Be Vocal, Be Visible, Be Visionary Recommendations for College and University Presidents on Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Presidents Leadership Group The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For further information contact: The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Website: http://www.edc.org/hec/ Tel.: (800) 676-1730 FAX: (617) 928-1537 E-mail: HigherEdCtr@edc.org This publication was produced with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Primary funding for the Higher Education Center comes from the U.S. Department of Education under contract number SS95013001 with Education Development Center, Inc. Views expressed are those of the contractor. No official support or endorsement by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation or the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred. Published 1997 The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Education Development Center, Inc. 55 Chapel Street Newton, Massachusetts 02158-1060 Cover design and layout by Jeanine Merrigan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Presidents Leadership Group Members Robert L. Carothers, University of Rhode Island Mary Sue Coleman, University of Iowa B. James Dawson, Tennessee Wesleyan College E. Gordon Gee, The Ohio State University Charles A. Hines, Prairie View A&M University Manuel T. Pacheco, University of Missouri Advisors William DeJong, Director The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Catherine Meikle, Research Associate The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Contents The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Foreword A Message to College and University Presidents Introduction Headlines in the News Scope of the Problem Current Prevention Efforts Search for New Ideas Recommendations Proposals for Effective Prevention Conclusion Appendices 1. Recommendations List 2. Notes 3. Resources ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention is the nation's primary resource for assisting colleges and universities as they develop, implement, and evaluate programs and policies for alcohol and other drug prevention. Student substance use is shaped by campus social norms, the accessibility of alcohol and other drugs, the extent to which school regulations and state and local laws are firmly enforced, and the availability of alcohol-free social options. Accordingly, a central feature of the Higher Education Center's work is the promotion of multiple prevention strategies that can affect the campus and community environment as a whole and thereby have a large-scale impact on the entire student body. The Center was created by the U.S. Department of Education in 1993. Primary funding for the Center comes from a contract between the department and Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), in Newton, Massachusetts. EDC's partners in the Higher Education Center include the Harvard School of Public Health and the University of California at San Diego. Additional financial support for the Presidents Leadership Group and other higher education prevention initiatives comes from a major grant to EDC from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Princeton, New Jersey. For information on the Higher Education Center's training events, technical assistance services, and publications, please contact: The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Education Development Center, Inc. 55 Chapel Street Newton, MA 02158-1060 Tel.: (800) 676-1730 FAX: (617) 928-1537 Website: http://www.edc.org/hec/ E-mail: HigherEdCtr@edc.org The opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Education nor of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Foreword In 1989, a survey of college and university presidents found that 67 percent rated alcohol abuse to be a "moderate" or "major" problem on their campus.(1) Unfortunately, nothing has transpired in the past eight years to assuage the presidents' concerns. According to a 1993 Harvard study of U.S. college student drinking conducted by Dr. Henry Wechsler, 44 percent of students at four-year institutions engaged in binge drinking during the two weeks prior to the survey. For men, binge drinking was defined as having five or more drinks in a row, and for women as having four or more drinks in a row. About half the binge drinkers, or about one in five students overall, were frequent binge drinkers - that is, they had been binge drinking three or more times in the previous two weeks.(2) Data from the Core Institute confirm that nearly half of U.S. college students engage in heavy episodic drinking.(3) To help address this problem, the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention has formed the Presidents Leadership Group to create a blueprint for alcohol and other drug (AOD) prevention on college campuses. This effort, which began earlier this year, represents the first time this decade that a national group of college and university presidents came together to review various approaches for curbing student substance use and to develop a comprehensive plan of action. Presidents selected for the Presidents Leadership Group come from a cross section of major U.S. universities: Robert L. Carothers, University of Rhode Island Mary Sue Coleman, University of Iowa B. James Dawson, Tennessee Wesleyan College E. Gordon Gee, The Ohio State University Charles A. Hines, Prairie View A&M University Manuel T. Pacheco, University of Missouri Center staff conducted individual interviews with each president and then convened a set of conference calls to review draft recommendations, which led to this full report. The Presidents Leadership Group's recommendations are consistent with the Higher Education Center's approach to prevention, which has been called environmental management.(4) Historically, institutions of higher education have focused on education and intervention strategies oriented toward individual students. However, one of the chief lessons taught by nearly two decades of prevention research is the need for a comprehensive approach, one that not only addresses the specific educational needs of individuals but also seeks to bring about basic change at the institutional, community, and public policy levels.(5) This approach is grounded in the firmly established principle that the decisions people make about alcohol and other drug use will be shaped by their physical, social, economic, and legal environment, which in turn can be shaped by a committed group of local prevention advocates, higher education officials, government officials, and others.