committed to maintaining the most comprehensive resource on this law: http://www.campussafety.org/schools/cleryact/ * U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education campus security page: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/PPI/security.html. Complying with the Clery Act on One Campus Like most colleges, Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, is concerned about the safety and welfare of all campus members and visitors and is committed to promoting a safe and secure campus environment. It has, therefore, developed a series of policies and procedures designed to ensure that every possible precaution is taken to protect the campus community. But the college has not stopped there. Lewis & Clark recently hired the nonprofit National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (NCHERM) to conduct an off-site audit of its Clery Act compliance. While acknowledging that NCHERM's assessment is not a legal guarantee that the college is in compliance with the act-a responsibility of the U.S. Department of Education-Lewis & Clark's use of this independent organization reflects its commitment to ensure policy quality and effectiveness for promoting campus safety. Responsibility for Complying with the Clery Act Typically, a college or university's office of campus safety is charged with collecting and maintaining Clery Act information. The campus safety office, or college police department, generally reports to a vice president or provost of the college or university. Ideally, campus safety personnel work closely with all other college departments to ensure that safety policy and procedures are uniformly executed and publicized in a manner consistent with local and state law. At Lewis & Clark, campus safety officers are responsible for a full range of safety services to the college community, including investigating all crime reports, handling medical and fire emergencies and traffic crashes, and enforcing all campus policies relating to alcohol and other drug use and weapons possession. Crime Prevention Programs Lewis & Clark College's Office of Campus Safety works closely with the Office of Residence Life to provide an up-to-date and meaningful presentation to the resident community about crime on campus. At least once an academic year, campus safety officers make a presentation at each residence hall on rape, theft, personal safety, and the importance of not compromising the security of residence halls. Monthly analyses of all crime on campus and safety presentations to people living in areas that have high-crime reports are examples of the Clery Act's legislative intent in action. When crimes occur on campus, faculty, staff, and students are informed of the number and type of crimes. This information is published in the student-run newspaper-the Pioneer Log-and on the Campus Safety Web site so that individuals can take precautions and avoid becoming crime victims. Campus safety officers submit incident reports on all crimes on campus reported to the department. These incident reports are in turn filed with the Portland Police Bureau and automatically become part of its record-keeping process. Keeping the campus safe can take many forms. In response to data suggesting that one area of the campus was prone to higher levels of crime, Lewis & Clark discovered that in one area landscaping might have been causing a safety hazard by impeding lighting of the area at night. Cutting back the shrubbery in this area appears to have helped reduce crime and the perception of danger there. The full Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act for Lewis & Clark College is posted on the Web at http://www.lclark.edu/~safety/clery.html. Joel C. Epstein, J.D., is the former director for special projects for the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What's Up with the Grantees? U. S. Department of Education For the 1999 Department of Education's Safe and Drug-Free Schools grant, applicants were asked to focus proposals on mobilizing new or existing state or regional coalitions to create broad environmental change. The department funded eight programs. In addition, one 1998 grantee-Eastern Illinois University-was funded to develop a regional initiative to support the formation of campus and community coalitions that would work on environmental change. Here are brief descriptions of what the 1999 grantees have been able to accomplish so far: Arizona Institutions of Higher Education Substance Abuse Prevention Consortium Representatives from Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and the University of Arizona, in partnership with their community coalitions, form the Arizona Institutions of Higher Education Substance Abuse Prevention Consortium (AIHESAPC). AIHESAPC has established a statewide prevention initiative to address high-risk drinking on Arizona's campuses and encourage and support collaboration of campus and community alcohol and other drug (AOD) prevention partnerships. Three university presidents have committed their support to the initiative, which is continuing to generate increasing support from city, county, and state officials. Sample activities implemented to date include quarterly publishing of state, local, and campus AOD policies in university newspapers; development and implementation of a tri-university alcohol social norms marketing campaign; development of minigrant programs to fund student-initiated, alcohol-free events on campus; development and implementation of programs to eliminate posting of bar and alcohol promotions on classroom corkboards; and production and distribution of a semiannual parents' newsletter addressing normative behavior, alcohol policies, and community expectations for behavioral standards related to alcohol use. Contact koreen@dakotacom.net for further information. The Kentucky Project to Reduce High-Risk Drinking Among College Students The three main parts of this grant are to develop or expand campus and community coalitions at 