CATALYST, Summer 2007 Vol. 9 No. 1 A Publication of the U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention Campuses and Communities: Working Together to Reduce Alcohol-related Problems The view of colleges and universities as "ivory towers" where intellectuals engage in pursuits that are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life couldn't be further from the realities of the modern campus, especially when it comes to alcohol and other drug abuse prevention. Increasingly, campuses are reaching out to surrounding communities to develop collaborative initiatives to reduce high-risk drinking and related problems among students. Pursuing prevention strategies through a coalition linking campuses with their surrounding communities is well proven to be effective. "College campuses and local communities have a reciprocal influence on one another in relation to college student alcohol use," said the Institute of Medicine in its 2003 review of strategies for reducing underage drinking. "Building a coalition between campus and community is a vital component of effective alcohol and other drug prevention efforts of colleges" (Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility; http://www.iom.edu/CMS/12552/13838/15100.aspx). The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) also points to the advantage of campus and community collaboration in efforts to prevent high-risk drinking and its consequences. This approach to prevention not only can result in reducing alcohol problems but can improve town-gown relationships overall, says NIAAA in its Task Force on College Drinking report, A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges (http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/NIAAACollegeMaterials/ TaskForce/TaskForce_TOC.aspx). How should a campus and community coalition be organized? What are the key elements promising success in meeting its objectives? What are the pitfalls to avoid? Research and experience are helping answer such questions. Coalition members typically include campus leaders associated with alcohol and other drug policies, local government leaders and law enforcement officials, community business representatives, and prevention and treatment experts. A key point is to ensure that the participants understand the environmental management approach to prevention-seeking changes in alcohol availability, serving practices, advertising, enforcement of policies, and other factors on campus and in the community in order to alter the environment that influences students' decisions about alcohol and other drug use. "If a coalition doesn't understand environmental strategies, it's pointless, because people who don't understand environmental strategies tend to focus on popular but ineffective programs to educate kids," says Traci Toomey, Ph.D., director of the Alcohol Epidemiology Program at the University of Minnesota, a veteran community organizer. William DeJong, Ph.D., of the Boston University School of Public Health and the U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, emphasizes that a coalition should be an "action-oriented" group with strengths in leadership, not an assemblage of people who simply want to consult or learn about a problem. "Members should be motivated to participate by either institutional or personal self-interest, yet willing to give the coalition control over some of their efforts." Getting the right people into the coalition can be crucial, Toomey points out. "You need to be very thoughtful about who is on your coalition or committee-whether you include the alcohol industry, local retailers, or distributors. Committee members have to understand that there may be conflict." Some retailers, for example, might go along with a strategy involving compliance checks or server training, while others will resist it. Toomey also cautions against placing too much emphasis on the size and breadth of participation in the coalition. "The coalition should include people who are ready to take action right now," she says. "If you have the attitude that you can't go forward until the mayor is on board, or the city council, or this person or that person, you may get into turf battles among people with too many different interests and you're not going to move forward." DeJong says a coalition's defining action is to guide the design and execution of prevention initiatives. "The role that coalitions play in actual implementation varies considerably," he says. "Some become directly involved in putting programs and policies into operation. Others play a catalytic role in identifying community needs, selecting or designing initiatives, and mobilizing community support for these efforts." Robert Saltz, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation's Prevention Research Center who has worked with coalitions over the years, says it is easy for a coalition to lose its focus on specific strategies, sometimes a consequence of creating a coalition that is simply too large. "There's pressure to value everyone's input, and you may wind up running a coalition in which overwhelming attention is paid to keeping the coalition together. You can end up with a coalition with vague, diffuse, or even conflicting objectives." DeJong has identified seven steps that a coordinator can take to help a coalition get off on the right foot: 1. Give the coalition a title that captures both the scope and importance of the coalition's work; 2. Establish ground rules that allow members to express their positions openly, without rancor or finger-pointing; 3. Identify and address any preconceptions or assumptions that individual members might have about student alcohol and other drug problems; 4. Work with the group to develop a common understanding of the nature, scope, and consequences of the problem; 5. Acknowledge that turf issues are an inherent part of collaborative work, but can be resolved over time; 6. Encourage members to seek common ground; and 7. Provide continuing opportunities for members to get to know each other's viewpoints. How does a coalition decide on what strategies and objectives it's going to pursue? "The organizers may have model strategies and policies in mind, but I think it's really critical that you don't try to sell a specific strategy," says Toomey. "It's important to have tools to help guide the selection, but we need to identify the problems first. Take underage drinking for example. I don't think we can assume that all college students across every campus