(6) Consistent with current prevention research, the Presidents Leadership Group believes that a broader approach to student alcohol abuse is needed, one that reflects a more complete understanding of how societal conditions drive alcohol use and the magnitude of alcohol-related problems. Our hope at the Higher Education Center is that the Presidents Leadership Group will convince college and university presidents across the country to make alcohol and other drug prevention a priority and to approach this problem by working in collaboration with community prevention groups, local elected officials, police, and alcohol retailers. I will close with a personal note of thanks to Drs. Carothers, Coleman, Dawson, Gee, Hines, and Pacheco for their spirited participation in the Presidents Leadership Group and their willingness to tackle this incredibly complex and difficult problem. I also thank Catherine Meikle, Anne McAuliffe, Laura Gomberg, Kim Kaphingst, and Ted Lavash of the Higher Education Center for their hard work and good cheer as my collaborators on this project. All of us at the Higher Education Center owe a special debt of gratitude to Ms. Lavona Grow of the U.S. Department of Education and Dr. Marilyn Aguirre-Molina of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, whose vision and strong support have helped make the Center a valuable resource to the nation's institutions of higher education. William DeJong Director The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention November 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A Message to College and University Presidents The higher education community in the United States can be rightfully proud of its success in educating America's young people, preparing them not only for the world of work but also for a lifetime of learning. More than that, our nation's colleges and universities are a means of transmitting to each new generation of students the values, ideals, and traditions of humankind. As presidents of these institutions, we have been entrusted with a great responsibility. Students look to us to build a center of learning that will nurture their intellectual and social development. Parents look to us to maintain a campus environment in which their children can study, work, and, yes, play in safety. Taxpayers and private donors look to us to ensure that their substantial investment in higher education is well spent. We do not hold this responsibility alone, of course, but that fact does not relieve us of the special burdens of leadership. We are held accountable by many people. It is in this context that college and university presidents must address the problems caused by student drinking. In our view, student binge drinking and the many problems that arise from it are among the most serious threats faced by our nation's institutions of higher education. Many of the things we worry about - student death and injury, weak academic performance, property damage and vandalism, strained town-gown relations, negative publicity - are linked to student alcohol abuse. For a variety of reasons, however, many college and university presidents have not made the fight against student alcohol abuse a priority. Some of our colleagues have grown frustrated by the seeming intractability of the problem and have decided to devote their energies elsewhere. Others fear that taking a visible stand will create bad publicity for their school. Some continue to deny that a problem even exists. We also know from our own experience of the many competing demands on a president's time. In our view, however, student alcohol abuse is a problem that justifiably demands our time and attention. Our primary interest in serving on the Presidents Leadership Group was to underscore the seriousness of this problem and to help embolden our presidential colleagues to make the fight against student alcohol abuse a priority. Stemming alcohol abuse is not something that college and university presidents can do alone, but our active leadership is essential. This report summarizes the recommendations of the Presidents Leadership Group formed in early 1997 by the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. As you review this report, and as you consider our recommendations, we ask you to keep these thoughts in mind: First, student alcohol abuse is a problem shared by all institutions of higher education. Clearly, binge drinking is more prevalent at some schools than others, but no school is immune from the problem. Acknowledging that fact is a healthy first step. Second, student alcohol abuse is not a problem of the campus alone, but of the entire community. It is impossible for college and university officials to succeed in reducing the scope of this problem if they fail to work in partnership with local and state government officials, law enforcement, community prevention advocates, and the owners of local bars and restaurants that sell alcohol. Third, although we believe that college and university presidents can make great strides in addressing this problem, we also recognize that student alcohol abuse is a problem that will never entirely go away. That means that campus-based programs and policies, plus coalition work at the local and state level, must become a permanent part of college and university operations. As members of the Presidents Leadership Group, we will continue to work with our presidential colleagues to explore how best to implement the recommendations we offer here and to learn about still other promising approaches for combating student alcohol abuse. Through this report, we offer our thoughts. We look forward to learning yours. Presidents Leadership Group Robert L. Carothers, University of Rhode Island Mary Sue Coleman, University of Iowa B. James Dawson, Tennessee Wesleyan College E. Gordon Gee, The Ohio State University Charles A. Hines, Prairie View A&M University Manuel T. Pacheco, University of Missouri November 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Introduction ------------------------------------------ "Colleges and universities abandoned the doctrine of in loco parentis, by which school officials were considered to be surrogate parents to their students. Unfortunately, the situation on many campuses today is the academic equivalent of the movie Home Alone." E. Gordon Gee, The Ohio State University ------------------------------------------ Headlines in the News Recent news stories have brought renewed national attention to the problems caused by college student alcohol abuse. Clearly, institutions of higher education vary in the percentage of students who engage in heavy episodic drinking; some schools are more likely, therefore, to suffer from these problems than are others. That said, it is also true that a news-making tragedy could easily happen tomorrow at any school where students drink. Every college and university president knows that it might well be his or her institution that appears next in the headlines. Amherst, Massachusetts At the University of Massachusetts, a former student who said she was raped at a fraternity party reached a $200,000 settlement with the fraternity. As part of the settlement, the fraternity admitted that it had provided inadequate security. Baton Rouge, Louisiana At Louisiana State University, a 20-year-old Sigma Alpha Epsilon pledge died from alcohol poisoning after an off-campus party to celebrate his new fraternity membership. Within three weeks, another pledge sued not only the fraternity but also the university itself. Boulder, Colorado The University Hill section of Boulder was the scene of two successive nights of student riots, as hundreds