CATALYST, Fall 2008 Vol. 10 No. 2 A Publication of the U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention Presidential Leadership The Catalyst for Effective Prevention by William DeJong During the past two years I had the opportunity to moderate a panel on presidential leadership at three conferences organized by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). Each time I asked the student affairs administrators in attendance whether they had strong support from their president on the issue of alcohol and other drug abuse prevention. By the show of hands, and the murmur that went through the audience, it was evident that very few of these campus officials thought they did. Why are so many college presidents reluctant to step forward? They are certainly aware that high-risk drinking and other drug use are a serious threat to higher education. Current estimates are that over 1,700 students per year are dying from alcohol-related causes (Annual Review of Public Health, Vol. 26, 2005). Moreover, as Peter Lake, J.D., Stetson University College of Law, points out, the nation's courts are calling campus administrators to account, stating that they have a legal responsibility to create a safer environment by applying evidence-based prevention methods (Prevention File: Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs, Spring 2003). There also have been previous calls for greater presidential leadership. In 1997 the Presidents Leadership Group (PLG), formed by the Center for College Health and Safety, issued Be Vocal, Be Visible, Be Visionary, a widely disseminated report that outlined recommendations for how the nation's college presidents could exert greater leadership in addressing alcohol and other drug problems on campus. Working from the title of their report, the PLG's six founding presidents stated that their peers in higher education should: * Be Vocal by acknowledging openly and publicly that alcohol and other drug abuse problems exist and then reach out to campus-, community-, and state-level groups to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy for prevention; * Be Visible by taking an active stand on alcohol and other drug abuse issues, convey clear expectations and standards, and serve as a role model to other senior administrators, faculty, and students; and * Be Visionary by making alcohol and other drug abuse prevention a priority in their strategic plan for the school. In short, the PLG urged that college presidents put prevention at the top of their institutional agendas. College presidents have competing priorities, of course, but given all of the public attention given to alcohol and other drug abuse problems on campus, it was still surprising to learn at these NASPA meetings that so few administrators believe that their president is giving sufficient attention to the top social problem on U.S. campuses. Embracing What Must Be Done At NASPA's 2008 annual meeting, held March 8-12, in Boston, President Jonathan Gibralter of Frostburg State University in Maryland explained that college presidents are under constant pressure to accentuate positive news about their institution in order to build public support and keep the money coming in. In the view of most presidents, he said, a presidential initiative on substance use problems would bring unwanted attention to their institution. The difficulty of this topic was evident during a site visit I made three years ago to a large public university in the West. In the early 1990s, roughly two- thirds of the undergraduates could be classified as heavy drinkers. By the time of my visit, campus administrators had put several educational and environmental management strategies in place, and the heavy drinking rate had been cut almost in half. Even so, the president would not allow the new numbers to be publicized, for fear of generating still more negative stories about student alcohol abuse. In contrast, Gibralter has always thought that he had far more to gain than lose by embracing this issue. Having once worked at another institution where the president did very little to deal with the problem and a student died, Gibralter resolved that, if he were ever to gain the authority, he would deal with this problem far more aggressively. And he has done so, first at Farmingdale State University in New York and now at Frostburg State. At the beginning of his presidency at Frostburg in 2006, he wrote an article for the student newspaper to declare that his administration would enforce a zero-tolerance policy toward alcohol-related infractions. What may give college presidents the confidence to step forward is that the Public-including parents, students, and alumni-is fully aware that alcohol and other drug abuse is a problem faced by virtually all U.S. colleges and universities. There is no shame in stepping forward, but there is great risk in holding back and just hoping for the best: higher insurance premiums, property damage, greater security costs, poor student retention, potential civil liability, and, most seriously, an elevated risk of student injury and death. Finding and Supporting the Right Team Like Gibralter, President Stephen Ainlay of Union College (Schenectady, N.Y.) has made a personal commitment to combat student alcohol and other drug abuse. "If it's important," he said at NASPA's 2008 meeting, "then we should say so." Meaningful leadership is manifest in what presidents choose to say and how they spend their time, but the true measures of their commitment are the financial and staff resources they allocate and the performance standards by which they hold campus administrators accountable. President Arnold Speert of William Patterson University (Wayne, N.J.), another 2008 NASPA panelist, stressed that presidents can accomplish their prevention agenda only if they have a strong student affairs staff. Indeed, regarding his own legacy, Speert stated, "I hope that I will be seen as having empowered a student development division that effectively provides an environment that both enhances and enriches the academic experience." Clearly, selecting the right staff is essential. Prevention work calls