From Competition To Collaboration 
College Alcohol Prevention in An Era of Competing Risks

The following is an excerpt from a paper by Thomas A. Workman, Baylor College 
of Medicine and University of Houston–Downtown; Linda Major, University of 
Nebraska–Lincoln; and Darby Dickerson, Stetson University College of Law, 
that was presented at the 30th Annual National Conference on Law and Higher 
Education of Stetson University’s Center for Excellence in Higher Education 
Law and Policy, which took place in February 2009 at the Caribe Royale 
Resort, Orlando, Fla. It is reprinted here with the authors’ permissions.

Since the turn of the century, excessive drinking among college students—once 
viewed as the number one problem facing college campuses less than a decade 
ago—has been joined by a set of equally concerning student behaviors ranging 
from prescription medication abuse, lack of compliance to mental health 
therapies, cyber-stalking, sexual assault, rape, and acts of violence, some 
involving guns and other weapons. The incidents at Virginia Tech and Northern 
Illinois University created a new set of realities about the dangers students 
face on campus, and led many institutions to begin security task forces and 
student at-risk response teams that drew attention, resources, and time away 
from issues that seemed to be less dramatic or litigious. Combined with the 
belief that alcohol is an “old” and fairly intractable issue that has found 
less limelight in the national media in the past five years—particularly 
following the flurry of media attention on college drinking that occurred in 
the mid-to-late 1990s—and the belief that most campuses now have at least 
some basic plan to address the excessive drinking of college students, it’s 
easy to see why alcohol use has, in some institutions, lost its aura of 
urgency on the long list of administrative concerns. 

What has not changed is the continued excessive use of alcohol among college 
students and the host of physical, legal, and academic problems that 
accompany it. The problem of high-risk alcohol consumption and subsequent 
harms among college students remains relatively the same in size and scope 
across the United States as it did when researchers and institutions began in 
earnest to re-address the issue on a national (and federally funded) scale 
more than 20 years ago. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism still estimates that approximately 1,700 college students die in 
alcohol-related incidents annually (most from drunk driving). The good news 
is that high-risk drinking rates have declined in the United States in the 
past decade. The bad news is that the numbers are still dangerously high. In 
fact a recent study, based on information collected over a 27-year period by 
the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, found that binge drinking by men 
between 18 and 20 years old who did not attend college dropped by more than 
30 percent over that period but remained statistically unchanged among 
similar-aged men on campus. There was no difference between college and 
noncollege women in the 18- to 20-year age group but a big upsurge in binge 
drinking by older college women. 

Some progress has been made at several institutions that have implemented a 
wide range of strategies under top administrative support, but these 
institutions prove to be the exception rather than the rule. 

Costs to institutions—in staff time used to police and adjudicate the vast 
number of alcohol-related incidents that occur regularly throughout the year, 
in lost tuition from students whose alcohol use halted their academic 
progress, and in damage to campus property (not to mention the loss of 
positive publicity within the community) from the drunken escapades of 
students—also add to the quiet daily damages caused by excessive drinking 
rates. While none of these incidents may ever make it onto the public’s 
radar, the opportunities for a significant tragedy are ever present. More 
importantly, the collateral damage—of the thousands of assaults, unwanted 
sexual advances, and alcohol-related illnesses that occur in any given year 
due to high-risk drinking—has a profound impact on the health and well-being 
of the students. Not effectively addressing high-risk drinking among college 
students continues to be a recipe for disaster. More importantly, evidence is 
now building that institutions with strong prevention programs may be 
attracting students and parents who are looking for a safer environment more 
conducive to academic success, making institutions with “party school” 
reputations less attractive to top students. 

As institutions move rapidly to “continuum of care” models where student 
physical and mental wellness becomes everyone’s business, a variety of 
student needs will be discovered or at least recognized. Having effective 
alcohol prevention and intervention systems in place will be as critical now 
as it was when the national media focused its lens on our campuses’ problem. 

Ironically, the field of alcohol prevention has grown significantly during 
this same era. The past two decades have yielded a large harvest of survey 
data, research studies, government agency task force reports, public and 
private grant-funded projects, and program evaluations, all of which have 
helped focus our understanding of the problem of excessive alcohol 
consumption and our approaches to address it. We’ve come to realize, for 
example, that college student drinking patterns and outcomes are influenced 
by a variety of personal, social, cultural, and environmental factors, 
requiring comprehensive prevention programs that offer a simultaneous mix of 
education programs, individual intervention opportunities, and modifications 
to the broader campus-community environment. More importantly, we now have 
evaluations suggesting that making significant changes in the host of high-
risk behaviors among college students require campuses to engage in 
strategic, comprehensive approaches using a broad coalition of campus and 
community stakeholders. 

The general message from the literature is that campuses cannot see 
significant improvement through the implementation of one or two carefully 
placed strategies; if they really want to see cultural change occur and the 
risk of harm decline, an entire campus-community needs to calculate, 
collaborate, and coordinate a comprehensive strategic plan that connects all 
sectors of the campus and community. 

According to the most recent Senior Administrators Survey conducted by the 
U.S. Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other 
Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, only 16 percent of our nation’s campuses 
had a campus-community coalition that met regularly in the past year to work 
on broad community-based environmental issues. Close to 23 percent of the 
campuses surveyed said that they had a campus alcohol task force that meets 
regularly to address alcohol problems merely on campus. Despite our knowledge 
of the role of coalitions in creating change—and proof of its effectiveness—
campus-communities struggle to implement this approach, much less think 
collaboratively about how their work may be broadened to affect the shared 
intersections of multiple risk behaviors. 