of drunken students from the University of Colorado smashed windows, set fires, and threw rocks and bottles at police in an apparent protest against tighter rules governing underage drinking and student alcohol abuse. Cambridge, Massachusetts A freshman at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology went into a coma after a bout of heavy drinking at the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity and later died. The student's blood alcohol level was .41 percent, more than five times the legal driving limit in Massachusetts. Chapel Hill, North Carolina On graduation day, five students died in an early morning fire at a fraternity house at the University of North Carolina where a late-night party had been held. Authorities later reported that four of the victims had high blood alcohol concentrations, which probably contributed to their inability to escape. Durham, New Hampshire At the University of New Hampshire, an 18-year-old sophomore returned to campus to begin the fall term. That night, at a party, he plummeted 35 feet from a fraternity rooftop and died. The fraternity was eventually disbanded by college administrators. Los Angeles, California At the University of California at Los Angeles, academic officials suspended a fraternity for violating the state's minimum drinking age law after three fraternity men were accused of raping a sorority woman during a party. Scope of the Problem A 1993 survey of college student alcohol and other drug use conducted by Dr. Henry Wechsler of the Harvard School of Public Health confirmed that the United States continues to have a major substance abuse problem on its college campuses.(7) According to this national survey, 44 percent of college students engaged in binge drinking during the two weeks prior to the survey. For men, binge drinking is defined as having five or more drinks in a row, and for women as having four or more drinks in a row. Among male college students, 50 percent were classified as binge drinkers. Among female college students the figure was 39 percent. About half the binge drinkers, or about one in five students overall, were frequent binge drinkers - that is, they binge drank three or more times in the prior two weeks. Among these frequent binge drinkers, 70 percent of the men and 55 percent of the women reported being intoxicated three or more times in the previous month. With nearly 6.8 million undergraduate students enrolled in four-year colleges in the United States, this means there are an estimated three million undergraduate binge drinkers, including 1.3 million frequent binge drinkers. Similar findings about student substance use have been reported by the Core Institute at Southern Illinois University. The Core Alcohol and Drug Survey has been the primary evaluation instrument used by colleges and universities to assess alcohol and other drug use on their campuses. According to the institute's most recent report, 49 percent of male and 31 percent of female four-year college students reported binge drinking (five or more drinks in one sitting) in the previous two weeks.(8) ------------------------------------------ "Some of today's students engage in what we call "industrial drinking," with the sole purpose of drinking until they can no longer feel anything or they pass out." Mary Sue Coleman, University of Iowa ------------------------------------------ Despite these alarming statistics, some educators believe that the misuse of alcohol is an innocent rite of passage from adolescence to adulthood. For many young people, these educators argue, experimenting with alcohol, overindulging, and eventually learning how to drink responsibly is an important part of growing up. Binge drinking is a pervasive part of student social life, even among students who are campus leaders and are destined for positions of importance after graduation.(9) Far from an innocent rite of passage, however, college binge drinking has been found to be a significant risk factor for a host of problems, including lower academic achievement, poor health outcomes, and violence. The recent Harvard survey of student drinking found that frequent binge drinkers were seven to ten times more likely than non-binge drinkers to have * engaged in unplanned sexual activity * not used protection when having sex * been in trouble with campus police * damaged property * been hurt or injured(10) Of particular concern is violence. Among non-binge drinking women, 26 percent had experienced an unwanted sexual advance due to another student's drinking, and 2 percent said they had been victims of sexual assault or date rape.(11) According to Core Institute data, 64 percent of college students who were physically assaulted reported that they drank alcohol or took drugs shortly before the attacks.(12) ------------------------------------------ "Students are seeing the negative consequences that result from other students' drinking. In response, they're taking the issue into their own hands, and they're starting to influence the students who have been abusing alcohol to be more responsible." Manuel T. Pacheco, University of Missouri ------------------------------------------ Current Prevention Efforts Awareness Education. Typical campus prevention efforts include general awareness programs during freshman orientation, awareness weeks and other special events, and peer education programs. Faculty at some schools have begun to incorporate prevention lessons into their courses, a process called "curriculum infusion."(13) All of these programs are based on the premise that alcohol problems on campus result from the ignorance of individual students about local, state, and federal laws and about the dangers of alcohol use. Evaluations of college-based educational programs are rare, but work in other school-based settings suggests that, while these types of educational strategies are necessary, they are insufficient by themselves.(14) Information about Social Norms. Higher education officials have begun to explore the use of campus-based mass media to communicate educational messages to students. Most of this work has focused on providing more accurate information about actual levels of alcohol use on campus. This strategy is grounded in the observation that students tend to overestimate the number of their peers who drink heavily. To the extent that these misperceptions drive normative expectations about alcohol use, and to the extent that those expectations drive actual use, it is important that the misperceptions be corrected.(15) A study at Northern Illinois University suggests that this approach to changing the social environment has great promise as a prevention strategy, but more definitive research is still needed.(16) ------------------------------------------ "Often students think that "everybody" binge drinks. That is not the case, and it's important to prove that. Doing so will help nudge behavioral norms in the right direction." Manuel T. Pacheco, University of Missouri ------------------------------------------ Harm Reduction Programs. Harm reduction programs are another mainstay of campus-based prevention. For example, several campuses have installed programs that encourage students to separate the acts of drinking and driving, including designated driver and safe rides programs.