on several critical community-organizing and political skills, including the ability to articulate a clear vision; draw upon and build alliances; manage a strategic planning process; use the media effectively; and resolve conflict. Yet the student affairs staff, no matter what its qualifications, must be supported by a president who is firmly committed to address the issue, gives the staff the authority to act, makes sufficient resources available, and takes on whatever political battles come along. Sidebar: Lessons From Model Programs The U.S. Department of Education's publication Experiences in Effective Prevention: The U.S. Department of Education's Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses Grants describes the elements for successful prevention efforts based on the experiences of 22 model program grantees. One key element is leadership from senior administrators, including presidents and top student affairs administrators. For example, recommendations from a commission established by the president of the State University of New York at New Paltz formed the basis for the development of its prevention program. More information on the role of leadership at the model program grantees is available in the full report. Sidebar: Presidential Leadership and Hate Crimes Christopher McCarthy, Ed.D., the president of Napa Valley College in Northern California, has been a consistent and outspoken leader promoting inclusion and condemning acts of hate. Napa Valley College has a diversity task force that was established by its previous president. McCarthy serves as cochair of the task force and attends every meeting. Napa Valley College experienced two bias incidents on campus in the last three years. Immediately following both events, McCarthy issued written statements from his office condemning the events. He also has condemned bias and hate in public forums. After the first incident, McCarthy directed that signs be placed throughout the campus establishing the college as a "hate free zone." He also formed a campus Bias Incident Response Team, which is an independent group of campus community members who have received specialized training in the prevention of and response to bias incidents and hate crimes. This team is accountable to the college president and campus police chief (see http://www.napavalley.edu/apps/comm.asp?$1=985). Getting the President's Attention Student affairs officials at many colleges and universities would welcome the opportunity to work with a president like Ainlay or Gibralter or Speert-a leader who understands how vital this issue is to both the well-being of the institution and the health of its students and embraces the possibility of making real progress through dedication, a sense of shared responsibility, sound planning, and a lot of hard work. Waiting for a new president to come along is not the answer, of course. Instead, student affairs staff, working with faculty, students, and community leaders, must argue their best case for their president to take on the cause of alcohol and other drug abuse prevention. Encouraging a president to act requires more than reviewing the scope of the problem and listing the benefits of taking action. As Gibralter argued, it also requires that the president be presented with potential solutions-not a final blueprint, but a list of evidence-based options, a review of what successful institutions are doing, and a strategic planning process for determining what might work best. In short, strong leadership emerges not just when college presidents know they should act, but when they think they can act effectively. William DeJong, Ph.D., is a professor of social and behavioral sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health and a senior adviser to the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention. Sidebar: The Presidential Leadership Award Frostburg State University President Jonathan Gibralter has received the first Presidential Leadership Award, which consists of a $50,000 prize for the university. This national award recognizes success in promoting a climate that deemphasizes student drinking. Some of the initiatives developed under Gibralter's leadership include a campuswide Alcohol Task Force and support for community and student programs, such as Saferide. "The main thing is the outreach into the local community-the landlords, the neighborhood associations, alcohol distributors and bar owners. I am extremely grateful to the community, members of law enforcement and community leaders-this award isn't about me," said Gibralter at the Sept. 3, 2008, award ceremony held at the American Council on Education's (ACE) office in Washington, D.C. The annual award has been developed by the American College Personnel Association, ACE, Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, the Gordie Foundation, NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, Outside the Classroom, and United Educators. Gibralter was one of 18 nominees that included college presidents from such institutions as Ohio University, the University of Florida, and the University of Virginia. The award money will be put into an endowment fund and may be used to fund student-initiated prevention programs. For more information, see http:// www.outsidetheclassroom.com/ prevcomm/presidential_leadership. ------------------------ Message From Deborah Price, OSDFS Assistant Deputy Secretary It is no surprise that those campuses achieving the greatest results in reducing problems related to alcohol and other drug abuse and violence have the support and involvement of top administrators in their prevention efforts. From presidents and chancellors to senior student affairs officials and campus police chiefs, senior administration sets the tone for the extent a campus takes responsibility for protecting the health and safety of its students. In fact, the call for senior administrator leadership in prevention has come not only from the Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention but also from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Institute of Medicine, and, most recently, the U.S. surgeon general. This