Much of this is the result of our own institutional culture, where the 
tradition in higher education has been the individualization of academic 
fields and the separation of student affairs from academic affairs. Even 
within student affairs, increasing specialization threatens to make 
collaborative attempts at solving student risk problems more difficult. 
Even with the best of intentions, divisions of student affairs struggle to 
align their units toward collaborative goals as limited resources, expanding 
job duties, and pressure to justify unit existence by number of students 
served all serve to derail or weaken collaborative opportunities. 

Operating as silos, addressing only the student behaviors that relate to our 
specific arena, may allow us to justify our role (and budget) at the 
institution, but it does little for us when attempting to solve the causes of 
student behavior problems rather than simply treat the symptoms. In times of 
limited resources—both financial and human—it creates an awkward competition 
where each unit tries to prove the need for its existence rather than its 
synergistic role in creating a positive, healthy living and learning 
experience—the ultimate mission of the institution. 

Rather than compete for the attention of administrators, shrinking budget 
dollars, and committed task force members, institutional units focusing on 
alcohol, other drug, sexual and relationship violence, cyber-bullying, mental 
health, and campus safety might find better success in seeking intersections 
and finding ways for creative collaboration. Several emerging trends in 
campus safety and security provide new opportunities for holistic thinking 
and interconnected systems that may help campuses approach the broader 
spectrum of needs. 

A variety of intersections between these risk behaviors have already been 
explored, particularly between the relationship of alcohol and violence, and 
though there is no general pattern that enables a single strategy to fully 
address both issues, there are common factors worth exploring. 

Three points of intersection seem particularly relevant and worth campuswide 
collaboration. The first is in the discovery and modification of 
environmental elements that encourage or enable unhealthy or dangerous 
behaviors. These elements—ranging from open access and availability to 
inexpensive alcohol to the existence of alcohol-centered rituals, traditions, 
and practices across the community—enable a set of social norms about high-
risk drinking and create the spaces and places across the community where 
high-risk drinking and related behaviors are tolerated and at times 
encouraged. Abundant evidence now shows that, when fully engaged and driven 
by local data, changing the risk environment for college students through a 
coalition-based, comprehensive strategic plan can and does make a difference. 
Yet, as is obvious from the number of institutions that are not fully engaged 
in this process, the comprehensive environmental approach is difficult and 
requires full support from upper administration, involvement from all campus 
and community stakeholders, and staff direction that is skilled at community 
organizing as well as prevention. The investment is long-term, and the 
changes can occur slowly, especially for a campus and community that is not 
familiar or comfortable with collaborative initiatives. 

The second surrounds the use of social norms, which involves communicating a 
wide array of normative behaviors and values of the majority of students that 
is often silenced by the loud voices and cultural depictions of the highest-
risk minority. By disallowing the continued misperceptions of students that 
“everyone” engages in a variety of high-risk behaviors or shares high-risk or 
destructive, antisocial attitudes and values, and by highlighting the many 
acts of self-care, responsibility, wellness, nonviolence, civic engagement, 
spiritual development, and healthy relationships that are also occurring 
daily on and off the campus, the culture begins to reset its perceptions of 
the “college experience” and high-risk behaviors that are clearly out of the 
cultural norm are marginalized. Normative work is most effective, however, 
only after the environment itself is able to support the claims of behavior 
or values that it touts. If a student sees a poster or reads a message about 
how most of his peers at the institution engage in nonviolent conflict 
resolution, and all the student sees is fighting, hazing, pranks, and drunken 
aggression in his or her corner of the campus-community, then all the 
normative messages in the world won’t have an impact. 

The third shared approach surrounds intervention. A good deal of support 
exists for the many forms this can take, from brief motivational interactions 
between students and academic or resident advisors, health professionals, 
counselors, judicial affairs officers, or faculty, to more direct 
interventions where any of those parties, along with family and friends, can 
voice concern about a student’s welfare or behavior with someone who can 
intervene. Intervention strategies are useful for a host of behavioral 
problems, and though the strategy has been studied most around the issue of 
high-risk drinking, campuses are developing effective ways to offer 
behavioral intervention in ways that are not intrusive, disruptive, and in 
violation of privacy laws. As the Virginia Tech Report suggests, intervention 
systems are needed that enable easy reporting of concern about student 
behavior or academic progress from a wide array of campus community members 
along with well-trained advisors who are able to effectively connect students 
with appropriate resources and assistance. 

Once again, such efforts require campuswide collaboration in order to be 
effective, and also need a level of skill by those engaged in the process. 
Training a wider array of faculty, staff, and administrators to recognize 
potential student issues is a starting point for identifying potential 
problems, but the deeper question surrounds what to do with those identified 
by those who respond to referrals. 

Collaboration is critical to all these efforts, as is holistic thinking about 
the institution and the needs of the students who live within it. A 
collaborative mind-set is unable to see student alcohol issues as greater 
than or lesser than any other challenge to student safety and wellness; it is 
part of the current social and cultural mix that, when approached from a 
broader cooperative team, is added to the thinking around system design, 
environmental management, culture-shaping, and individual intervention.

A Public Health Approach to Mental Health Promotion 
by Laurie Davidson 

There is no doubt that there is a problem of untreated mental illness on the 
nation’s campuses. Studies have found that the majority of students who 
report being depressed are not in treatment and that most students who die by 
suicide have not been seen by the counseling center. 