(17) Worries about students driving under the influence are justified, but students who engage in high-risk drinking but do not drive after drinking also face significant health and safety risks. What is also necessary, then, is a more general approach that focuses on changing a broad array of environmental conditions that encourage students' high-risk drinking.(18) Search for New Ideas The Presidents Leadership Group was formed by the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention to explore new approaches for the prevention of student alcohol abuse and to offer recommendations that college and university presidents might consider in revamping their prevention programs and policies. Driving this exploration was a clear understanding that current approaches, while establishing a good foundation, are not enough. A broader approach is needed, one that reflects a more complete understanding of how societal conditions drive alcohol use and the magnitude of alcohol-related problems, and that recognizes the vital links between the campus and the larger community. ------------------------------------------ "My university was known for three years as the number one party school in the nation. Since we toughened our alcohol policies, applications for admission have gone up about 13 percent." Robert L. Carothers, University of Rhode Island ------------------------------------------ The recommendations offered in this report represent an environmental strategy for alcohol abuse prevention. The essence of this environmental management approach is for college officials, working in conjunction with the local community, to change the campus and community environment that contributes to alcohol-related problems. Such change can be brought about through an integrated combination of programs, policies, and public education campaigns.(19) In summary, traditional approaches to prevention have tacitly accepted the world as it is and then tried to teach students as individuals how to resist its temptations. In contrast, with the environmental management approach, there is a coordinated effort to change the world - that is, the campus and community environment - in order to produce a large-scale impact on the entire student body. This approach is consistent with recent court rulings, which have made clear that colleges must take reasonable protective measures to guard against foreseeable hazards and risks in the school environment. This means that colleges must ensure that their activities, offerings, and programs meet minimum standards of care, and they must take steps to deal with dangerous situations on campus.(20) In one sense, these rulings mean that colleges and universities have the same responsibilities as other property owners.(21) In response to this changing legal climate, a college's prevention programs and policies should seek to establish and maintain an environment that will discourage student alcohol abuse. If effectively implemented and enforced, these measures will contribute to a safer environment, one that not only reduces the college's risk exposure but also enhances its ability to accomplish its basic educational mission. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recommendations ------------------------------------------ "Because our schedules are so demanding, college presidents have a tendency to delegate this issue to others. It's too important for that. I believe the presidents themselves should be directly involved." Charles A. Hines, Prairie View A&M University ------------------------------------------ In November 1996, a press event was held in Columbus, Ohio, to announce that the presidents of 49 colleges and universities across the state had signed a letter of commitment to make the battle against student binge drinking a priority. For the first time, the academic leadership of an entire state publicly committed itself to tackling this problem. Especially noteworthy was the pledge that the presidents made to work in partnership with local community groups. Assisted by small incentive grants from the state of Ohio, 19 colleges and universities formed campus-community teams to develop a comprehensive prevention plan. Central to each plan are comprehensive efforts to reduce minors' access to alcohol, to support social norms against binge drinking, to install responsible beverage service programs, and to punish appropriately those who commit alcohol-related criminal offenses. The key to this initiative was the exercise of presidential leadership. Inspired by the Ohio example, as well as by the courageous examples of other college and university presidents across the nation, the Presidents Leadership Group offers the following recommendations: Be Vocal College presidents should openly and publicly acknowledge 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 College presidents should take an active stand on alcohol and other drug issues, convey clear expectations and standards, and serve as a role model to other senior administrators, faculty,and students. Be Visionary College presidents should make alcohol and other drug abuse prevention a priority in their strategic plan for the school. ------------------------------------------ "In addressing civic groups, presidents need to be honest about what the problem is. This is key to establishing trust with the community." B. James Dawson, Tennessee Wesleyan College ------------------------------------------ "We need to set our standards high. We expect good behavior, and we expect students to exercise responsibility. We should be surprised when our standards are not met, not when they are." Mary Sue Coleman, University of Iowa ------------------------------------------ "Universities are in the business of dressing up students for graduation. Presidents need to speak out more about the importance of building students' character." Charles A. Hines, Prairie View A&M University ------------------------------------------ "Presidents need a strategic plan for making the fight against alcohol abuse a major focus throughout the academic year, from the first day of freshman orientation through graduation day." B. James Dawson, Tennessee Wesleyan College ------------------------------------------ Presidential leadership is about action, but it is also about establishing the right tone. It requires speaking out and writing about the issue of student alcohol abuse to convey clear expectations and standards, as well as to build support for new programs and policies. It requires building a strong coalition of both on-campus and community interests that can collaborate in a joint effort to change the town-gown environment that affects alcohol consumption. Listed on the following pages are 13 proposals for effective prevention. Together, these proposals constitute a set of priorities for presidential action against the problem of student alcohol abuse. The first step is primary data collection, which can lead to a clear