issue of Catalyst examines the various ways that senior administrators have exercised leadership with respect to advancing prevention efforts on their campuses and to making contributions to the prevention field in general. For example, a group of university presidents worked with international fraternity and sorority organizations to develop a major initiative focusing on values regarding their members' behaviors. In addition, one of the core missions of the Network Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues (Network), which was established by the Department in 1987, has been to engage the support of presidents and senior administrators in prevention. This Catalyst issue includes a roundtable discussion of people with long involvement in the work of the Network in supporting senior administrators who are truly the ones who can make a difference when it comes to prevention on campus. ------------------------ A Call for Values Congruence Fraternities and sororities on campuses across the country have been frequently associated with partying; heavy drinking; and numerous alcohol-related problems, sometimes including hazing, sexual assault, and alcohol poisonings. In fact, the 2002 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism task force report, A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges, points out that drinking rates are highest in fraternities and sororities and that institutions at which excessive alcohol use is more likely to occur include those where Greek systems dominate. But Marilyn Fordham, the former liaison chair and alcohol education representative for the National Panhellenic Conference and former Higher Education Center Review Group member, says that fraternities and sororities are successfully addressing alcohol problems on those campuses where senior leadership is very supportive and understands what Greek life is really about. "It is very important for us to be able to explain to campus leaders that fraternity and sorority chapters are essentially a leadership laboratory. What students learn in a classroom on a campus is one part of their educational experience. Leadership, community service, friendship, working with others, negotiating, learning to follow-being a good citizen-is another part and all of that is learned in a sorority or a fraternity setting. Fraternity and sorority membership is absolutely a cocurricular activity-not just another club. The fact that many of our members assume leadership positions in the country, in their states, and their communities bears out that Greek organizations do provide that education," says Fordham. To address high-risk drinking and alcohol problems in Greek life, a group of college and university presidents, including the presidents of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and executive directors of national and international Greek organizations joined together in 2003 to develop a presidential initiative to transform the collegiate Greek environment. According to Fordham, this group engaged in deliberations to come up with ways to eliminate negative collegiate fraternity and sorority behaviors involving high-risk alcohol use. The group developed A Call for Values Congruence (2003), which underscored the values that fraternities and sororities were founded on- friendship, brotherhood, sisterhood, high academic standing, character building, community service, good citizenship, and leadership. The university presidents agreed that those values were congruent with the missions of their institutions but felt that chapters on their campuses tolerated behaviors that were not congruent with the missions of the universities or the Greek organizations. "The presidents asked the National Panhellenic Conference, an organization made up of 26 international women's fraternities and sororities; the North-American Interfraternity Conference (NIC), which includes 71 men's fraternities; the National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations, which is both men's and women's fraternities and sororities of Latino-based heritage; and the National Pan-Hellenic Council, which is nine African-American fraternities and sororities, to come up with a set of standards each for their groups. The standards had to address A Call for Values Congruence. From that came our current effort, which is called the Fraternity and Sorority Coalition Assessment Project," said Fordham. "At the invitation of a university president or a vice president of student affairs, a team from those four different organizations, as well as the Association of Fraternity Advisors (which are the campus-based advisors), will come to campus and assess the entire fraternity and sorority community, based on the following questions: * Are they developing positive interpersonal relationships? * Are these groups in this community engaging in leadership development? * Are they building and strengthening their social IQ, their citizenship, and their service learning? * Are they graduating members and advancing their academic interests? * Are they experiencing effective campus interface in support of the fraternity and sorority community?" "In other words, if they're doing all five of those things, then the overall health of that fraternity and sorority community definitely is developing leaders, good citizenship, and excellent students, while reducing behavior problems associated with alcohol or other drugs and violence. We have seen that time and time again," said Fordham. The assessment team has been invited to some 30 campuses in the last year. The project will continue in fall 2008 and with teams made up of representatives from each of the four umbrella organizations. Fordham, who was a team member representing the National Panhellenic Conference, said that teams interview everyone from the university president to the unaffiliated students. "We get the perspective of everybody on what they see in the fraternity and sorority community, especially their behavior. That's because this project is essentially addressing behavior." Fordham believes that this project is having an effect because there are now standards in