These reports have stimulated frequent calls for more clinical counseling 
staff on campus. But responses focused on the individual—such as treatment—do 
not address the social and environmental risk factors that influence student 
mental health: access to alcohol, isolation and alienation, peer rejection, 
and academic and work stress. 

A focus on treatment also misses opportunities to address student mental 
health problems and suicide risk before intensive and costly treatment 
services are required. Students with financial problems or students who 
experience a low quality of social support are more likely to report being 
depressed or suicidal—but don’t necessarily need clinical services early on. 
Perhaps providing assistance as a student works through financial 
difficulties or creating structures that encourage social connection would 
prevent mental health disorders from developing in these students. 
  
An increasing number of campuses are correctly taking the position that 
treatment alone is not the answer and asserting that the burden of solving 
student mental health problems should not be borne solely by the counseling 
center. Rather, student mental illness is a public health problem, and 
promoting the mental wellness of students is the responsibility of everyone 
on campus. 

Changing how administrators respond to student mental health problems 
requires a paradigm shift much like the one campuses have experienced in 
thinking about alcohol and other drug prevention during the last 20 years. We 
must go beyond simply providing education and treatment services and prevent 
mental health problems from arising by promoting the mental health of all 
students. 

As with the prevention of alcohol and other drug problems and violence on 
campus, a comprehensive, multi-strategy approach is needed. The Jed 
Foundation and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration’s Suicide Prevention Resource Center recommend seven areas of 
strategic direction for campuses to pursue. They are: 
• Increase social connection. The creation of living and learning 
environments is one example of a strategy designed to promote social networks 
as a protective factor against the development of mental health and other 
problems. 
• Improve life skills. Relationship problems, emotional immaturity, and poor 
work skills and habits are determinants of mental health disorders. 
Improving critical life skills such as problem-solving, decision-making, and 
conflict resolution is key to reducing risk. 
• Improve crisis response. All of the administrators and staff who have a 
role in addressing distressed or suicidal students and maintaining the safety 
of the campus community must understand what actions they are expected to 
take. The Jed Foundation’s Framework for Developing Institutional Protocols 
for the Acutely Distressed or Suicidal College Student provides a blueprint 
for protocol development.
• Identify students at risk. Gatekeeper training is perhaps the most common 
program for identifying and referring students in distress. Screening 
programs such as the Jed Foundation’s free resource called ULifeline are also 
being used.
• Increase help-seeking behavior. Students turn first to friends, family, or 
a significant other when they are in distress, rather than seeking 
professional help. Campuses employ gatekeeper training, peer-to-peer programs 
such as the nonprofit ActiveMinds, and the American Foundation for Suicide 
Prevention’s Interactive Screening Program to encourage greater help-seeking.
• Restrict access to lethal means. Access to potentially lethal means is a 
risk factor for suicide. The national Means Matter Web site developed by the 
Harvard School of Public Health offers suggestions for scanning the campus 
environment for methods a suicidal student might use. 
• Ensure access to appropriate, quality services. To stretch limited 
resources, counseling centers have implemented brief, same-day appointments 
by telephone or in person for a quick assessment and referral and offered 
four-session “feel better fast” psycho-educational groups for students who 
may not need individual therapy in which participants rapidly learn tools for 
managing stress, sleeping better, and transforming negative thoughts into 
positive steps.

No matter how effective the services, an approach that focuses solely on 
getting more and more students into treatment will only work if counseling 
centers have unfettered access to increasing resources to support the 
expanding number of students seeking care. A public health approach to 
prevention in the mental health field can leverage fewer resources to benefit 
more students.

A comprehensive, strategic approach has worked to reduce alcohol problems on 
many campuses. There is every reason to believe a public health approach to 
promoting mental wellness will also bring a positive result.

Laurie Davidson manages the campus program of the Suicide Prevention Resource 
Center funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. She 
served on the staff of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 
Abuse and Violence Prevention from 1998 to 2006.

Message From Kevin Jennings, OSDFS Assistant Deputy Secretary 
According to research, students experiencing poor mental health or depression 
are more likely to report drinking-related harm and alcohol abuse. In 
addition, counseling centers at colleges and universities are reporting 
increases in the number of incoming students who have had psychiatric 
treatment. A survey in 2008 conducted by the American College Health 
Association found that 8.5 percent of students had seriously considered 
suicide, and 15 percent were diagnosed for depression, up from 10 percent in 
2000. The Anxiety Disorders Association of America found that 13 percent of 
students at major universities and 25 percent at liberal arts colleges are 
using campus mental health services. 

Responding to growing concerns over the mental health of troubled college 
students, this issue of Catalyst addresses what some campuses are doing to 
support the overall health and safety of their students. Thomas Workman, of 
Baylor College of Medicine and University of Houston–Downtown, Linda Major, 
of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, and Darby 
Dickerson, of the Stetson University College of Law, call for greater 
collaboration to support a continuum of care to support the physical and 
mental health of students. At the University of Minnesota, the Provost’s 
Committee on Student Mental Health addressed ways to remove barriers to 
effective services. A commentary from Laurie Davidson of the Suicide 
Prevention Resource Center urges campuses to adopt a public health approach 
to mental health prevention services. Syracuse University trains gatekeepers 
to identify students at risk for suicide and to help them get assistance.