are getting alcohol from exactly the same sources in exactly the same way. You have to look at the specific problems you're dealing with and look for specific solutions." DeJong believes it is unrealistic to require coalition members to do a lot of work or to participate in every coalition activity. Indeed, some members who are mandated to join a coalition may actively resist participation, at least at first. Many coalitions form subcommittees to spread the work around-for example, subcommittees on alcohol policy, substance-free events, access to alcohol, neighborhood problems, law enforcement, and media relations. "A subcommittee structure gives coalition members an opportunity to provide input on issues that interest or affect them most, while helping the coalition work more efficiently." While structure and function are important details, Saltz warns against letting organizational and procedural issues get in the way of pursuing the coalition's prevention objectives. "When that happens, a lot of attention is paid to what goes on when the coalition meets, and very little attention to what happens as far as results are concerned." Saltz believes a coalition should evaluate its activities on a continuing basis. "You can't wait until the end of the project to look at alcohol-related crashes or alcohol sales or whatever measures indicate progress toward your objectives. You have to remember that you have objectives other than just having a good coalition." DeJong says a literature review, cited below, of the most successful coalitions points to a group of strategies that can help maintain the "task-focused climate" that keeps participants interested in the group and its work: * Review the coalition's mission to make sure the coalition's action plans are still on target; * Run efficient and productive meetings; * Recruit new members who can match the evolving needs of the coalition and bring new ideas and energy to the group; * Continue to expand connections with community agencies and groups; * Stagger membership terms so that there is always a core of experienced members; * Continue to replenish funding; * Keep demands on members simple and realistic; * Continue to publicize coalition victories and to give frequent recognition to coalition members; and * Encourage members to regard and use the coalition as a resource that can help them do their respective jobs more effectively. (For more information, see Florin, P., Mitchell, R., Stevenson, J., and Klein, I. "Predicting Intermediate Outcomes for Prevention Coalitions: A Developmental Perspective." /Evaluation Program Planning/ 23(3): 341-346, 2000.) One of the key lessons from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses grant program has been that collaboration with key stakeholders both on and off campus is critical to model success. The directors of the model programs have said that building the professional relationships required to make coalition work possible was one of their most critical responsibilities (see below). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Model Programs: Promoting Effective Campus-based Prevention Since 1999, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS) has used its Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses grant program to identify and promote effective campus-based prevention programs. By 2006, OSDFS had designated 33 model programs at institutions of higher education through this peer-reviewed grant competition. "We at OSDFS have a deep commitment to the model programs initiative as a way to improve the state of prevention at U.S. colleges and universities," said Deborah A. Price, assistant deputy secretary, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. "The model grants initiative identifies programs or policies that are supported by theory and research and can be replicated or adapted in other college communities," said William Modzeleski, OSDFS associate assistant deputy secretary. "This initiative aims to disseminate information to other colleges and universities to encourage replication." "Model programs must be integrated fully into a multifaceted and comprehensive prevention program. While educational and individually focused programs are necessary, they are insufficient by themselves to create significant or long-lasting change," Modzeleski said. An upcoming review from the Department's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention examines 22 model programs identified in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2004 to discover broader lessons for alcohol and other drug abuse prevention practitioners and to move the field toward more effective prevention. (No grants were awarded in 2002 and 2003.) Currently under review within the Department, this publication, /Experiences in Effective Prevention: The U.S. Department of Education's Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses Grants,/ describes the model programs and explores the general principles and processes by which the grantees successfully implemented their programs, policies, and interventions (http://www.higheredcenter.org/pubs). "While we now know more than ever before about what works when it comes to alcohol and other drug abuse prevention on campus and in the surrounding communities, how that knowledge can be translated into practice most effectively is less clear," said Price. "This new publication is an important resource for those seeking advice on how best to move forward with campus and community alcohol and other drug prevention efforts." The report covers these topics: * Recent advances in campus-based prevention-Describes the scope of the campus alcohol and other drug abuse problem based on recent survey data, outlines the environmental management approach to prevention, and reviews the implications of recent research on effective prevention practice. * Overview of the 1999-2004 model program grants-Provides a brief description of each program, introduces a typology for alcohol and other drug abuse programs and policies, and then categorizes the program activities according to that typology. * Lessons on program development-Describes key lessons learned from the model program grants on exercising leadership, building collaborations, and choosing evidence-based programs. * Lessons on program implementation-Describes key lessons learned in implementing strategic planning, conducting a program evaluation, and working toward sustainability. This section concludes with a reflection on a final