place to which everybody has to adhere. "In other words, one sorority chapter can't say, 'Our national tells us we have to do this but the other one's national doesn't tell them that.' Until we all agreed to the same set of standards, they were able to play one against the other. But now on those campuses at which the university administration is supportive of the standards and provides the help we need on campus, we've definitely seen a change," said Fordham. "If we didn't have the president's support, we couldn't do these assessments because the universities pay for teams to come on these visits. One of the promises the presidents made when they developed A Call for Values Congruence was that they would pay for these visits," said Fordham. Teams send the presidents a thorough report with findings from the campus assessment and recommendations. The university administration then decides how to proceed. Fordham says that in most cases, the universities have responded positively and the teams work with them on implementing recommendations. Sidebar: Recommendations From A Call for Values Congruence A Call for Congruence was established by a conference of presidents convened at Franklin Square in Washington, D.C., in 2003. "The Franklin Square conferees believe that presidential leadership is indispensable to a concerted, collaborative effort to reestablish and reinforce the contributions Greek systems have made to campus life and higher education. The role of the campus chief executive cannot be overstated. Presidential leadership is critical to effecting change. It is the president, far more than any other campus official, who has the stature to enunciate expectations and to enlist the participation of the campus community and citizens beyond the campus to implement these policies and ensure their success." The Franklin Square conferees called for six presidential actions to close the gap between what fraternities and sororities espouse and how local chapters behave. For additional information on the recommendations, see http://www.aascu.org/media/pdf/05_values_congruence.pdf. Sidebar: 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: Tara.Hill@ed.gov; 202-245-7860 ------------------------ Q&A With Pat Leonard on the Importance of Senior Administrator Support for Prevention Patricia "Pat" Leonard serves as vice chancellor for student affairs at the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW). Now in her 11th year as chief student affairs officer, she has been an integral part of managing and planning for the dramatic student growth at UNCW. She served on the Network Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues for 10 years and was a member of its executive committee. As a member of the Board of Trustees for the New Hanover Regional Medical Center, she chairs the Quality Control Committee and is a member of the executive committee. Leonard is a member of the Review Group of the U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention. Q: The findings of the U.S. Department of Education's report on its model programs, Experiences in Effective Prevention: The U.S. Department of Education's Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses Grants, the findings from the A Matter of Degree: The National Effort to Reduce High- Risk Drinking Among College Students, as well as recommendations from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism report A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges all point to the need for presidential and senior administrator leadership to advance campus and community prevention. Why is such leadership so important? A: Senior leadership is critical for a successful campus substance abuse prevention program and the top student affairs officer must exert leadership in this area. Of course, presidents or chancellors need to be a part of the leadership loop, but prevention is not always among their top 10 priorities. It is up to the chief student affairs officer to ensure that the institution's chief executive officer has a solid understanding of the issues and will support prevention efforts. However, the chief student affairs officer is the one who needs to say this is an important issue and must allocate the necessary resources to make it happen. Q: Given that senior administrators have many other responsibilities, what incentives are there for them to get involved with prevention efforts on their campuses? A: First, it is the right thing to do. Research shows us that no college campus is immune to problems related to substance abuse and violence. It would be naive not to put prevention on the top of an institution's agenda, as we know the range of negative consequences related to the misuse and abuse of alcohol, including such things as student retention and quality of life. But should an incident occur that draws media attention, an institution that had been proactive can respond by pointing to its prevention efforts and not go on the defensive. Q: We hear from some people on campuses, such as prevention coordinators, that, in the absence of a crisis, they find it frustrating to get the attention and support of upper-level administrators. A: I really don't understand that because I come from a different mind-set. We know from experience that students arrive on campus with well-established patterns of alcohol use and abuse. We know that it affects the quality of life on the campus, whether in residence halls or other areas, so why not address it as a core issue? It is critically important for any senior administrator to accord the same level of importance to campus substance abuse prevention programs as they do to counseling and health centers, or any other program designed to help students be successful. Q: What specific steps can senior administrators take to make a difference in alcohol and other drug abuse and violence prevention? A: Resources speak volumes. Resources have to be allocated for staff, for space, and for activities. Senior administrators need to make sure that the program has visibility to other administrators on the campus and to the board of trustees or board of regents. Senior