Supporting Mental Health Services at the University of Minnesota 
When people think about college students with disabilities, what usually 
comes to mind are students with learning disorders or physical challenges. 
But in 1999, Disability Services at the University of Minnesota, a unit 
within the Office for Equity and Diversity, found that the largest group they 
served was students with psychiatric disabilities. The staff then decided to 
learn more about these students in order to meet their needs better. The 
result is a campuswide mental health program called the Provost’s Committee 
on Student Mental Health that can be a model for colleges across the country. 

It all started in October 2001 when Barbara Blacklock, program coordinator 
for disability services at the University of Minnesota, and 
Betty Benson, associate director of disability services, received a $150,000 
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) grant from the 
U.S. Department of Education. Blacklock and Benson, who now cochair the 
provost’s committee, gathered comprehensive data about barriers and 
opportunities for students with psychiatric disabilities. Over 18 months, 
they visited 13 colleges across the country, speaking to focus groups of 
students, faculty and staff, and on- and off-campus providers. 

On all campuses, they found that barriers to full participation in college 
were consistent and included stigmas and stereotypes associated with mental 
health problems, the complex nature of psychiatric disabilities, 
organizational and institutional barriers, limited student resources, and 
limited student access to information and services. 

As part of the study, Blacklock and Benson identified four strategies to 
remove these barriers to mental health. They are: 
• Improve coordination and collaboration to develop a cross-campus approach 
to the problem; 
• Ensure access to resources and training for students and faculty; 
• Use principles of universal instructional design (ways that teachers can 
provide universal access to their courses for a population of diverse 
learners); and 
• Reduce student isolation. 

By the time the FIPSE grant ended in 2003, Blacklock and Benson had gathered 
a wealth of information on issues faced by students experiencing mental 
health problems. This information was then presented to colleagues on campus, 
with the goal of getting attention to these issues and commitment from top-
level administrators to do something. A working group of eight volunteers 
began to meet over lunch to discuss ways to meet the needs of these students. 

Blacklock described the environment on the 45,000-student campus at the time. 

“If you looked up ‘depression’ on the University of Minnesota Web site, you 
got a bunch of research papers but nothing to help students experiencing 
depression,” she said. 

After Blacklock and Benson met with the provost to present their data and 
recommendations, the environment started to change. In 2005, the provost, in 
coordination with Blacklock and Benson, invited 14 key campus offices to join 
the new Provost’s Committee on Student Mental Health. The committee includes 
high-level personnel from many facets of campus life, including mental health 
services, instructional centers, graduate schools, housing services, and law 
enforcement. 

Benson says the committee began by reaching out to students with mental 
illness but has since moved to improving mental health campuswide. 

“The goal is a healthy campus,” she says. “Students who experience normal 
day-to-day stress need help, as do those diagnosed with mental health 
problems.” 

The committee is proactive in addressing campus mental health, in contrast to 
most other colleges, which Benson says tend to be reactive. 

The committee’s work revolves around a fourfold charge. First, it strives to 
raise awareness about issues related to student mental health. It created a 
constantly evolving Web site, http://www.mentalhealth.umn.edu, that features 
information about available accommodations for students with psychiatric 
disabilities, resources and services for all students, and ways to address 
specific problems proactively. Launched with great fanfare in February 2007, 
it attracted 15,000 student hits in two weeks. The committee continues to 
call attention to the Web site by distributing information cards and sending 
e-mails. 

Another strategy to raise awareness is a statement that the committee 
developed in 2006 for display on all course syllabi. It recognizes that 
students have mental health concerns and experience stress, tells students 
that the university has resources for them, and urges them to visit the Web 
site to learn more.

“Students realize that stress is a normal thing,” says Blacklock, “but if you 
ignore it, it can damage you academically.”

A second charge of the Provost’s Committee on Student Mental Health is to 
affect policy change. For example, in spring 2009, the committee successfully 
urged the faculty senate to adopt a new bereavement policy. It includes 
“bereavement” as a circumstance under which students cannot be penalized for 
missed assignments.

The committee also pushed for a change in student health insurance. Since 
2008, those covered by the university policy during the spring semester 
receive coverage during the summer, even if they are not enrolled in summer 
school. This enables students to maintain their regular mental health 
treatment services.

A third committee charge is to improve conditions on campus for students with 
mental health problems. Here, educating faculty and staff can make a big 
difference. So committee members speak to various campus groups about the 
extent of the problem and ways in which student mental health affects an 
entire campus.
  
More formal training is also offered, either as an interactive online class 
or a collaborative in-person session. These formal sessions teach how to spot 
students with mental health issues, how to approach them, and how to direct 
them to available services. As evidence that the training is working, 
Blacklock points to instructors who have requested lists of resources for 
students experiencing stress during exam periods.
  
The committee sponsors poster campaigns, films, lectures, and festivals—all 
designed to minimize the stigma of psychiatric disabilities. Committee 
members write letters to the editor that correct misinformation that may 
appear in the campus newspaper. 
  
According to Benson, conditions have improved and people are open to talking 
about and addressing issues of student mental health. 

Blacklock agrees. She said students who come to disability services are often 
reluctant to admit they have mental health issues.

“When you show them the Web site and tell them that students with psychiatric 
disabilities are the biggest group we serve, they open up,” she says. 
“Students are moved when they see that the campus places emphasis on it.”

The fourth and final charge of the committee is to serve as a model of 
collaboration for the University of Minnesota and other campuses. 
According to Blacklock and Ben-son, collaboration is key to success. 
It was a priority from the beginning when the provost asked a cross section 
of campus offices to participate. Now these offices and others have a new 
perspective on student mental health.