19 colleges to reduce high-risk drinking; to expand and strengthen the statewide coalition; and to reduce misperceptions, mixed messages, and similar barriers to the reduction of alcohol use. Morehead State University President Ronald G. Eaglin serves as project director, and presidential signatures are required on each campus commitment. Each of the 19 institutions received a minigrant to assist in the implementation of the project. The project designed a statewide social norms marketing campaign template that was individualized for each institution. Baseline data are being collected using the Core Survey and CARA (College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide). Additionally, a project evaluator will assess the coalition's progress through telephone surveys and focus groups. See http://www.morehead-st.edu/projects/kan for further information. Lincoln Medical Education Foundation: "Flashing Your Brights" College Pilot A five-campus coalition in Lincoln, Nebraska, is implementing the "Flashing Your Brights" model-known as FLASH-as a high-risk drinking prevention strategy. FLASH refers to a way of acting on someone else's problems without taking responsibility for them, such as when drivers flash their headlights at oncoming motorists to warn them that their lights are not on. In FLASH, peers learn five simple communication tools for very brief interventions based on a Flashing Your Brights analogy. For example, FLASH communication tool number one, "Say What You See," encourages students to report nonjudgmentally on observed behavior-a student might say to a friend "You don't remember, but last night after drinking 10 beers you picked a fight with me and hit me when I wouldn't fight." In the past year, coalition members have developed methods of peer-led education, curriculum infusion, and social marketing to reach students with FLASH tools. See http://www.flashbrights.com for further information. Ohio College Initiative to Reduce High Risk Drinking The Ohio College Initiative to Reduce High Risk Drinking grew from 19 colleges in 1996 to 38 in 2000. The statewide partnership consists of the "Ohio 38," three state agencies, and Ohio Parents for Drug Free Youth, which also directs the initiative and acts as its facilitator. Ohio Parents arranges training, promotes communication and collaboration, provides technical support, and conducts program evaluation. The Ohio College Initiative aims to strengthen the ability of coalitions to effect policy change, increase the sustainability of coalitions, and change student perceptions about alcohol problems. Campuses are conducting case studies to identify and document environmental factors that contribute to problems and are amenable to preventive changes. The initiative has begun media activities and is investigating how to influence policy and interagency collaboration at the state level. Contact pharmon@ohioparents.org for further information. Partners in Prevention: A Coalition of Public Institutions of Higher Education in Missouri The University of Missouri, Columbia, has established a statewide coalition, called Partners in Prevention, composed of 12 Missouri public institutions of higher education and relevant state agencies (the Division of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse, the Department of Liquor Control, and the Division of Highway Safety). Members work together to develop strategies for reducing and preventing high-risk drinking among Missouri's college students. The coalition encourages and nurtures collaboration among the colleges and state agencies and creates partnerships to bring about systemic change. Partners in Prevention Coalition is establishing a communication network and ongoing training opportunities through monthly meetings/inservices, a two-day team training, a state conference, a newsletter, and Web resources. Evaluation efforts include an environmental assessment, needs assessments, establishment of baseline data of students' AOD usage patterns, measurement of the effectiveness of policy changes and program implementation over the grant period, and resources the campuses can access in order to create ongoing, creative, and effective prevention efforts that include a statewide social norms marketing campaign. Contact DudeK@missouri.edu for further information. Pennsylvania Statewide Initiative to Reduce High-Risk Drinking Among College Students The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) is coordinating this project in partnership with the Pennsylvania Association of Colleges and Universities (PACU). Key stakeholders from a variety of state organizations, government agencies, and colleges and universities formed a committee that is working at the state level to support regional and local implementation of environmental strategies. During September 2000, the Pennsylvania Network of Colleges and Universities Committed to the Elimination of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, PACU, and the PLCB sponsored a series of regional workshops on environmental prevention for the reduction of high-risk drinking among college students (see page 10 of this Catalyst issue). The initiative is monitoring a legislative bill to provide for keg registration in the state. Activities to meet several of the short-term goals have begun, such as setting up a Web site for posting alcohol and parental notification policies for schools to review when implementing policy revisions and changes. See http://www.lcb.state.pa.us/edu/kids-college.asp for further information. San Diego State University/Community AOD Prevention Partnership As part of its effort to correct misperceptions of social norms regarding alcohol use and limit student access to alcohol and other drugs, San Diego State University (SDSU) developed a nine-campus and community coalition and a social marketing approach. The program uses social marketing techniques to establish positive social norms on campus. The marketing helps to create an environment in which high-risk