administrators must express clear expectations in terms of training and programming. Campuses need to consistently enforce policy and apply judicial sanctions. There also should be dedicated alcohol and other drug counseling services. The senior administrator must make it clear that there is no ambivalence when it comes to addressing these problems. Q: How can senior administrators communicate that kind of commitment to the campus at large? A: It's a matter of how campuses showcase prevention programs. Faculty always will look at other programs on campus that compete for resources and ask why they are needed. We have an obligation to fully describe to faculty and others on the campus the nature of the work we do with students and its effect in terms of retention and helping students manage their course work. Therefore, it is very important when staffing prevention programs to find qualified professionals with appropriate credentials as well as ensure that they have sufficient stature on campus in order to give visibility and credibility to prevention efforts. Q: We know that many of the problems related to student alcohol use are not campus based. They occur off campus in the community. Often there is a tension between community members and the campus and students because of these problems. What can senior administrators do to promote collaboration within the community surrounding their campuses? A: This is an area in which to engage presidents or chancellors. They need to make that initial outreach to the community to demonstrate their institution's commitment to addressing their mutual problems. They can approach the city council and the mayor to demonstrate a willingness to work together and then set up a structure for that collaboration. Then they can allow the staff to continue the work through the task force or coalition or whatever structures they decide on with city officials. Q: What advice would you give to people working on campus on how best to elicit the support of senior administrators? A: It is a difficult but not impossible thing for staff to do. They need to demonstrate, to the best of their ability, how prevention work can affect the culture of the campus and how students relate to one another academically and socially, how retention is affected, and its effect on other programs on campus. While it may be hard to get the attention of senior administrators, I think more and more that we don't have a choice but to make it a top priority. ------------------------ Governance and Prevention Some of the strategies that prevention practitioners implement every day on college campuses across the country are social norms marketing, increased enforcement, collaborative approaches, education, and alcohol-free options for students. Yet, despite Herculean efforts and some measurable successes, high- risk drinking among 18- to 24-year-olds is a factor in 1,700 deaths and 97,000 sexual assaults annually, according to 2005 data from the National Institutes of Health. How can colleges increase the effectiveness of prevention programs? One answer may lie with governing boards. "It's critical that the highest decision-making body be familiar [with alcohol issues] and be engaged," says Brandon Busteed, founder and chief executive officer of Outside the Classroom, a provider of online alcohol abuse prevention courses and data collection for colleges and universities. "When this happens, there are fruitful discussions. It's very challenging when the board is not engaged, despite the best efforts of staff." Not that boards have historically failed to deal with alcohol on campus. They have generally put in place "policies and procedures to make sure that students are safe," says Gwen Dungy, Ph.D., executive director of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. But the approach has been "hands-off," with many boards reluctant to appear as if they are micromanaging. Recently, however, as more attention has been paid to the intractable nature of the problem and its consequences for student learning and health, boards are taking more active roles. This is a welcomed development, but board members often lack requisite knowledge about student alcohol and other drug abuse and violence prevention. So Busteed recommends that college administrators provide board members with background literature, current magazine articles, and briefs. Regular updates of campus programs, ideally as part of scheduled board meetings, are helpful, too. As far as specific prevention programs go, Dungy says that board members can learn about them by experiencing them firsthand. Small group meetings with faculty, students, and staff can inform board members and teach them about the campus culture surrounding alcohol and programs initiated to modify such culture. Once educated, governing boards can build an infrastructure for prevention programs. Within this infrastructure, university administrators and staff develop strategies based on their expertise and the needs of individual campuses. But whatever the program, Busteed says data collection and assessment are essential. "The board should ask the school to provide regular progress reports or data versus other schools, much like admissions data," he says. "Without objective data, you can't hold anyone accountable." Which data should colleges collect? Busteed proposes what he calls "dashboard indicators," "simple measurements that can be simply reported, something you want to look at on a regular basis." For example, How many students are cited for alcohol violations? How many sexual assaults are reported where alcohol is involved? Keeping track of the frequency of such incidents is not enough, however. Colleges also must calculate their severity. In this vein, for example, violations of DUI laws would generally be categorized as more serious than violations of noise ordinances. Different prevention programs would collect different dashboard indicators, with governing boards deferring to the judgment of university staff. In addition to hard numbers, Dungy recommends qualitative evaluation. "I would like to know what is happening with individuals, answers to questions