“Disability services always had good relations with mental health and 
counseling services,” says Benson. “But the committee has strengthened 
relationships with people across campus. The stronger the relationships are, 
the better the services are for the students.”

The provost’s committee is action-oriented, and members are accountable for 
promises they have made.

“It’s clear we are a working group,” says Blacklock, “and the work must be 
done.”

But hard work and accountability are not the only reasons for success. The 
committee enjoys the provost’s support, and because it used the information 
acquired in the FIPSE study, its work is research-based.

In addition to focusing on its current mission, the committee is building 
toward future sustainability. It has moved in this direction by cultivating 
administrative support, maintaining a small budget, and becoming a resource 
for top administration officials. The cochairs play a critical role by 
monitoring progress on committee projects, creating pride and respect among 
committee members, and highlighting the importance of collaboration.

The success of the provost’s committee has led to interest from other 
campuses that want to replicate the program. Blacklock says that although 
barriers for students with psychiatric disabilities are always the same, 
strategies to address these barriers can vary from campus to campus. She 
urges individual campuses to choose one of the four strategies identified in 
the FIPSE study and do some work using that strategy.

“You can have a great conversation, but it’s only a conversation until 
something happens,” she says.

Benson adds, “You need to build connections, find like-minded people. You 
also need high-level connections and support.”

Reflecting on the committee’s work, Blacklock remembers students in the FIPSE 
focus groups who shared powerful personal stories. They asked researchers to 
“promise that this won’t sit on a bookshelf somewhere.”

Thanks to the University of Minnesota’s Provost’s Committee on Student Mental 
Health, it hasn’t. On the contrary, its influence is expanding. 

“It’s become more than we ever dreamed,” says Benson. “We’re all astounded at 
what we’ve accomplished.”

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:
Phyllis Scattergood, Education Program Specialist, and Contracting 
Officer’s Representative for the Higher Education Center
Phyllis.Scattergood@ed.gov; 
202-245-7880

Amalia Cuervo, Education Program Specialist
Amalia.Cuervo@ed.gov; 
202-245-7881

Relaying the Message 
News from the Front 
by Robert J. Chapman 

T he Network Addressing Collegiate 
Alcohol and Other Drug Issues (Network) would like to recognize the 
outstanding contribution of Robert Chapman for his work as editor of News 
from the Front. As a volunteer for the Network, Chapman has selflessly given 
of his time and talents to provide excellent information and education to the 
prevention field through News from the Front. Without Chapman’s intelligent 
vision for the publication as well as his tireless work ethic and keen eye 
for useful information for our work in prevention, the Network would not have 
been able to provide its 1,600+ members with such a comprehensive and useful 
document. On behalf of the 
Network Executive Committee and volunteers of the Network, we salute Chapman 
for his excellent contributions to our organization and the field of 
prevention. 
  
In his book News from the Front: War Correspondents on the Western Front 
1914–1918, Martin J. Farrar, to quote from the Amazon.com review, uses “real 
newspaper reports from the period [to examine] how the perception by the 
military of World War I newspaper correspondents changed, from banned outlaws 
initially to official mouthpieces by 1918.” Although it is not from this tome 
that the Network took the name of its newsletter News from the Front (NFTF), 
it does capture the essence of what the Network was trying to convey as a war 
correspondent of sorts regarding efforts to address collegiate problems 
associated with alcohol and other drug use in higher education. 

Begun in August 2002 as a simple weekly e-mail composed by me, when I was the 
coordinator of the Pennsylvania Region of the Network, this correspondence 
with the field matured into a formal newsletter that was published regularly 
throughout the academic year until early in 2009, when the decision was made 
by the Network Executive Committee to suspend publication while the 
priorities of the Network were reassessed and the future role of NFTF 
reviewed to see how it could best service the field. 

Begun in 1987 by the U.S. Department of Education, the Network is a voluntary 
membership organization whose member institutions agree to work toward a set 
of standards aimed at reducing alcohol and other drug problems at colleges 
and universities. It has more than 1,600 members nationwide. The mission of 
the Network is to proactively “[address] the issues of alcohol, other drugs, 
and violence in order to promote healthy campus environments through self-
regulatory initiatives, information dissemination, and technical assistance. 
The Network serves as a liaison between the U.S. Department of Education and 
member institutions as well as other higher education professional 
organizations. Member institutions encourage and enhance local, state, 
regional, and national initiatives through a commitment to shared standards 
for policy development, educational strategies, enforcement, evaluation, and 
community collaboration.” 

Because an integral function of the Network’s mission is the dissemination of 
information, it was only fitting that the informational e-mail sent to the 
field in mid-2002 be expanded and formalized into an electronic newsletter 
that could serve to keep Network member institutions along with their staff 
members and faculties informed about the latest news and information coming 
from the front—both the arts and sciences poles of the academic continuum 
with regard to issues of prevention in general and alcohol and other drugs 
specifically. 

As the format of the newsletter evolved through the years, various features 
were added to the simple e-missive that permitted a focus on topics related 
to alcohol, other  
drugs, and violence prevention at America’s colleges and universities. 
Typically, issues would include Network News, tidbits culled from the 
electronic versions of newspapers, magazines, and other media in the popular 
culture, as well as snippets about scientific research that would often 
include electronic links to more in-depth discussions if not actual copies of 
scientific articles and research data on issues related to topics of interest 
to higher education. 