drinking is less acceptable. Through a collaboration of law enforcement personnel, prevention agencies, campus officials, bar owners, and others, the university has developed and implemented several environmental strategies. Fifty-five student representatives from on- and off-campus groups participate in the partnership and add student perspectives. The partnership has a special focus on server training in bars and restaurants in popular beach communities. See http://www.c-capp.org for further information. Virginia's Commonwealth College Consortia The Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control heads the Commonwealth College Consortia project. Participation in the project, which consists of four regional prevention consortia, is offered to all 72 colleges and universities (both public and private) and 23 community colleges in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Among the many accomplishments to date are a Web site, Core Survey administration by colleges, an annual spring training conference called '00 Social Norms Marketing, and bimonthly regional consortium meetings. The consortia project provides "drive-in" trainings on the use of focus groups, qualitative evaluation, statistical software, curriculum infusion, consortium building, environmental approaches, and the CIRCLe Network. It also organized a teleconference on "binge drinking," a peer education conference, and certification for peer educators. The evaluation design for the statewide project incorporates a blend of quantitative and qualitative approaches for understanding both the impact of the project's efforts and insights regarding future replication at the local level, throughout Virginia and in other state, regional, and campus settings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Presidential Profiles: The University of Delaware-David P. Roselle David P. Roselle took office as the 25th president of the University of Delaware on May 1, 1990. Roselle is a graduate of West Chester University and Duke University, and he holds a Ph.D. in mathematics. Roselle's professional activities include membership in the Mathematical Association of America, which he has served in many capacities. He was secretary from 1975 to 1984 and also served as associate editor of the American Mathematical Monthly. Additionally, he is a member of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, and the American Mathematical Society. He referees for several journals as well as for Mathematical Reviews. Question: Since 1996, the University of Delaware has been one of the 10 colleges funded by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's A Matter of Degree program to address high-risk and underage drinking by college students. What activities have occurred since then? Answer: We are now three and a half years into the project. One of our jobs is to keep people at the university safe. With regard to alcohol use, we have made policy changes, increased enforcement, and made sure that students are aware of the consequences of abusing alcohol and violating policies. We have not distanced ourselves from the problem. For example, we started parental notification before Congress expressly allowed it. The prospect of having to tell parents about a tragedy involving their child, when we knew the student displayed problem behaviors that we did not tell them about, made us decide that parental notification was a good idea. We have a "three strikes and you're out" program. When students commit a third alcohol offense, they are suspended. We revamped the campus judicial system to provide more support for our resident assistants and faster turnaround on judicial cases. Resident assistants told us that the delay between a violation of the rules and punishment was not helpful. We levy fines on students who are in our judicial system for alcohol offenses. Our five-star rating system for Greek organizations judges them against the principles they say they have. The leadership goals and aspirations of Greek organizations are impressive, and if they adhere to them they rate five stars and can hold their rush whenever they want. Fewer stars limit the amount of rushing they can do. Those that rate two or fewer stars are not permitted to take in any new members. We enforce a tailgating policy at football games, which has been an interesting experience because tailgating has quite a tradition at Delaware. We increased financial and other kinds of support for alcohol-free events. We raised awareness of indiviual rights so that students-and others-know that they don't have to put up with people's misbehavior just because they are drunk. We have added courses, such as research on alcohol, and increased the amount of prevention programming in residence halls. Question: How have these changes been perceived by the campus community? Answer: In general, the campus response has been positive, although there has been some confusion on the part of some students who complain that this effort is all about prohibition. We reassure them that it's really about behaving responsibly if they choose to drink. We are interested in promoting responsible behavior and consideration for fellow students, community members, and others. We want students to be concerned about their own safety and the quality of life of others. Attendance at football games is one indicator that our efforts have been well received. Our policy calls for an end to tailgating when games begin. But in 1998, before we stepped up enforcement of that policy, we had 23 ambulance trips from the football stadium to the hospital for alcohol poisoning. In 1999, when we enforced our policy, there was none. Despite the fact that it was a fairly ordinary football team that year, we set the all-time record for attendance. I think that says that the campus community has accepted the changes. Question: You have been able to bring together a wide range of constituencies in your efforts to focus on alcohol problems, including city leaders, law