articulation of the scope and nature of the problem. With that data in hand, presidents can give voice to their concerns about the problem of student alcohol abuse and its threat to their institution's capacity to achieve its educational mission. Presidents must use every opportunity to help keep the issue of student alcohol abuse at the top of the school's agenda and to push for change. They should form a campuswide task force with a clear mandate to examine every aspect of the academic environment and how it might affect student alcohol abuse and to recommend sweeping changes. They should launch a formal campus-community coalition to address communitywide issues. And they should speak out about state and local policy issues that might affect their students' well-being. Most important, presidents must work with their administrative staff to develop a budget that can support a broad array of new prevention initiatives. That may not seem possible given the many competing demands on college and university funds. But is that really the case? If presidents believe that student binge drinking is among the most serious threats faced by our nation's institutions of higher education, then should their academic budgets not reflect that fact? ------------------------------------------ "This is a question of time and energy and moving away from narrowly defined thinking about what matters most to the success of our academic institutions." E. Gordon Gee, The Ohio State University ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposals for Effective Prevention Summary 1. College presidents should work to ensure that school officials routinely collect data on the extent of the alcohol and other drug problem on campus and to make this information available. 2. College presidents should frame discussions about alcohol and other drug prevention in a context that other senior administrators, faculty, students, alumni, and trustees care about - excellence in education. 3. College presidents should define alcohol and other drug use not as a problem of the campus alone, but of the entire community, which will require community-level action to solve. 4. College presidents should use every opportunity to speak out and write about alcohol and other drug prevention to reinforce it as a priority concern and to push for change. 5. College presidents should work to ensure that all elements of the college community avoid providing "mixed messages" that might encourage alcohol and other drug abuse. 6. College presidents should demonstrate their commitment to alcohol and other drug prevention by budgeting sufficient resources to address the problem. 7. College presidents should appoint a campuswide task force that (a) includes other senior administrators, faculty, and students, (b) has community representation, and (c) reports directly to the president. 8. College presidents should appoint other senior administrators, faculty, and students to participate in a campus-community coalition that is mandated to address alcohol and other drug issues in the community as a whole. 9. College presidents should lead a broad exploration of their institution's infrastructure and the basic premises of its educational program to see how they affect alcohol and other drug use. 10. College presidents should offer new initiatives to help students become better integrated into the intellectual life of the school, change student norms away from alcohol and other drug use, and make it easier to identify students in trouble with substance use. 11. College presidents should take the lead in identifying ways to effect alcohol and other drug prevention through economic development in the community. 12. As private citizens, college presidents should be involved in policy change at the state and local level, working for new laws and regulations that will affect the community as a whole. 13. Acknowledging that substance abuse is a problem that their schools have in common, college presidents should participate in state, regional, and national associations to build support for appropriate changes in public policy. ------------------------------------------ Proposals for Effective Prevention 1. College presidents should work to ensure that school officials routinely collect data on the extent of the alcohol and other drug problem on campus and to make this information available. ------------------------------------------ "Presidents need to inform themselves about the extent of alcohol problems on their campuses. They need a knowledge base in order to galvanize support and to devise a plan of action." Manuel T. Pacheco, University of Missouri ------------------------------------------ To develop effective programs and policies that can reduce alcohol-related problems on campus, college presidents need to understand fully the nature and extent of these problems at their school. This understanding can be achieved only if they have credible data on patterns of student alcohol consumption and drinking-related risk behavior. The best way to obtain these data is to conduct an annual survey using a random selection of student respondents. Other data collection systems can be employed, too, including a centralized data system for all alcohol-related violations of campus policies, student health data (reported in aggregate, with privacy safeguards), and environmental indicators of alcohol and other drug use. The Core Alcohol and Drug Survey has been the primary student survey instrument used by U.S. colleges and universities to assess alcohol and other drug use on their campuses. The Core Survey's long form has 39 questions that cover several content areas, including the following: * Use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs * Experience of consequences of substance use * Perceptions of campus substance abuse policies and their enforcement * Perceptions of how frequently other students on campus use alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs * Desire for an alcohol- and drug-free environment * Attitudes about drinking to get "drunk" * Ways in which other students' drinking interferes with life on or around campus * Experience of harassment, physical violence, and sexual violence as a result of alcohol and other drug use The Core Survey is comprehensive, yet relatively short (it takes approximately 20 minutes to complete) and easy to administer. The Core Institute at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIU) has prepared a 15-minute videotape to introduce use of the Core instrument and a detailed user's manual. The institute also offers online and telephone support services for administrators at institutions using the survey. Contact information for the Core Institute can be found in Resources in appendix 3. Additional information on the nature and extent of substance abuse on campus can be obtained by "scanning" the campus and community environment.