To provide resources as well as information, links to interactive Web sites 
or online tools that could assist prevention specialists and counselors in 
their work with individual students, peer education groups, and in-class 
presentations were shared. With many of today’s alcohol and other drug 
prevention responsibilities falling on the shoulders of a half-time 
practitioner or perhaps a single professional whose responsibility it was, 
not only to present prevention programs but also interview individual 
students and conduct assessments, NFTF attempted to concentrate on specific 
tools and resources that could be shared with professionals to lighten their 
load while at the same time incorporate the rapidly advancing electronic 
technology into their practitioner’s toolbox. And because humor is such a 
great tool to reduce tension and often functions as a segue to a different 
focus, trivia and quotations from notable if not erudite sources on issues 
related to alcohol and other drugs were employed to fill out the newsletter 
and enhance its readability. 

Examples of NFTF Articles 
• The inaugural edition in August 2002 included “Making a Difference.” Have 
you ever been driving down the road after it got dark and forgotten to turn 
your lights on? And when a car coming the other direction would flash its 
bright lights at you, what would you do? Chances are you are thinking the 
same thing I said when asked, “I check my lights and turn them on.” Well, 
this is what flashbrights.com is all about . . . making a difference by 
courteously intervening in the high-risk behavior of another. 

The URL for this interesting Web site is http://www.flashbrights.com but one 
of the more interesting and useful pages on the site is 
http://www.flashbrights.com/studies.htm as it is dedicated to “case studies” 
about students who have employed this simple intervention technique. 
• March 29, 2004: “Brief Mail/Computer-Generated Interventions for Young 
People.” Health professionals who are concerned about hazardous drinking 
among young people can take heart: research indicates that brief intervention 
methods relying on mail or computers are both appealing and effective among 
this hard-to-reach population. See 
http://www.nattc.org/pdf/ASME_Book/09prevention.pdf. 
• May 25, 2005: “Marijuana Withdrawal?” The issue of whether or not there is 
a distinct withdrawal syndrome associated with marijuana use has been 
discussed for some time. New research on the topic is reported in the latest 
issue of the journal of Drug and Alcohol Dependence. To read more visit 
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=24083.
• Oct. 31, 2006: “A ‘Strategic’ Approach to Drinking, Pre-game, pre-party, 
pre-funk ... how to pre-vent?” The article describes strategies to control 
the ubiquitous “pre-party,” generally defined as a small group of students 
drinking together in a dorm room or other private space prior to an actual 
party or social event. To read the article, visit 
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/23/pre_game. 
• May 16, 2008: “The Relative Effectiveness of 10 Adolescent Substance Abuse 
Treatment Programs in the United States.” For a free download of this RAND 
Corporation report, visit http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR346/.

To expand beyond the simple reporting of the news, a Spinning the Science 
section was added in 2006. The purpose of this feature was to present readers 
with an opportunity to think about contemporary issues of the day:
• Jan. 15, 2007: “Spinning the Science.” Here is a link to a tongue-in-cheek 
spoof for a movie trailer. It presents a humorous example of just how easy it 
can be to spin the facts in order to represent one’s personal opinion. Visit 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T5_0AGdFic. 

Yet another innovation of the newsletter was the solicitation of op-ed pieces 
from the field. This was a way for the Network to give a voice to the field 
as well as solicit some interaction from readers who were regular subscribers 
or visitors to the NFTF blog (http://thenetworkws.blogspot.com/—visit to read 
some back issues of NFTF). Examples include:
• Jan. 31, 2007: “NFTF Guest Editorial: Limiting Alcohol at Sporting Venues.” 
David Wolfe, adjunct professor at Champlain College and director of training 
for Green Mountain Concert Services, presents an interesting overview of the 
impact of limiting the availability of alcohol in various sporting/concert 
venues. To read this provocative op-ed piece, visit 
http://thenetwork.ws/documents/news/wolfe%20OP-ED.pdf.
• May 16, 2007: “Alcohol and Social Networking Sites: A Dangerous Combination 
for Students.” This op-ed piece from Amber Dillard, formerly of the U.S. 
Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 
Abuse and Violence Prevention, discusses the attractions and pitfalls of 
social networking sites. To read the op-ed, visit 
http://thenetworkws.blogspot.com/2007/05/news-from-front.html.

Finally, a long-standing feature in NFTF was its inclusion of Online 
Resources. Here are some examples:
• Indicator Reporting Programs. A valuable tool to illustrate local substance 
use problems and track the impact of efforts to address them. 
Visit http://www.indicators handbook.org/. 
• Health Policy Guide. This guide provides evidence-based, peer-reviewed 
policy guidance and resources to support advocacy and decision-making at the 
state and local levels. Search or browse over 150 policy topics below. Visit 
http://www.healthpolicy guide.org/default.asp. 
• Brief Counseling for Marijuana Dependence: A Manual for Treating Adults. 
For a free PDF version, visit 
https://ncadistore.samhsa.gov/catalog/productDetails.aspx?ProductID=17106.
• Helping Patients Who Drink Too Much: A Clinician’s Guide. This publication 
and related professional support resources are posted at 
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/Publications/EducationTrainingMaterials/guide.htm. 
• SoundSnap. Visit this free online sound library at 
http://www.soundsnap.com/.

As the Network has grown as an organization and as the field of alcohol and 
other drug prevention in higher education has become more defined as a 
profession, it is heartening to consider that News from the Front has, 
perhaps, played some small role in facilitating that change. As any 
counseling professional will tell you, change is the name of the game. To 
make a difference as we walk our individual paths is not difficult to do. As 
a matter of fact, we cannot not make a difference simply by being here. The 
trick is to increase the likelihood that the difference we make is a positive 
one.
  