such as why students drink and where they obtain alcohol," she said. Once data are compiled and shared with board members, the members can monitor progress. While data collection provides evaluation instruments for programs and accountability for responsible administrators, it also can protect colleges from liability. "With liability issues, you must show that you are doing everything possible. If you haven't assessed, it doesn't look as if you have done everything possible," says Dungy. Funding is another area where governing boards can make a difference. Their allocation of resources is the primary factor in setting agendas for colleges. To date, few university governing boards have initiated policies and programs that make the prevention of high-risk drinking a top priority. One major exception is the 450,000-student California State University (CSU) system. Prompted by an alcohol-related death and several alcohol poisoning incidents in 2000, Charles B. Reed, chancellor of the system, assigned a committee composed of presidents, students, vice presidents of student affairs, faculty, staff, and alumni to review CSU's alcohol policies and prevention programs and to recommend ways to address the problem of student alcohol abuse. In July 2001, the board of trustees adopted the recommendations of the committee thereby establishing the Trustees' Alcohol Policy and Prevention Programs. This program urged campuses to appoint prevention coordinators and to form partnerships with stakeholders in their surrounding communities. Each of the 23 campuses received a one-time $25,000 grant from the chancellor's fund and was expected to provide matching funds. Campuses then designed prevention programs appropriate for their student populations and locations. Every two years, the campuses compile data evaluating the programs. The data are folded into a comprehensive report that is presented to the trustees. A key part of the CSU program, as well as a major source of ongoing funding, derives from collaboration with outside agencies. In 2002, CSU and the state of California signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that partners the college system with the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, California Highway Patrol, Department of Motor Vehicles, and Office of Traffic Safety. The MOU has enabled several campuses to receive funding for collaborative prevention programs. The results of the trustees' policy are encouraging. According to Allison G. Jones, assistant vice chancellor at CSU, Academic Affairs, every biennial report to the trustees since the program's inception has shown a reduction of alcohol abuse and alcohol-related incidents. One important outgrowth of the trustees' initiative is an annual CSU-sponsored conference that brings together students, health educators, law enforcement officials, and others from colleges throughout California. Participants, who include at least four representatives from each CSU campus, learn best practices from experts and network with colleagues. "The conference is key to keeping the momentum going," says Heather Dunn Carlton, director of judicial affairs at University of the Pacific and formerly coordinator of alcohol education programs at Sacramento State. Also keeping the momentum going is continued support from the trustees. When Jones presents the biennial reports, he notices that the board is "actively engaging, asking questions." In addition, individual trustees have attended various functions throughout the years. "Endorsement and interest of the trustees speak volumes," Jones says. "Alcohol abuse is still a major issue. It's a priority for our system." Although CSU's Alcohol Policy and Prevention Programs is the most comprehensive of any such program in the country, there are others. Princeton University's governing board initiated an alcohol abuse prevention policy in 1998. That policy combines data collection, board-required progress reports, accountability, and community involvement. In 2003, the University of California's (UC) 10-campus system signed an MOU similar to the one previously signed by CSU. In this way, the UC governing board set up a framework for working with various state agencies to address campus and community alcohol- related problems. The role of governing boards is more than getting educated, insisting on assessment, demanding accountability, and providing funding. According to NASPA's Dungy, board members also should show a personal interest in the prevention of alcohol abuse. They should be visible on campus and communicate that they are personally affected. "If students have a sense that people care, it can make a difference," she says. "We're all in this together." Importantly, that includes the people in charge, namely the members of college and university governing boards. Editor's note: For additional information, see the following articles that appeared in Trusteeship magazine: Busteed, B., "Pathways to Progress on Campus Drinking" January/February 2004 12(1): 19-23; and Dungy, G. J., "Greek Tragedies, Revivals" July/August 1999, 7(4): 23-27. See also Busteed, B., "Confronting the Threat of High-Risk Drinking" Priorities, No. 25, Winter 2005. ------------------------ The Network and Senior Administrators Support for Prevention-A Roundtable Discussion From its inception, membership in the Network Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues (Network) has been based on the willingness of the CEO of a campus to agree to work toward a set of standards aimed at reducing alcohol and other drug use among students. In addition, the Network sponsors the annual National Forum for Senior Administrators, which is dedicated to providing senior administrators with current information concerning campus issues associated with alcohol and other drugs in higher education. In a roundtable discussion convened for Catalyst, Harold Holmes, associate vice president and dean of student services at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., and member of the Network Council of Advisors; Paul Kesner, director, Drug-Violence Prevention, State Programs, and acting director, Character and