lesson, the need to take the long view, understanding that prevention is not a short-term process. * Resources-Offers readers wishing to consult additional resource materials a list of key organizations, Web sites, and publications. According to the report, college and university administrators should consider these programs a source of ideas for their own alcohol and other drug abuse prevention programming, ideas that can then be adapted and refined to meet the needs of their campus. However, the directors of these model programs have many lessons to offer on what it takes to implement, evaluate, and sustain a comprehensive and effective prevention effort. The report elucidates the general principles related to program development: exercising leadership, building collaborations, and choosing evidence-based programs. The report also emphasizes four essential aspects of prevention work drawn from the experiences of the 22 model program grantees examined. They are implementing strategic planning; conducting a program evaluation; working toward sustainability; and taking the long view. "We know that changing the culture of student drinking and other drug use takes time. There are no quick fixes or silver bullets. However, change is indeed possible. As the model program directors responded in this report, to be successful they needed to have faith in their vision. Only by imparting a deep confidence in that vision can they inspire others to follow it over the long haul," said Richard Lucey, Jr., education program specialist, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. For more information on the Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses initiative, visit the Web sites of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (http://www.ed.gov/programs/dvpcollege/index.html) and the Higher Education Center (http://www.higheredcenter.org/grants). 2006 Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses Grant Awardees The 2006 model program grant awardees are: * George Mason University: Healthy Expectations: Preventing High-Risk Drinking by Transforming Campus Cultures. This program emphasizes healthy transitions to college for first-year students. * Montclair State University: Montclair Social Norms Project. This program educates students at Montclair State University (MSU) to make healthy choices by promoting knowledge of actual drinking norms at MSU and reducing misperceptions of alcohol use. * University at Albany, State University of New York: The Committee on University and Community Relations: A Model Campus-Community Partnership at a State University Center. This campus-community coalition initiative has been in existence for 15 years and has served as the central initiative within the university's comprehensive alcohol and other drug abuse prevention program. * University of Missouri, Columbia: MUmythbusters. For six years this extensive social norming campaign has used clear and consistent messages informing students about the actual alcohol use of their peers as well as about the protective factors that their peers are using with regard to their drinking. For additional information on the 2006 awardees, go to http://www.higheredcenter.org/grants/models/0602/awardees.html. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools If you would like more information about the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS), please visit the office's Web site at http://www.ed.gov/OSDFS. For more information about the office's higher education initiatives, please contact: Richard Lucey, Jr. Education Program Specialist, richard.lucey@ed.gov ; 202-205-5471 Ruth Tringo Education Program Specialist, ruth.tringo@ed.gov ; 202-260-2838 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Message From the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools The importance of coalitions and partnerships is increasingly documented in the research literature. Reports from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's Task Force on College Drinking and the Institute of Medicine underscore the importance of campus and community partnerships in reducing alcohol and other drug problems on campuses and in surrounding communities. This issue of Catalyst highlights current research findings on how to develop effective coalitions and the experiences of campus and community coalitions from such diverse institutions of higher education as Clark University, Massachusetts, and the University of California, Irvine. In addition, an upcoming publication from our Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention described in this issue further supports the importance of coalitions and collaborations in prevention work. Experiences in Effective Prevention: The U.S. Department of Education's Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses Grants examines the experiences of 22 model programs identified through that grant program. One of the broader collective themes to emerge from program fruition is the importance of coalitions. Other lessons learned from research and the experiences of our model programs point out that developing partnerships is not sufficient to have a long-range effect. Nevertheless, including a coalition in a multifaceted and comprehensive prevention program will increase the chances for success. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Innovative Coalitions to Address Sexual Assault and Dating Violence In October 2006, on various campuses across the state of Virginia, red flags adorned lawns and were displayed on tables in student residence halls and cafeterias. The goal was to create attention for a new campaign aimed at addressing dating violence among students on Virginia's college and university campuses. The campaign was designed to alert friends and peers to warning indicators or "red flags" of dating violence and encourage them to say something to their friends to prevent dating violence. Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance was the driving force behind the campaign. The alliance is a nonprofit organization devoted to ending sexual and domestic violence. Recognizing the need to address dating violence, alliance members approached the Verizon Foundation, a national philanthropic organization, to help fund the campaign. "We focused on dating violence because it has not been addressed as fully as it should. There has been a lot of support to address sexual violence but not around dating violence and clearly there is a need," said Liz Cascone of the alliance. With funding in hand, the alliance put together an advisory committee of 36 people from various colleges, organizations, and agencies. The committee first met in February 2006 to discuss ideas for the campaign. Student input was a major part of the planning and development of the messages for the campaign. Cascone said that the advisory committee agreed to develop a campaign that would target college students who are friends and peers of victims and perpetrators of dating violence and would encourage them to say something to their peers when they recognized indicators of dating violence. The committee developed six posters for the campaign-three designed for women and three for men. Four of the posters describe dating violence happening in the context of a heterosexual relationship and two posters describe dating violence happening in the context of a same-sex relationship. The posters each focus on a particular component of dating violence: * Emotional abuse; * Coercion; * Excessive jealousy; * Isolation; * Sexual assault; and * Victim blaming. After developing initial messages, the committee tested them on student focus groups and made changes based on the feedback. In fact, the focus groups helped rewrite much of the text on the posters. "We really wanted to stay true to what students would respond to, and the students gave us great feedback. They said, 'Yes, this works' or "No, I wouldn't respond to that." And we listened and created posters that resonated with students and we didn't get caught up in what we thought they should hear. We brought in students every step of the way and that separates this campaign from so many you see that are trying to be PC but don?t reach their target audiences," said Shalise Bates-Pratt, director of student leadership and the Women's Resource Center at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland, Va., one of the campuses that piloted the campaign. Red Flag Campaign Pilot In October 2006, the Red Flag Campaign was pilot tested on the following 10 Virginia campuses: 1. Christopher Newport University, Newport News; 2. George Mason University, Fairfax; 3. Old Dominion University, Norfolk; 4. Randolph-Macon College, Ashland; 5. Randolph-Macon Woman's College, Lynchburg; 6. Thomas Nelson Community College, Hampton; 7. University of Mary Washington, Fredericksburg; 8. University of Virginia, Charlottesville; 9. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond; and 10. Virginia State University, Petersburg. Four of the 10 colleges were designated to post 400?500 miniature red flags bearing the campaign's Web address (http://www.theredflagcampaign.org) on their campuses a week before posting the Red Flag Campaign material. The red flags were placed to serve as a teaser to the campaign and to create some interest on the campuses before the campaign began. The committee also wanted to determine, during the pilot, whether the miniature red flags generated enough interest, compared with the campuses that didn't use the flags, in the campaign before the posters were made visible. The committee measured the effectiveness of the pilot using input from representatives from the participating campuses, as well as findings from student surveys at participating campuses submitted through SurveyMonkey, an online survey service. Before the pilot, the colleges conducted pre- and post-surveys about dating violence. Cascone said that the post-survey results clearly indicated that the campaign gained some positive results. "The students did make a connection between the flags and the posters that were displayed. About 90 percent knew that the campaign was about dating violence. It was a unique campaign and not something you usually see in a public awareness campaign," said Cascone. Bates-Pratt experienced the success firsthand. She received a large number of e-mails and telephone calls asking if she knew what the red flags represented. She also was approached by faculty and students on campus, but held the secret close in order not to skew the results of the campaign. When the posters were displayed, she saw groups of students gathered around them reading the messages. She even had resident assistants asking her to develop a hall program for them. The local and campus newspapers also covered the campaign. Because of the success of the pilots, Cascone said the Red Flag Campaign will launch fully to 20 additional campuses in Virginia in August 2007. A Red Flag Campaign Organizing Kit will be available to host campuses in August 2007 and will include sample press materials, downloadable files of the Red Flag Campaign posters and artwork, and a Residence Life Guide for incorporating the Red Flag Campaign into other campus programming. "The program was such a huge success and the red flags really helped spark interest in the topic. I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes a national campaign," said Bates-Pratt. CARE in California Another campus that is doing positive work on addressing sexual assault is the University of California, Irvine (UC Irvine), through its Campus Assault Resources and Education (CARE) program. Started in 2005, CARE provides direct services and campus and community education on issues related to sexual assault, intimate partner violence, relationship health, and personal safety. Staff provide consultation to the campus community, individual and group counseling, advocacy for survivors of assault, and peer education. Like the Red Flag Campaign, CARE also addresses dating violence, by bringing in speakers to talk about what constitutes abusive relationships and good dating health, says Mandy Mount, Ph.D., director of CARE. They regularly host tables on campus with information on safe dating, dating violence and warning signs, and healthy relationships. In 2007, they started a series on healthy dating. The university also partners with the UC Irvine Police Department (UCIPD) in an innovative program called UCIPD CAREs, which started in January 2007. Once a month, Mount and a police officer are available to answer questions about the process of filing a police report concerning sexual assault. The environment is nonthreatening, and those who ask questions are not obligated to file a report. "We've found that many people may have questions but they are hesitant to call the police or go to the police department, nor do they want the police to come to them," said Mount. "They fail to ask the questions that may lead to a future report and hold the perpetrator