(22) Walk around the campus and the surrounding neighborhood. Is there evidence of alcohol-related problems - litter, vandalism, low-price alcohol promotions? Look at the school newspaper. How is alcohol advertised? Talk to students, faculty, and neighborhood residents. Which are the high-risk drinking locations? Where do students obtain alcohol? How is student alcohol abuse impacting people's day-to-day lives? Once these data have been collected, they need to be shared, not only among the institution's leadership but in the broader community as well. Some presidents hesitate to do so, fearing that release of this information will tarnish the image of the school. There are several points that can be made in response. First, colleges with "party" reputations are already well known to the public, including to prospective students. For years, various publications have rated colleges and universities on their "party atmosphere." In short, there is no secret to be kept. Second, data suggest that, whatever a school's true alcohol abuse problem, students and others tend to overestimate the percentage of students who binge drink.(23) In short, people think the problem is already worse than it is. As noted previously, some experts believe that publication of more accurate figures can help change perceived social norms, which in turn can help reduce the rate of binge drinking.(24) Third, refusing to release this information interferes with the president's credibility, not only among students but also among community leaders. People who live and work near colleges and universities can plainly see how student alcohol abuse is affecting their community. They rightly expect the college administration to admit openly what is already evident. 2. College presidents should frame discussions about alcohol and other drug prevention in a context that other senior administrators, faculty, students, alumni, and trustees care about - excellence in education. ------------------------------------------ "We cannot create the culture for learning to which we all aspire if the minds of our students are fogged by alcohol." Robert L. Carothers, University of Rhode Island ------------------------------------------ As parents struggle to pay ever-increasing college tuition bills, and as higher education critics challenge the true value of what college students are taught, public pressure is mounting for institutions of higher education to cut costs, increase faculty productivity, and improve the quality of the academic curriculum.(25) In response, presidents and other college officials are scrutinizing what they do and how they do it. A reformation of higher education is under way. Reformers should remember that institutions of higher education cannot fully achieve their educational mission unless they also take steps to establish an environment that discourages student alcohol abuse. As noted previously, a constant stream of bad news about date rape, drunk driving, and other alcohol-related tragedies involving college students makes it clear that more needs to be done to provide students with the collegial, scholarly, and safe environment to which they are entitled. There is little doubt among academic administrators and faculty that alcohol and other drug use has a damaging effect on academic performance. One national study showed that, at four-year institutions, college students with an "A" average consume 3.3 drinks per week, whereas students with a "D" or "F" average consume 9.0 drinks per week.(26) For that reason, efforts to retain students in college typically include programs to identify and intervene with students who are in trouble with alcohol and other drugs. Faculty in particular can play a critical role in helping create a campus environment that discourages alcohol abuse. Motivating faculty depends, in part, on conceptually linking academic reform, which faculty clearly view as their purview, with prevention. More faculty will be receptive to taking on this responsibility than many college and university presidents may realize. A survey of faculty and staff conducted by the Core Institute showed that the vast majority are concerned about the impact of students' alcohol and other drug use: 91.2 percent said that alcohol and other drug (AOD) use negatively affects the overall quality of student life; 96.2 percent said that student academic performance is affected by AOD use; and 49.4 percent reported being personally aware of a student whose academic performance was affected by AOD use.(27) Even so, only 18.9 percent of the faculty/staff respondents said they are actively involved in efforts to prevent alcohol and other drug use problems on campus. Just under one-third said they had provided information to students concerning alcohol and other drugs, such as in a class or as an advisor. But there is reason to be optimistic about greater faculty and staff involvement in the future. Ninety-four percent of the faculty and staff respondents said that institutions of higher education should be involved in alcohol and other drug prevention, and 44.4 percent said they wish to be involved in such efforts at their university. The Core Institute's findings also underscore how important it is for academic officials to speak out on this subject. While 77.6 percent of faculty and staff said they do not believe it is okay to get "drunk," not even occasionally, only 32.6 percent said that this was also the most common attitude of the college community. And while 88.7 percent said that illicit drug use is never okay, only 45.9 percent said that this was the most common attitude of the campus in general. School officials can document the depth of faculty concern by administering the Core Institute's Faculty and Staff Environmental Alcohol and Other Drug Survey, which asks about perceptions of the problem, awareness of the school's response, and personal commitment to be involved in prevention. Cooperation may be more forthcoming when faculty realize they are far from alone in their concerns. 3. College presidents should define alcohol and other drug use not as a problem of the campus alone, but of the entire community, which will require community-level action to solve. ------------------------------------------ "There is a need to look at the environment beyond the campus." B. James Dawson, Tennessee Wesleyan College ------------------------------------------ Too often, college and university administrators have restricted their alcohol abuse prevention work to on-campus efforts. Yet many college and university students live or work off campus, and even those who live on campus often go into the community to seek diversion from their studies. New campus-based programs and policies are vital. But how effective can these be if local liquor stores continue to sell alcohol to minors or if local bars continue to serve intoxicated patrons? Recent alcohol control efforts in the United States have been motivated primarily by concerns about youth drinking and the role of alcohol in traffic crashes, homicides, and suicides. What has emerged from research in this area is a clearer understanding that measures to reduce average alcohol consumption in the general population will also serve to reduce the percentage of people consuming at excessive levels, who are at greatest risk for alcohol-related problems.