From those correspondents reporting from the trenches in 
Europe during the First World War through all who have chosen to report the 
news from the front in whatever way during the decades since, there has been 
and remains to be a commitment to what NFTF has had as its motto from its 
first publication: “Good decisions begin with accurate information.” 

Sidebar
Network Awards Two Student Research Awards in 2009
The Network is pleased to announce its 2009 recipients of the Margaret J. 
Barr Student Research Award: Ross Aikins, University of California-Los 
Angeles, and Diane Logan, University of Washington.

Both recipients will receive a $5,000 award to further their research in 
issues related to alcohol, other drug, and violence prevention in higher 
education. Both will complete their research funded by the award within two 
years and a synopsis of their work will be posted on the Network’s Web site. 

Aikins’ research focuses on student use and abuse of prescription drugs 
through interviews with students about their use. Logan’s research project 
examines the BASICS (Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College 
Students) approach at the University of Washington and the University of 
Tennessee. 

The Network congratulates these outstanding scholars on their tremendous 
achievements. For more information about the Margaret J. Barr Student 
Research Award, please visit the Network’s Web site at http://thenetwork.ws. 

Syracuse University Trains Gatekeepers to Identify At-Risk Students
College years can be a vulnerable time for students, especially when it comes 
to suicide. A 2006 survey of 26,000 students compiled by the National 
Research Consortium of Counseling Centers in Higher Education, housed at the 
University of Texas Counseling and Mental Health Center, suggests that more 
than half of college students have had thoughts about suicide at one time or 
another. 
  
The study, called “The Nature of Suicidal Crises in College Students,” found 
that of the 15,010 undergraduates who completed the online survey, 55 percent 
reported that they had ever thought of suicide, 18 percent seriously 
considered it, and 8 percent made a suicide attempt. Among 11,441 graduate 
students in the survey, half had suicidal thoughts, 15 percent seriously 
considered it, and 6 percent made an attempt. 
  
The reasons students gave for having these suicidal thoughts were relief from 
emotional or physical pain, romantic problems, and school or academic 
problems. They described their feelings as intense and brief, lasting one day 
or less. More than half of those who experienced a suicidal crisis did not 
look for professional help.
  
Study author David J. Drum of the University of Texas and his coauthors 
suggest that instead of focusing only on students in crisis, a new model 
should be developed to include everyone who has suicidal thoughts. Prevention 
needs to involve a cross section of campus personnel. According to Drum, this 
would reduce the percentage of students who engage in suicidal thinking, who 
contemplate how to make an attempt, and who continue to make attempts. 
  
That was also the idea behind Syracuse University’s Campus Connect program, 
which provides gatekeepers with state-of-the-art training that addresses more 
than just statistics and facts about suicide. Broadly defined, gatekeepers 
are those individuals who are in regular contact with students and, as a 
result of that contact, are in a position to assist in identifying and 
referring students to appropriate mental health resources. They may include, 
but are not limited to, residence life staff, health center staff, academic 
advisers, career counselors, faculty, campus police, and recognized student 
leaders, such as sorority or fraternity council members or club presidents.

Through the use of experiential exercises and frank discussion about 
gatekeepers’ own fears, Campus Connect prepares gatekeepers for the anxiety-
provoking situation of interacting with a student who is having suicidal 
thoughts and allows gatekeepers to overcome the obstacles that often leave a 
student feeling misunderstood, judged, invalidated, and dismissed.

According to Cory Wallack, director of the Syracuse University Counseling 
Center, the catalyst for Campus Connect was the need for a gatekeeper 
training designed specifically for college campuses. “Over the past five to 
ten years we have observed that college mental health has become a very 
specialized field. I would argue that suicide prevention on a college campus 
is different than in the general community, with different systems, different 
processes, and a slightly different culture. We wanted to design a program 
specifically geared toward suicide prevention with college students but also 
one that reflected an understanding of the mind-set of those faculty and 
staff who are working with students.” 

Campus Connect’s gatekeeper training program places a heavy emphasis on 
relationships by training faculty and staff to develop skills involved in 
intervening with a suicidal student. Wallack points out that most gatekeeper 
training programs include sessions on how to ask about suicidal feelings and 
how to make referrals to the counseling center. 
“We wanted to add a component on how to connect with students in crisis—to 
help them feel understood and that you care about them. That is the guiding 
philosophy of Campus Connect,” said Wallack. 

The first group to go through Campus Connect was a sample of resident 
assistants, followed by training of administrative staff of residence life. 
“Their response was phenomenal. From there we went on to train the 
administrative staff of health services, who are primary gatekeepers on most 
campuses. It was a combined top-down and bottom-up approach. We were training 
both administrative personnel and simultaneously training people on the 
ground,” said Wallack. 

Campus Connect has evolved over the last four years based on feedback from 
those who have gone through the training. In addition, Wallack said that when 
Campus Connect went through the application process to be listed on the best 
practices registry of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration’s Suicide Prevention Resource Center a panel of national 
experts reviewed the program and provided feedback that was incorporated in 
the program. 

Campus Connect’s three-hour, interactive training program includes 
information on college student suicide statistics, facts, myths, and warning 
signs and provides instruction on how to ask students if they are thinking 
about suicide and how to refer students to mental health professionals. 
Participants also learn effective communication and relationship-building 
skills and the typical emotional reactions experienced both by students in 
crisis and responding gatekeepers, and they engage in four experiential 
exercises and a guided group role-play.