enforcement officials, students, faculty, parents, high school teachers, PTAs, and community members. How did you go about bringing these people together? What challenges did you encounter? Answer: Our biggest asset was then-mayor Ron Gardner. For a number of years he convened the campus community subgroup for the National League of Cities. This group of mayors from towns with colleges or universities met periodically to discuss problems, so he was very knowledgeable about alcohol problems. I don't think we would be where we are today in terms of community relations without his insights and his constant, consistent, and productive involvement. He got the Newark police department involved. Much of the business community joined largely because the mayor urged them to do so. We've recently included many of the local secondary schools because we inherit a lot of the drinking problems from high school. When we said that we were going to enforce the rules on campus, people in Newark were concerned that we were pushing our problems into the community. We worked hard to show that we wanted to work with the community to prevent problems, so the thinking changed to focus on the fact that alcohol problems are not limited to the campus but must be addressed by the entire community. Bar owners and others have been coming up with ideas about what to do. Students came up with the idea of having bars offer free soft drinks to a designated driver for a group of others who choose to drink alcoholic beverages. Question: What other things has the coalition set in place to address the issue of collegiate alcohol and other drug problems? Answer: Happy hours and alcohol advertising have been the subject of a great deal of talk. Even the student newspaper, which is a self-supporting enterprise, is having an internal conversation about whether it should continue to accept alcohol advertising. The paper is very protective of its independence and does accept alcohol advertising. We think that it shouldn't. That conversation is ongoing, and alcohol retailers are helping out somewhat by advertising less. Question: Are you seeing results both on and off campus? Answer: Yes. For example, self-reported levels of "binge drinking" have decreased. We have had a decrease in recidivism in the judicial system. I think about 80 percent of the alcohol offenders last year were first-time offenders. Vandalism in residence halls took a remarkable dip. The Greeks have higher grade point indices than ever before. There have been fewer alcohol-related arrests in town and on campus. Question: What kind of policies and action would you like to see at the state level in order to address problems related to student alcohol use? Answer: More controls on the alcohol supply at the local and state level would help us a lot. For example, keg registration laws would help. Now, if a big party occurs and flagrantly violates the rules, nobody knows where the keg came from-it was just there. We would like it to be registered so that we can know who purchased it. We?d like limits on discount pricing for over-the-bar and in-store sales. The amount students drink is related to the cost of what they are drinking. Question: You've been vocal about the role of private industry in problems related to excessive drinking. How does private industry contribute to the problem and how would you like to see that role addressed? Answer: College kids are our students so the perception can be that excessive drinking is our problem. But what the community has to be aware of is that those providing alcohol to students are from the community and not from the university. The alcohol industry strategy is to blame all the negative consequences of drinking on the consumers. The tobacco industry was very successful in doing the same thing until recently. The larger community has to be made aware that the supply of alcohol in Newark comes from private enterprises. Everyone needs to be better informed and concerned about how those enterprises can contribute to what I see as our mutual problems. The questions that need asking are: How do suppliers encourage the use of alcohol? How do laws enable the culture of heavy alcohol use to be sustained? What is the role of local and state governments? How well, in our case, is the Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission serving the interest of the public? Those are the questions we've raised, and we will continue to pursue them in the last year and a half of the Robert Wood Johnson program. Question: You've also talked about changing the national college environment or culture in which college students drink. Can you tell us what you mean by this suggestion for change? Answer: Anytime you set out to change culture, it's somewhat of a daunting task, particularly when research indicates that some of our students begin drinking well before college age, and even while they are in grade school. In tackling the problem, we have been careful to make it clear that our purpose is not prohibition but the promotion of responsible behavior. Our position has been that those who drink responsibly or not at all should not have to suffer the secondhand effects and actions of those who drink irresponsibly. The secondhand effects on our campus are known as "the three Vs": vomit, vandalism, and violence. We have been working to encourage our students to express their disapproval of such behavior when it adversely affects their lives and their community. I think that's how the cultural change will come. We have told students that if you have to clean up your roommate's vomit, that might be okay the first time but the second time it becomes tiresome, and the third time you should say, "This is not right. I'm not doing it. I'm trading you in for a different roommate." You're not married to your roommate. Question: What do you think a college president can uniquely bring to bear upon the effort to stem student alcohol problems? Answer: You state clearly that this is a high priority