Civic Education, of the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools; Carla Lapelle, associate dean of student affairs at Marshall University, Huntington, W.Va., and chair of the Network; and Deb Walker, counseling center director at Northern State University, Aberdeen, S.D., and Network regional director (Minnesota-North Dakota-South Dakota), talk about the importance of senior leadership for prevention. Q: From its inception the Network has been based on the willingness of the CEO of a campus to sign on and agree to work toward a set of standards. Why is such leadership important? Harold Holmes: The scope of the problems posed by alcohol and other drug abuse and violence is so great that it affects the university's mission in profound ways-academically and socially-including the health and safety of students, community relationships, and the reputation of the university. Senior leadership is important to set the tone in order to have an effect on these problems. Paul Kesner: I agree; the greater the degree that senior administration is involved, the greater the visibility of prevention efforts. It makes sense to have senior administration engaged wherever prevention is being discussed, not only at faculty and staff meetings but in the media as well. That involvement strengthens the concept that alcohol and other drug abuse and violence are important issues that need to be addressed just like academic integrity, excellence, and fund-raising. Carla Lapelle: From a practitioner's point of view, it seems that the president's attitude toward alcohol and other drug and violence initiatives sets the tone for how others on campus will work with the practitioner in achieving prevention goals. If the president wants things to change, practitioners are the ones who have to make it happen. Further, if practitioners have senior administrator support, that gives practitioners both freedom to move forward and motivation to stay involved and engaged. Q: What has been the role of the Network in helping senior administrators support prevention on their campuses? Kesner: The Network was established by the Department of Education in 1987-about the time that the Education Department General Administrative Regulations, Part 86, were established, which require institutions of higher education to certify compliance with certain requirements, such as adopting a drug prevention program and annually disseminating information about the program to students, faculty, and staff. By 1990, presidents had to certify that the institution was in compliance with Part 86. Deb Walker: The Network standards are in line with Part 86. It was a reiteration of a commitment by the institution to address alcohol and other drug problems. The Network acted as a conduit of information between the Department and the field. Q: Underscoring the view that senior administrator support is important, the Network organizes the annual National Forum for Senior Administrators, which is now held in conjunction with the Department of Education's annual National Meeting on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention in Higher Education. Why is it important to have a meeting that is specifically for senior administrators? Holmes: The value of the forum for senior student affairs officers who are dealing with all manner of other issues, such as enrollment management, judicial affairs, career services, and so on, is an opportunity to learn from leaders in the field and their peers in a concentrated period of time. The organizers of the forum go to a lot of effort to make it a very time-efficient exercise both in form and substance. Walker: Back in the late 1980s, if you got what was then called a Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education grant to address alcohol and other drug abuse among students, you went to the new- grantee meeting, which was held close to the forum. I always looked at both of them and thought that I'd like to go to the forum as well, but that would mean the commitment to a week away from campus. Then there was a period when there wasn't a special meeting scheduled for senior administrators, and I think we lost some momentum. Q: In 1997 the Department resurrected the National Forum for Senior Administrators as a special event within the annual National Meeting. Why was it important to have it be a separate meeting with a separate target audience? Kesner: Part of our thinking at the Department was that as the field evolved, the National Meeting began to be more practitioner-focused, which was good. We appreciated the need for that, but we also saw a need for a meeting to address the specific concerns of senior administrators that was time-efficient and targeted in order to encourage attendance. The forum was designed to be short and concise, essentially packing three days of meetings into a four- or five- hour program. We wanted the content to be less technical programmatically and more focused on the role that senior administrators play in prevention. Holmes: The forum also appealed to senior administrators because they know that they will be among their peers. In our society there is value in that type of a setting. Kesner: Yes, it was very important for the meeting to be just for senior administrators, which offered them the opportunity to have an open dialogue about their concerns and challenges in a safe environment. In addition, a legal panel providing updates for senior administrators on judicial affairs and responsibilities has become one of the premier attractions of the forum. Q: In addition to organizing the National Forum for Senior Administrators, what other services or activities does the Network do to support senior administrators in the areas of alcohol and other drug abuse and violence prevention? Lapelle: Through our regional directors and state and territory coordinators, the Network offers technical assistance primarily to practitioners, which betters the efforts at each institution and indirectly supports senior administrators. They also provide local training where senior administrators are welcome. We help institute and develop strong policies. Any assistance