(28) This conclusion applies equally to college students. With this evidence in hand, several states and local communities have implemented measures to control the availability of alcohol, based on the idea that making access to alcohol less convenient will discourage underage drinking and excessive consumption. Such measures include restricting sales to government-run monopolies, limiting the number and location of alcohol outlets to reduce their density in a particular community, and restricting the hours and days of sale, all of which have been demonstrated to reduce consumption levels.(29) The premise is inarguable that students are part of the local community in which their college or university is located. Local laws and customs will influence their desire to consume (and abuse) alcohol and will determine their ability to do so conveniently. College and university presidents need to draw attention to this basic fact, which can then become the rationale for establishing campus-community partnerships for prevention. ------------------------------------------ "Students need to understand that they continue to be citizens of a broader community." Manuel T. Pacheco, University of Missouri ------------------------------------------ 4. College presidents should use every opportunity to speak out and write about alcohol and other drug prevention to reinforce it as a priority concern and to push for change. ------------------------------------------ "I will say to prospective students, 'If you're interested in drinking to excess, do us both a favor and don't come here. We don't want you." I can't tell you how many parents come up to me and say, "That was music to my ears, and I'm really interested in my child coming here because you've said these things.'" Robert L. Carothers, University of Rhode Island ------------------------------------------ Effective leadership of a college or university requires that a president be able to develop and communicate a vision of how the institution must grow and change to fulfill its mission. College presidents must use every opportunity to explain their sense of the institution and argue for their priorities. Of course, presidents are called upon to address the academic community as part of their formal duties, in particular at the beginning and end of each academic year. But activist presidents who seek to define their school's agenda will find numerous times throughout the year when they can proclaim their goals. With alcohol and other drug prevention as the priority, there are several messages that college and university presidents should communicate to students, faculty, academic staff, alumni, and other constituencies. First, the vast majority of students want a college environment that is conducive to study and personal growth. The rights of responsible students should not be compromised by the alcohol or other drug use of others on campus. Second, violent and destructive behavior should not be excused for any reason, especially that of being under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. Third, the college has a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide a safe environment for all students. Accordingly, members of the college community, including students, are expected to commit themselves to promoting a healthy social and academic environment where learning and campus life are not undermined by the misuse of alcohol and other drugs. 5. College presidents should work to ensure that all elements of the college community avoid providing "mixed messages" that might encourage alcohol and other drug abuse. ------------------------------------------ "Many schools are tempted to accept resources from the alcohol beverage industry, which is more than willing to provide them, but any time we accept funding of that type we put our credibility at risk. It sends a "mixed message" to students." B. James Dawson, Tennessee Wesleyan College ------------------------------------------ Students receive "educational" messages from a number of sources, not just in the classroom, and until these "mixed messages" in the campus and community are changed, academic officials face an uphill battle. Sources of "mixed messages" are abundant in college communities: * Liquor stores that fail to check proof-of-age identification * Local bars that offer "happy hours" and other low-price promotions or that serve intoxicated patrons * On-campus advertising for beer and other alcoholic beverages * Campus events that use alcohol as a "social lubricant" * An absence of alcohol-free social and recreational options * Faculty who make minimal demands on students and take little interest in their well-being * Lax enforcement of campus regulations, local ordinances, or state and federal laws * Low alcohol excise taxes, which have the effect of making beer price-competitive with soda pop Is it realistic to expect students to say "no" to binge drinking when their environment tells them "yes"? An issue of specific concern to the Presidents Leadership Group is alcohol advertising and marketing on campus. Given the profits that the alcohol industry makes from sales to underage and problem drinkers, and given the problems that alcohol misuse creates on college campuses, several college and university presidents have concluded that it is improper for their college to collaborate in the industry's marketing activities. If school officials are unprepared to impose a total ban on campus advertising and promotion, they should consider developing strict policies to define what they will allow. Another important source of "mixed messages" is lax enforcement of both school rules and local laws. For a number of years, alcohol and other drug policies have been a source of controversy on college campuses. This controversy stems, in part, from the ambivalence that some college and university presidents have about their role in establishing and enforcing such policies, especially those related to drinking. On most campuses, school administrators and security officials are missing key opportunities for more effective action to enforce the minimum drinking age law.(30) This lack of enforcement gives the wrong signal to students, while also putting the school at legal risk. There are five major actions that college officials can consider to strengthen their enforcement efforts: * Impose and enforce a program of responsible beverage service that lays out the requirements that must be met before students are allowed to host a party at which alcohol is served.(31) * Require that Greek houses meet building codes, health regulations, alcohol licensing requirements, and other state and local ordinances before students are allowed to host parties or other events. * Identify on-campus locations where underage drinking is occurring and then take meaningful disciplinary action against those who are serving alcohol to minors. * Establish a policy of "zero tolerance" for fake IDs that underage students use to purchase or be served alcohol. * Take firm disciplinary steps against students who drive or commit other infractions while under the influence, including probation, fines, community service, suspension, and expulsion. * College administrators can build broad support for firm enforcement of the minimum drinking age law and other enforcement actions by using a problem-oriented strategy that holds students strictly accountable for assault, drunk driving, vandalism, and other infractions committed while under the influence of alcohol.