and encourage everybody to consider what role they might play in attacking it. Then you check to see what people are doing. I also think the outreach into the community is far easier if the university's top administrators are seen to back the initiative. In practical terms, the leader of an institution has to be willing to acknowledge that a problem exists and that it is in the best long-term interest of the institution to do something meaningful about it. It's easy to underestimate how that support might be challenged by others who might fear negative publicity and its effect on enrollment or support, monetary or otherwise. Some of my presidential colleagues know full well they have a drinking problem on their campus, but they don't want to admit it because they are worried about public relations. My sense is that public relations are handled best by making it clear to everyone that you are doing everything reasonably possible that you can to combat the problem. Then, if something bad happens, you can at least point to something that you were doing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Commentary: Reflections on Social Norms Marketing by William DeJong Social norms marketing has moved from being a pilot program at a handful of colleges and universities to a national sensation. Scores of institutions are replicating this prevention approach, which has drawn the recent attention of the Chronicle of Higher Education, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal. For U.S. institutions of higher education, having a social norms marketing campaign to reduce alcohol problems on campus is becoming the norm. Enthusiasm for social norms marketing is easy to understand. First, this approach conforms to our understanding of adolescent development. Young people's perceptions of social norms have a strong effect on their behavior, meaning that any misperceptions of these norms can drive behavior in a dangerous direction. In the case of alcohol consumption, research has shown that college students tend to believe there is more heavy drinking on campus than is actually the case. Social norms marketing seeks to drive down consumption by correcting that misperception and reducing the apparent normative pressure to drink heavily. Second, people are beginning to understand that a social norms marketing campaign can help set the stage for building the popular support that is needed to bring about campus and community policy change. A well-executed campaign can make clear that there is a majority community of students that is concerned about campus safety and therefore supports stricter policies and consistent enforcement. Nationally, research has shown that the majority of students want a more aggressive approach to reducing alcohol-related problems, though the particular initiatives that are favored will vary from campus to campus. Third, in a field that has few demonstrated successes, people pay attention to any evidence that a prevention strategy holds promise. The consistent pattern of findings reported by several campuses-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-is impressive, especially in light of survey data showing relatively little change in consumption levels at the national level. More rigorous research is needed to put social norms marketing to the test, but the evidence to date has been encouraging. No promising idea is without its critics, and social norms marketing is no exception. A major point of contention is that the alcohol industry has made a major investment in social norms marketing. Anheuser-Busch, for example, is now supporting a national media campaign by the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), while also underwriting several campus-specific efforts and a new institute at Northern Illinois University run by Michael Haines. The alcohol industry, according to some critics, seeks to downplay the seriousness of campus alcohol problems, and social norms marketing provides a vehicle for doing that. This concern was heightened by a front-page story on social norms marketing in /The New York Times/ summarized in its headline: "New Tactic on College Drinking: Play It Down." In addition, some critics say, these campaigns appear to condone, and perhaps even to normalize, underage drinking on campus, which serves the alcohol industry's economic interests. In fact, the Times headline is misleading. Social norms marketing is not about downplaying the problem, but portraying it accurately. If most students on campus abstain or use alcohol in moderation, doesn't the campus community need to know that? If putting the emphasis on this good news can help build social pressure to avoid heavy drinking, shouldn't that be done? Using social norms marketing doesn't mean sweeping the problem under the rug. The problem is severe enough without exaggerating it. Every major social problem on campus is made worse by alcohol, and every college and university administrator knows it. Do social marketing campaigns condone or normalize underage drinking? Consider a typical print advertisement for the University of Arizona's campaign, which has led to a sizeable reduction in heavy drinking according to student surveys. There is a photograph of smiling students, along with the following headline: "64% of UofA students have 4 or fewer drinks when they party." This message is a statement of fact about what most students are doing, not what they should do. Even so, does the advertisement imply that it's okay for all students, no matter what their age, to drink alcohol? To understand what this advertisement actually communicates, we need to remember that college and university students of all ages already think that an even higher level of alcohol consumption is normative. Many University of Arizona students once believed that most students have 8, 9, 10, or more drinks when they socialize, not 4 or fewer, and this misperception incited heavy drinking. Hence, for underage students, the revelation of this message