accountable. This gives the victims a safe place to ask questions, and then if they decide to file a report we have an officer available giving them that option." This program received very positive responses from students after being in operation for only two months. And now the program is available online so that people can ask questions anonymously and have them answered via a Web site at http://www.chs.uci.edu/CARE/ucipd_cares.aspx. CARE also works with the local rape crisis center in developing and providing resources. The center's staff and CARE peer educators come to campus to provide education to students. CARE's peer groups are actively involved with the center as well. CARE offers campuswide presentations and their peer groups provide prevention-based workshops. It has provided workshops to local high schools, connecting the program to the community. CARE will soon have a train-the-trainers program to teach campus leaders how to respond to sexual assault issues when they are approached about such incidents and how to make appropriate referrals. The leaders also will learn how to talk to various campus groups and organizations about appropriate and respectful behaviors and how to avoid sexual assault circumstances. One of the biggest events now sponsored by CARE is the annual "Take Back the Night," which has taken place at UC Irvine for 10 years. The evening is focused on building awareness about sexual violence on the campus. The event starts with a speaker; students then march around campus holding candles and the march ends at a location where a number of booths are set up containing information on sexual assault and intimate partner violence. Victims of sexual assault have the opportunity to speak to the students if they so desire. "It is an opportunity for people to speak about what has happened to them and not feel ashamed or feel that they have to hide what has happened but instead hold people responsible for preventing violence and for not acting in violent and disrespectful ways toward one another," said Mount. CARE also involves men in their prevention and awareness activities. They have men speak with other men about what is appropriate and respectful behavior and how to create a social environment that does not support gender-based violence, said Mount. One of the goals Mount has for the CARE program is to help the entire campus community to realize that the program is accessible to everyone. "We want to provide a holistic approach to healing for survivors. Given that, statistically, one in four women will be a victim of assault or attempted assault during her college years, this is clearly needed and people need to have a place where they can heal," said Mount. For more information on the CARE program, visit http://www.chs.uci.edu/CARE/ucipd-cares.html. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Campus and Community Coalition Building: A Success in Massachusetts The old adage is that two heads are better than one-meaning that eliciting input from others leads to new perspectives, ideas, and information that can help better achieve a goal. Five colleges in Massachusetts certainly can attest that there is power in putting many minds together. For the past three years, these colleges have become involved in the Campus Community Partnership Initiative (CCPI), an educational component of the Youth Alcohol Prevention Center, part of the Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH). CCPI is dedicated to preventing alcohol-related problems among college and university students by implementing environmental management strategies aimed at limiting alcohol availability both on and off college campuses. BUSPH, with a grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), started CCPI. The idea behind CCPI is to encourage colleges to create community partnerships that will develop the environmental management strategies. Under this NIAAA grant, BUSPH chose the following five institutions to be part of CCPI: 1. Boston College, Chestnut Hill; 2. Clark University, Worcester; 3. Fitchburg State College, Fitchburg; 4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge; and 5. University of Massachusetts Amherst. These colleges include different types of urban and rural Institutions-ones that are private-, state-, or Jesuit-run. CCPI provided the five colleges with seed money to support their efforts to implement strategies to prevent alcohol abuse on their campuses and in the community. BUSPH continues to provide tailored, technical assistance on partnership development, strategic planning, environmental management strategies, youth activism, and local data analysis of alcohol-related problems. CCPI also offers networking opportunities with project colleges implementing similar strategies and peer mentorships from similar institutions. The colleges also get results from annual customized reports on drinking patterns and related consequences based on surveys among a random sample of undergraduates. CCPI aims to encourage Massachusetts colleges to implement environmental management strategies recommended by the U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention (http://www.higheredcenter.org/framework) that address factors contributing to high-risk alcohol use in a standard college environment. The strategies are: * Offering alcohol-free social, extracurricular, and public service options; * Creating a health-promoting normative environment; * Limiting alcohol availability; * Restricting the marketing and promotion of alcoholic beverages both on and off campus; * Increasing enforcement of laws and policies. Support in Numbers Among the positive results that have come out of being part of CCPI is the contact with the other colleges to share ideas, support one another, and hear about each other's activities. "All of us have really benefited from meeting with one another to share our experiences," said Danny Trujillo, Ph.D., associate dean of the Division of Student Life at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). "The meetings have been a motivating factor as well. We leave the meetings energized. Being part of the coalition also has helped us to develop an internal structure that is validated through the evaluation process, such as generation of annual reports." Rob Hynes, Ph.D., director of counseling services at Fitchburg State College (FSC), said that talking with the other colleges has sparked ideas that he has been able to adapt for his campus. For example, he soon will adapt a