In order to determine the impact of the training on participants Campus 
Connect staff do a pre- and post- and follow-up assessment with all 
participants. Before the training, they take a battery of assessments that 
ask questions about their confidence levels and their self-efficacy in regard 
to responding to a student in crisis. Then they have a standardized 
assessment to determine their skills in responding to a student in crisis. 
Both immediately after the training and two to three months post training, 
they take the same battery of assessments. 
  
“Improvement in self-efficacy, comfort, and skills has been phenomenally 
strong among residence life staff, health center staff, academic advisers, 
and academic counselors, the groups [from which] we have evaluated the data,” 
said Wallack. “On a different level, we have seen a philosophical shift on 
campus reflecting the message of Campus Connect, which is, ‘Don’t be afraid 
of students in distress.’”
  
For Wallack that shift is evidenced by the tremendous influx in consultations 
with the counseling center, with faculty, staff, and students calling at a 
much greater rate than they have in the past. “That is because Campus Connect 
urges people to reach out for help,” said Wallack. 
  
Wallack believes that by doing broad gatekeeper training across campus, the 
university has reinforced the idea of a public health approach to suicide 
prevention, which is a crucial piece of a comprehensive mental health program 
on campus. But there has to be a public health model because of the number of 
students who are experiencing stress. 
  
“The level of emotional distress is so high and counseling centers just do 
not have enough resources to do everything on their own. Campus Connect’s 
gatekeeper training model helps reinforce the message that this is a 
community effort and not just the counseling center’s responsibility,” said 
Wallack.
  
In fact, Campus Connect is one part of a much larger program at Syracuse 
University. Another program is a mindfulness-based stress reduction program, 
which is a six-week course that is offered directly to students. It teaches 
them skills to deal with stress and anxiety and skills for relaxation. There 
is also a communication campaign that includes a 45-second public service 
announcement from the campus radio station about warning signs of depression 
and how to get help for someone in stress. 

“In conjunction with the Communications Department, Campus Connect created a 
poster, which has our slogan on it, ‘Talk to someone and listen,’ and lists 
the warning signs of depression. These posters are all over campus, in every 
academic building and residence hall,” said Wallack.

A more recent initiative with the Office of Residence Life is the creation of 
a first-year residential curriculum. All first-year students are required to 
live in a residence hall and go through a series of seminars teaching them 
stress reduction, conflict resolution, communication skills, and relationship 
skills. 

Wallack believes that it is crucial for the entire community to be involved 
in supporting the mental health of students. “Everybody in the community can 
help make a difference. A lot of people don’t quite get that idea yet and 
look to the counseling center as the responsible campus resource. That is an 
impossibility, which is why we embrace a public health model when it comes to 
suicide prevention,” said Wallack.  

Sidebar
Strategic Planning for Gatekeeper Training and Suicide Prevention
While gatekeeper training can be an important component of campus suicide 
prevention efforts, Dave Stewart and Laurie Davidson of the Suicide 
Prevention Resource Center in Newton, Mass., suggest that campuses engage in 
strategic planning before putting a specific program into action. In a 
presentation at the 2009 NASPA [Student Affairs Administrators in Higher 
Education] Strategies Conference: Alcohol Abuse Prevention & Intervention, 
held in Boston, Jan. 22–24, 2009, they, along with Cory Wallack of the 
University of Syracuse outlined a process that includes a consideration of 
all the resources, such as time, money, staff, partnerships, and so on, that 
affect the functioning and outcomes of a program. 

A first step in the strategic planning process is to adequately and 
accurately describe the problem on a campus, finding those most at risk for 
mental health problems and suicide through associated risk factors, such as 
academic troubles and financial problems. It is also important to find those 
whom these students actually talk to about their problems. Whom they talk to 
may also be closely linked with the risk factors. Obtaining all of this 
information requires consultation with multiple data sources, including 
campus-specific sources. The goal of this first step is to ensure that all 
subsequent decisions and actions are based on the demonstrated needs and 
characteristics of a specific campus.

The next step is to ask the following essential questions:
• Who is at greatest risk for mental health problems and suicide on campus?
• What are the expected results of training?
• What training content will lead to these results?
• Who should I train?
• How should I train them?
• What resources or infrastructure do I have?

To help answer these questions and develop a strategic plan for conducting 
gatekeeper training, Campus Connect has written an implementation readiness 
checklist that takes into account critical environmental factors, such as 
support, resources, and policies, that make up “crucial elements in 
determining the success of a gatekeeper program as well as an overall suicide 
prevention program,” according to the checklist. The checklist can be found 
at http://counselingcenter.syr.edu/index.php/campus-connect/implementation-
readiness-checklist/.

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 
Center Director: John D. Clapp 
Other Staff: Kellie Anderson, Tom Colthurst, Elisha DeLuca, Tracy Downs, 
Tiana Giebultowski, Kathie Gorham, Linda Langford, Michelle Richard, Lance 
Segars, and Erin Williston 

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 
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 Phyllis Scattergood. 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. 

All URLs were last accessed on March 16, 2010. 

Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People 
Progress and Possibilities 
This 2009 report, from the National Research Council and the Institute of 
Medicine, reviews research on mental, emotional, and behavioral problems in 
children, youths, and young adults and recommends strategies to improve 
prevention and treatment. The report is available at 
http://books.nap.edu/open book.php?record_id=12480&page=R1.

Photo Credits 
Page 3: From left to right, photo by Jessica Hinkson Desmarais; U.S. 
Department of Education 
Page 7: Photo by Vector Communications