was not that other underage students drink, but that they drink so much less than students thought. By implication, the message censures heavier drinking as a socially unacceptable choice. Will some students who abstain or are light drinkers be led by social norms marketing to drink more than before? It's important to remember that these students, absent a social norms campaign, will also have an exaggerated view of how much drinking is going on around them. The misperception is pervasive. Nonetheless, in the face of this apparent normative pressure, these students still choose to abstain or drink lightly. It's implausible to think they would increase their drinking after learning there are fewer heavy drinkers than they had once thought. Finally, social marketing campaigns need to be viewed in context, as part of a comprehensive approach to prevention. Campus and community officials have other means of clarifying for students that underage drinking is against the law. The key is stricter enforcement: undercover operations to catch retailers who sell to minors; parental notification when students break the rules; prosecution for using fake IDs or purchasing alcohol for minors. In essence, a social norms campaign, by making clear that students don't have to drink heavily to fit in, can serve to decrease normative pressure to break the law against underage drinking. William DeJong, Ph.D., is the director of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. Editor's Note: For further information on social norms marketing, see the Higher Education Center's Website at http://www.higheredcenter.org/ . ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Network Network Outstanding Service and Visionary Awards 2000 The Network of Colleges and Universities Committed to the Elimination of Drug and Alcohol Abuse conferred its second annual Outstanding Service and Visionary Awards at the U.S. Department of Education's Annual National Meeting on Alcohol, Other Drug, and Violence Prevention in Higher Education held in Pittsburgh in October 2000. Michael Haines Michael Haines, coordinator of Health Enhancement Services at Northern Illinois University, received the 2000 Outstanding Service Award. Haines developed the first program aimed at addressing perceptions of campus drinking using social norms marketing techniques. In the 10 years since the program was instituted, Northern Illinois University reported a 44 percent reduction in heavy drinking. Haines is the author of A Social Norms Approach to Preventing Binge Drinking at Colleges and Universities, a publication of the Higher Education Center. The Outstanding Service Award is given to a higher education professional who demonstrates the importance of and support for AOD prevention issues within the scope of his or her position. Those selected have made an outstanding contribution to prevention efforts in the higher education arena. Outstanding Service Award recipients * display integrity, stature, accomplishment, leadership, and innovation on their campuses that is recognized by students, faculty, and staff * have made significant contributions to the growth and development of AOD prevention strategies at an institution of higher education * provide services beyond the expectations of the nominee's position on campus and in the community * exhibit qualities and values consistent with the Network's mission David Anderson, Ph.D., associate professor and director for the Center for the Advancement of Public Health at George Mason University, was the recipient of the Network's 2000 Visionary Award. Anderson has worked professionally in higher education for nearly 30 years. His research and projects have emphasized college students, school and community leaders, youth, program planners, and policymakers. Anderson coauthors two national surveys on college drug or alcohol prevention efforts: The College Alcohol Survey and The Drug and Alcohol Survey of Community, Junior, and Technical Colleges. He is codirector of the Promising Practices: Campus Alcohol Strategies project, which identifies exemplary alcohol abuse prevention strategies. The Visionary Award recognizes individuals whose efforts resulted in AOD initiatives that extend beyond the scope of an individual campus. Awardees can work in any of a number of settings, including educational, legislative, or public or private organizational. Visionary Award recipients are individuals who * have made significant contributions to the growth, development, and maintenance of AOD prevention strategies across higher education settings at the state, regional, and/or federal level * are staunch advocates for campus and com- munity collaboration who served as catalysts for changing the manner in which institutions of higher education and their communities address AOD prevention * exhibit qualities and values consistent with the Network's mission Nominations for the 2001 Visionary and Outstanding Service Awards are most welcome. Awards will be given at the U.S. Department of Education's Annual National Meeting on Alcohol, Other Drug, and Violence Prevention in Higher Education, which will be held Thursday-Sunday, November 8-11, 2001, at the Marriott Crystal Gateway Hotel, Arlington, Virginia. To submit a nomination, contact Iowa Network Regional Coordinator Julie A. Thompson, University of Northern Iowa, Wellness & Recreation Services, 101 H Wellness & Recreation Center, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0201. Phone: (319) 273-2137; fax: (319) 273-7130; e-mail: Thompsonju@cobra.uni . Welcome New Network Members * Augusta State University, Augusta, Ga. * California State University, Fresno, Calif. * California State University, Sacramento, Calif. * California State University, San Marcos, Calif. * ICPR Junior College, San Juan, P.R. * North Georgia College & State University, Dahlonega, Ga. * Rockhurst University, Kansas City, Mo. * San Francisco State University, San Francisco, Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regional Environmental Management Think Tanks in Pennsylvania A collaboration between the Pennsylvania Regional Network and the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) led to a series of think tanks convened to create an environment where people from across the state could explore environmental management strategies and brainstorm ways to reduce high-risk and underage drinking and implement programming strategies on their individual campuses. 