landlord-agreement program whereby landlords agree to require students to sign a release saying that they will live under the same standards as those of an on-campus residence hall. As part of the project, the institutions were given the opportunity to learn from experts in other states who have established coalitions and partnerships who could offer hands-on support and advice on what works and pitfalls to avoid. Much of the mentoring happened during the first year of CCPI. For example, an expert in coalition building worked with the colleges to help them get started. They also got help from Linda Major, the director of student involvement at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln. Major has run a coalition for the past eight years. Tamara Vehige, project manager for the education core at BUSPH and for CCPI, says that in the first year they did a lot of site visits and now, because of limited resources, those have stopped. However, CCPI members meet face-to- face twice a year to share their successes and projects, to brainstorm, and to distribute information. Other times, they have had conference calls with one another to cut costs. Now, Vehige says, the main focus is on information sharing and networking. To support the coalition, BUSPH sends a monthly electronic newsletter to members with information about national prevention efforts on campuses and on what the campuses within the coalition are doing. The newsletter is available to all of the colleges in Massachusetts and beyond, and so the information sharing has expanded beyond just the five colleges. Vehige says the list of recipients for the newsletter has grown to about 80 people. Success Stories Thus far, the program has been a success, with all of the campuses moving forward and implementing strategies. For example, at MIT, CCPI helped provide information and ideas to develop, implement, and evaluate the responsible beverage social host training that they provide on campus to students. The evaluation component, says Trujillo, has helped tremendously in validating their efforts, a process that he says could not have happened without the help of the CCPI initiative. CCPI also offers the training to fraternities, which includes information about city ordinances and MIT policies. The institution trains about 600 students a year, said Trujillo. "The nice thing about this training is that it was developed by our students and our coalition. They train our local retailers and they conduct the training of our fraternities. They know the off- and on-campus locations." The campus and community coalition network in the city of Cambridge, which includes the Campus Alcohol Advisory Board, Cambridge Prevention Coalition, and the Cambridge Licensee Advisory Board, coordinated through an Environmental Strategies Subcommittee to propose language and recommendations for a new keg registration regulation in the city of Cambridge. The Cambridge License Commission is responsible for issuing licenses and enforcing rules, regulations, local ordinances, and state laws pertaining to the sale of alcoholic beverages. It voted to accept the keg policy, which states that any retail licensee selling a keg must notify the Cambridge Police Department on the date of sale, via e-mail, fax, or telephone. Notification must include the name, address, and date of birth of the purchaser. In addition, the Cambridge policy offers additional regulations designed to enhance the information received by police and to make clear to keg purchasers their legal obligations and potential liability associated with granting underage access to alcohol. Individuals buying the keg or bulk container must provide the address where the keg will be consumed (in addition to their personal address) and sign the registration form confirming the information is accurate. The FSC CCPI has implemented Responsible Alcohol Consumer Environment (RACE, see http://www.fsc.edu/race), which is working with local retailers to get them to sign a responsibleadvertising agreement. Hynes said that FSC included guidelines for responsible advertising of alcohol to Massachusetts state law that have been shown to reduce high-risk drinking among college-age individuals. The responsible-advertising agreement has undergone significant revision, incorporating feedback from many of the licensees with whom they hope to partner. Prior to the beginning of the spring semester, FSC hosted a luncheon with retailers, local law enforcement, college officials, and the liquor licensing commission to have a public "signing" of this agreement. CCPI at the University of Massachusetts Amherst began gathering information on the campus and community climate related to student drinking. Coalition members reviewed institutional, municipal, and state laws and policies related to alcohol and learned about campus and local resources. They then completed an environmental scan using the College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide (http://www.higheredcenter.org/pubs/cara.pdf) to define the problems specific to student drinking behaviors. The university also administered a CCPI Web-based survey to students. Using data from that survey, they developed an initial strategic plan, formed three subcommittees (policy and enforcement, alcohol-free options, and social norms marketing), engaged additional stakeholders in the subcommittees, and began developing specific strategic approaches and implementing specific intervention strategies. During new student orientation in June and July 2006, the Campus and Community Coalition to Reduce High-Risk Drinking (CCC) members shared campus alcohol use data, social norms information, and resources for assistance to all orientation leaders. Recently, the university introduced a social norms marketing campaign using athletics as the campaign venue (to view the poster go to http://www.campuscommunitypartnership.org/colleges/images/SocialNormsPoster.jpg) Banners with the social norms message were posted at athletics venues, along with table tents in all dining commons and food services areas. Also, the faculty senate voted to endorse an online alcohol education course requirement for all freshmen. Vehige says that those at the University of Massachusetts Amherst had a hard time addressing their issues because they had a stressful relationship with the community. But their coalition worked with the community to get buy-in for their efforts to reduce drinking. "Now, the residents in Amherst believe this is a community problem