in those areas is also helpful to senior administrators. But mainly we disseminate the Network Standards, which are a framework for building comprehensive prevention programs on campuses. Holmes: The Network Standards interface with the standards of the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS), which are validated by professionals across the student affairs profession. That has served us at Wake Forest very well in terms of the five-year mid-cycle and 10-year accreditation review. When we refer to those standards, we are positioning ourselves well in terms of our overall student affairs practice. In addition, a member of the Network Executive Committee has a seat on the CAS Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Programs committee. The Network also interfaces with other professional organizations like NASPA, student affairs administrators in higher education, which has its Alcohol and Other Drug Knowledge Community. This broadens us beyond the 18 Network regions into the national NASPA network, which expands our scope dramatically. All that flows back to help practitioners and junior and mid-level administrators support their senior administrators in this important work. Q: Senior administrators have a lot of responsibilities on their campuses, but what incentives are there for them to get involved with prevention efforts? Kesner: If the senior student affairs administrator is at the table with the chief business and academic officers and others and such issues as student retention, risk management, and the cost and the consequences of substance use come up, there are teachable moments. And one of the greatest ways to get the attention of any administrator is to talk about fiscal implications. Lapelle: Another area is the cost associated with cleaning up litter or repairing property that is often connected to alcohol or other drug use. And community relations is an incentive for those campuses that are making a visible effort to reduce adverse consequences, especially in the community. Holmes: Incentives include health, safety, and overall risk management concerns, coupled with a desire to educate students as they grow and develop in the collegiate environment. Sexual misconduct and gender relations is a painful area for us in our work. I would say that at Wake Forest a substantial percentage of those problems are associated with alcohol and to a lesser extent other drug use or abuse in some way. Q: One of the findings from the Experiences in Effective Prevention publication is the importance of campus and community collaborations. What can senior administrators do to promote such collaborations in the community surrounding their campuses to reduce some of the town-gown tension that we see in many college towns across the country? Holmes: The Alcohol Coalition at Wake Forest is chaired by the associate dean for judicial affairs. Members include representatives from the counseling center, student health, student leadership, athletics, both local and campus police, proprietors of licensed establishments, and the local substance abuse prevention coalition. The coalition establishes an agenda of issues to address over the course of an academic year. Regarding town-gown relations, we also have a university and city of Winston-Salem partnership [Coalition For Drug Abuse Prevention], which includes the residence life and housing office, my office, city and university police, and a neighborhood association adjoining the campus. The Alcohol Coalition and our university area-community partnership complement each other in many respects. Having vice presidential or senior administrator support for these coalitions means everything because, as was said earlier, they set the tone. Join the Network! 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 collaborative AOD prevention efforts among colleges and universities through electronic 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 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 November 2008, Network membership stood at 1,612 postsecondary institutions. To learn more about the Network and how your campus can become a member, visit the Network's Web site. Resources For resources of interest to campus leadership, click on the following publications from the Higher Education Center's publications collection: Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention on College Campuses: Model Programs Alcohol and Other Drugs on Campus-The Scope of the Problem Alcohol and Other Drugs: Prevention Challenges at Community Colleges Be Vocal, Be Visible, Be Visionary: Recommendations for College and University Presidents on Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Community College Presidents' Role in Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Prevention Complying With the Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Regulations [EDGAR Part 86]: A Guide for University and College Administrators Experiences in Effective Prevention: The U.S. Department of Education's Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Models on College Campuses Grants Preventing Violence and Promoting Safety in Higher Education Settings: Overview of a Comprehensive Approach Prevention File: Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs (Spring 2008) Safe Lanes on Campus: A Guide for Preventing Impaired Driving and Underage Drinking Which Alcohol Policies Work? Efforts to Curb Campus-Drinking Excesses Have Stagnated 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, Amber Dillard, Kathie Gorham, Rob Hylton, Linda Langford, Julie Lapham, Anne O'Neill, Michelle Richard, and Lance Segars 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 * Resources, referrals, and consultations * Training and professional development activities * Publication and dissemination of prevention materials * Assessment, evaluation, and analysis activities * Web site featuring online resources, news, and information * Support for the Network Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues 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 Tara Hill. 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.