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 following address: 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. Summaries of the think tank meetings are posted on a Web site created by Robert Chapman, Ph.D., Pennsylvania Network regional coordinator and coordinator of the Alcohol and Other Drug Program at La Salle University in Philadelphia. The site reflects the work of six meetings around the state and is dedicated to providing an overview of the solutions that were identified to address the problem of high-risk drinking. It also describes what the Pennsylvania Regional Network, the PLCB, and Pennsylvania Association of Colleges and Universities have been doing to increase familiarity with environmental management strategies. The results of the six regional think tanks on environmental management in Pennsylvania are included as "responses" to this topic, with each regional think tank report including the suggestions and questions raised. Organizers of the think tanks took three steps to increase attendance. Two meetings were held in each of the three recognized regions of the state-a "northern and southern" site in each. Because Pennsylvania is such a large state, travel becomes a significant factor in determining whether to attend a workshop or conference, and so organizers convened six meetings, making travel to any particular site possible in one business day. Participants incurred no expenses to attend a meeting other than their time to travel to a site. In addition, the Pennsylvania Regional Network funded six $500 scholarships to the National Meeting in Pittsburgh in October 2000 as a door prize at each think tank meeting. The combination of steps taken to ensure participation worked. More than 300 people, from 66 campuses and 20 community and municipal organizations in Pennsylvania, discussed successes, questionable successes, and concerns for each of the five environmental strategies suggested by the Higher Education Center. The participants also developed recommendations to the state-level committee regarding each strategy from Pennsylvania colleges and universities. The Amethyst Network is a Pennsylvania-based consortium of alcohol and other drug professionals working in higher education and dedicated to furthering the delivery of effective programming and counseling services to students, staff, and faculty in colleges and universities. Amethyst, as the group is known, grew out of the consortium of Pennsylvania-based colleges and universities that had received U.S. Department of Education Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) grants in the late 1980s and early 1990s. "Sometimes, those who work providing these services feel like Don Quixote de La Mancha, a knight errant, ever challenging the windmills of the alcohol beverage industry and the misperceptions of the public as to the importance of drinking and the frequency in which it is pursued. But like Quixote, those dedicated to addressing the issues of alcohol and other drug abuse recognize that patience, persistence, and perseverance can yield mighty victories in the form of changes in individual attitudes, values, and beliefs," says Chapman. The Network and PLCB have also been collaborating on the creation of an Internet portal that will enable all interested parties in the state to access "everything they ever wanted to know about AOD issues" via a convenient and interactive Web site. This resource will include, among other things, online consultation, a speakers' bureau listing of professionals who will speak or consult for expenses only, and an online archive of AOD policies for Pennsylvania campuses. To learn more about the think tanks, visit http://www.lasalle.edu/~chapman/amethyst.htm. The site links to various resources as well as archives of reports from each of the think tanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 prevention policies and programs that will foster students' academic and social development and promote campus and community safety. Get in Touch The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Education Development Center, Inc. 55 Chapel Street Newton, MA 02458-1060 Website: http://www.higheredcenter.org/ Phone: (800) 676-1730 Fax: (617) 928-1537 E-mail: HigherEdCtr@edc.org How We Can Help * 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. Higher Education Center Training Opportunities The Center's two-day Team Training event brings together teams from institutions of higher education and their local communities to address AOD 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 and security personnel, student leaders, community representatives, and others. The training provides an opportunity for teams to develop coalition-based action plans. Call the Center to participate. The following dates and locations are tentative. Please check our Web site for up-to-date information. Upcoming Team Trainings Oct. 11, 2001 - Indianapolis, Ind. Oct. 23-24, 2001 - N.C. Nov. 21-22, 2001 - N.H. Catalyst is a publication of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. Editor: Barbara E. Ryan Production Manager: Anne McAuliffe Graphic Designer: Shirley Marotta Center Director: William DeJong Other Staff: Jerry Anderson, Ann Butter, Xixi Chen, Tom Colthurst, Laurie Davidson, Beth DeRicco, Michael Gilbreath, Kathie Gorham, Jessica Hinkson, Rob Hylton, Linda Langford, Virginia Mackay-Smith, Michelle Maillet, Candace Miller, Sarah Minkin, Anne O'Neill, Robyn Priest, Helen Stubbs, Lisa Timothy, and Karen Zweig 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.