and not just one the university has to bear. They have now passed nine different policies about alcohol in the last year," said Vehige. One of the successes of the coalition is that it has helped colleges get the attention of administrators, including at BUSPH where Vehige works. "We have had trouble getting support as other colleges have had, but being part of the coalition helps us leverage what we want to get done on campus." Age-old Problem CCPI is a good example of what can happen, even with limited funding. That is, CCPI provided about $500 in seed money to the colleges, and although Vehige wishes they could have provided more and seen even more results, she believes a lot of good has come out of the experience and that the colleges will stay connected once the funding runs out and BUSPH is no longer able to provide support. "They have really bonded and have offered to hold workshops at each of their universities. Other schools also have been interested in what has come out of this project. And the colleges, such as MIT, have reached out to other colleges, such as Harvard University and Lesley University, as a result of the success that they've had within the CCPI," said Vehige. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Campus and Community: Working Together at the University of Georgia In 1988, the University of Georgia implemented a new policy that closed down "open parties" on its campus. Called the Social Events Policy, it established strict rules governing any registered student organization conducting a party that would include alcohol. Catalyst spoke with Carole Middlebrooks about the effect of this policy and the importance of campus and community coalitions. Middlebrooks is the former vice president for student affairs at the University of Georgia, Athens, and former chair (1999-2001) of the executive committee of the Network Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues, a volunteer organization established by the U.S. Department of Education in 1987. She has been actively involved in establishing at least four campus and community coalitions in Athens, Ga., since 1982. The University of Georgia has long been a member of the Network. House parties at the University of Georgia were getting out of control. After football games, fraternities-including non-Greeks like the pharmacy and veterinarian fraternities-would hold parties that attracted thousands of people who had come to Athens for the games. Partygoers crowded the streets between the stadium and some of the fraternities. There was a lot of disruption and property damage, such as broken store windows and damaged cars. Many of the partygoers who were arrested were not our students or even alumni. We realized that, to protect our students, the university needed better control over these large parties. A task force formed specifically to address this issue included representatives from the community and the campus. But when the social events policy, which had very strict rules about any registered student organization conducting a party that would include alcohol, was announced in spring 1988 and went into effect in fall 1988, students were at first very rebellious and angry. The policy allows organizations to invite up to three times their membership to the party. We felt that was fair-parties could be relatively large but still manageable. Another rule required a designated area for parties so that they couldn't spill out into the streets and to the next-door neighbors. Organizers let us know that they were unhappy about the rules. But after the football season ended several fraternities said that the policy was the best thing that's ever happened because they didn't have to worry about other people crashing their parties. The development of the social events policy was a result of the very deliberate work of a campus and community task force that met weekly for the 1988 winter and spring quarters. The task force included both the chief of police from the campus and the chief of police from the city as well as the sheriff. We had county commissioners. We had administrators from the campus. It was a mix of both campus and community. But it was the community that had approached the campus to say, "You have to do something . . . this has gotten out of hand." We did not think about and did not plan for the effect the policy would have on Athens. At that time there were about a dozen bars or other licensees in downtown Athens within walking distance of campus. We did not think about the fact that the social events policy would push a lot of the party atmosphere into the downtown area. Within approximately a year after the social events policy went into effect, bars began cropping up all over downtown, with the numbers at least doubling. Athens did not have city ordinances in place to control the number of liquor outlets anywhere in the county, and the task force did not develop them. As a result, today we still have no ordinances in place and now have over 72 licensees or bars within walking distance of the campus. Downtown Athens is now more a nighttime venue than a daytime venue. It comes alive at 10 or 11 o'clock at night. The streets are packed with people. We have videotaped the downtown night scene a number of times. We have seen limousines from Atlanta bringing students from Emory College, Georgia Tech, and other campuses that are within a one- or two-hour drive from Athens. In addition, Athens, which is the birthplace of rock bands the B-52's, R.E.M., and Widespread Panic, has a very active music scene, which further contributes to the city as a magnet for students. Because Athens is an alternative music capital, it attracts a lot of would-be musicians. In the past decade, a lot of small bars opened in the basements of stores where new bands practiced and performed. A simultaneous change happened over a number of years through a combination of factors-students could no longer have huge parties where the bands could perform and we did not think ahead proactively to develop ordinances to limit alcohol density in downtown Athens. In addition, another major problem that had cropped up was trash ending up on the streets in front of the alcohol establishments-from people drinking and tossing their beer cans or bottles on the streets. The Athens/Clarke County Anti-Drug Commission, which was formed in 1990, pushed to get an open-container ordinance enacted to prevent drinking on the streets, which helped a lot. This was one way that we could actually gain community attention and move to action. In 1999, we formed a hospitality resource panel (HRP) with the assistance of the Responsible Hospitality Institute. Our HRP was an alliance of business owners and associations, government and safety personnel, campus officials, and community and neighborhood coalition representatives. We organized training with bar owners and bouncers and servers. The HRP revisited the trash issue and a recycling policy was initiated, among other things. I have been a part of establishing four different task forces or community and campus coalitions in Athens since 1982. I have seen them get active and tackle an issue, have some success, and then have a difficult time keeping members together and interested in moving on to other issues. From my experience I would encourage people not to get discouraged when coalitions disband or cease to be active. Sometimes it is more helpful to regroup and start with a new focus-and maybe even a new name to get a new goal accomplished. For example, the group that got the open-container ordinance passed disbanded. But campus and community concern resurfaced in the aftermath of the alcohol-related deaths of two students, leading to the formation of the Alcohol Responsibility Council in 1999 and in 2000 the Cobb Underage Drinking Task Force, governed through the county police department, which provides a comprehensive approach to reducing underage drinking through the collaborative efforts of its partners, including community groups and law enforcement (see http://www.cudtf.org/about_the_taskforce.htm). In 2002, the University of Georgia, Athens, student peer education team sponsored a Community/Campus/Student Leaders Forum, which has become an annual event. The Community Campus Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse in Athens- Clarke County and the University of Georgia was formed in September 2004 as a result of recommendations from that year's forum (see http://www.uga.edu/coalition/connectwithus/history.html). This group, which continues to meet routinely, reflects the ongoing commitment of the University of Georgia and the city of Athens to work together to address high-risk drinking and related problems. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Welcome New Network Members Developed in 1987 by the U.S. Department of Education, the Network Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues (Network) is a voluntary membership organization whose member institutions agree to work toward a set of standards aimed at reducing alcohol and other drug (AOD) problems at colleges and universities. The Network welcomes new members from across the nation, representing all types of institutions of higher education, from community colleges to universities. A list of new members who have joined since the last Catalyst issue was published is available here . The Network develops collaborative AOD prevention efforts among colleges and universities through electronic information exchange, printed materials, and sponsorship of national, regional, and state activities and conferences. Each Network member has a campus contact who, as part of the constituency of the region, helps determine activities of the Network. As of May 2007, Network membership stood at 1,592 postsecondary institutions. To learn more about the Network and how your campus can become a member, visit the Network's Web site . ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Resources For more information on campus and community coalitions and related topics, click on the following publications from the Higher Education Center's publications collection: Building Long-Term Support for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Programs Environmental Management: A Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Alcohol and Other Drug Use on College Campuses Prevention Updates: "Evaluating Environmental Management Approaches to Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Prevention" "A Campus-community Coalition to Control Alcohol-related Problems Off Campus: An Environmental Management Case Study" "Lehigh University?s Project IMPACT: An Environmental Management Case Study" Prevention Updates: "Campus and Community Coalitions in AOD Prevention" Strategizer 34: Working in Partnership with Local Colleges and Universities Catalyst is a publication of the U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention. Editor: Barbara E. Ryan Production Manager: Anne McAuliffe Graphic Designer: Shirley Marotta Center Director: Virginia Mackay-Smith Other Staff: Olayinka Akinola, Kellie Anderson, Emily Coe-Sullivan, Tom Colthurst, William DeJong, Elisha DeLuca, Beth DeRicco, Jessica Hinkson Desmarais, Gloria DiFulvio, Amber Dillard, Kathie Gorham, Rob Hylton, Linda Langford, Julie Lapham, Anne O'Neill, Michelle Richard, and Helen Stubbs Our Mission The mission of the U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention is to assist institutions of higher education in developing, implementing, and evaluating alcohol and other drug abuse and violence prevention policies and programs that will foster students' academic and social development and promote campus and community safety. Get in Touch The U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention Education Development Center, Inc. 55 Chapel Street Newton, MA 02458-1060 Web site: http://www.higheredcenter.org Phone: 1-800-676-1730; TDD Relay-friendly, Dial 711 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 Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues * Assessment, evaluation, and analysis activities This publication was funded by the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education under contract number ED-04-CO-0137 with Education Development Center, Inc. The contracting officer's representative was Richard Lucey, Jr. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education, nor does the mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. government. This publication also contains hyperlinks and URLs for information created and maintained by private organizations. This information is provided for the reader's convenience. The U.S. Department of Education is not responsible for controlling or guaranteeing the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside information. Further, the inclusion of information or a hyperlink or URL does not reflect the importance of the organization, nor is it intended to endorse any views expressed, or products or services offered.