(32) * To act as an effective general deterrent, these enforcement-oriented steps must be frequently publicized.(33) It is also vital to publicize that disciplinary actions have been executed, with care taken to protect the privacy rights of the individual students involved. 6. College presidents should demonstrate their commitment to alcohol and other drug prevention by budgeting sufficient resources to address the problem. ------------------------------------------ "One of the things that trustees are concerned about in today's litigious environment is what alcohol abuse is costing the university. We have finite resources. We can spend them to pay for the results of student alcohol abuse, or we can spend them to further our academic goals." Charles A. Hines, Prairie View A&M University ------------------------------------------ Many of the initiatives that schools might pursue as part of an environmental approach to preventing alcohol abuse - for example, academic reform, investment in infrastructure, and new programs - may require considerable financing. Because resources are tight, finding the funds to support these initiatives requires careful long-term planning and budgeting, which should begin at the very outset. That said, college administrators need to be reminded that the absence of these prevention initiatives also has its price: high liability insurance premiums, costly property damage, increased security and student health services costs. There is also the issue of lost productivity, here in the form of students missing classes or even dropping out of school because of problems with alcohol or other drugs. At one time, the U.S. Department of Education, through the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), had an extensive grant program to support alcohol and other drug prevention. That program has been greatly scaled back in recent years. It should also be noted that grant-funded programs are usually not seen as a regular part of the institution, which can interfere with their long-term effectiveness.(34) Gifts from alumni, parents, and foundations are other possible sources of money. Being responsible for fund-raising, college and university presidents know that most donors are reluctant to give monies to help institutions solve problems, but prefer instead to help finance a positive addition to the school. It is important to remember, however, that many of the initiatives that a school might want to undertake in the name of AOD prevention also bring other obvious benefits to the institution and can be easily presented in a way that will appeal to donors. In institutions with a large student population, student service or health fees can be used to underwrite the prevention program. Parking fees or charges for registering on-campus parties are other potential sources of revenue. Fines assessed against students who violate college rules related to alcohol possession or use (e.g., use of fake IDs, hosting an unregistered party, serving alcohol to underage students) can also be directed to fund substance use prevention efforts. As a final note, it is well to remember that many of the most important prevention initiatives that colleges and universities can undertake cost very little. For example, being active in local community efforts to control alcohol availability costs the school only staff time devoted to a campus-community coalition. Speaking out in favor of state or local policy proposals that could contribute to students' safety and well-being requires staff time but not a line item in the budget. 7. College presidents should appoint a campuswide task force that (a) includes other senior administrators, faculty, and students, (b) has community representation, and (c) reports directly to the president. ------------------------------------------ "The president's role is to inform, include, and be involved. We can't become dictators, because that makes real change impossible." Charles A. Hines, Prairie View A&M University ------------------------------------------ The primary vehicle for creating environmental change on campus should be a campus-based task force appointed by the president. Representatives from a broad spectrum of campus interests and constituencies need to be part of the task force. Students, alumni, parents, and various community representatives should also be included. The community representatives should include at a minimum the head of a local AOD prevention task force or coalition. Most important, this task force should report directly to the college president. In turn, local task forces or coalitions should include college officials among their membership. In effect, then, campus and local task forces should have overlapping directorates. Ideally, the work of the task force should be coordinated by an alcohol and other drug prevention coordinator, who acts as a "change agent" on campus. Accordingly, that individual's skill base must go beyond education and program development to include political organizing, coalition building, and advocacy. At present, few AOD coordinators have these skills, but they are necessary if these individuals are to help maintain the college's focus on environmental change. The task force shares responsibility with the college president for helping maintain alcohol and other drug prevention near the top of the college's agenda and for creating a climate of support for an environmentally focused approach to prevention. To this end, the task force can consider developing a social marketing campaign to create that climate or to promote specific programs and policies. Another task force responsibility is to continue monitoring campus conditions and to evaluate the college's prevention efforts. Under the Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Act, every institution of higher education must prepare a written review of their substance abuse prevention program every two years to determine its overall effectiveness and to ensure that the school's sanctions are being consistently enforced.(35) 8. College presidents should appoint other senior administrators, faculty, and students to participate in a campus-community coalition that is mandated to address alcohol and other drug issues in the community as a whole. ------------------------------------------ "Once a campus-community coalition gets going, the community's interests become more divergent and the college is less of a focal point. College representatives need to understand that everything the community does to address this problem will help on campus." B. James Dawson, Tennessee Wesleyan College ------------------------------------------ Community mobilization, involving a mix of civic, religious, and governmental agencies, is widely recognized as a key to the successful prevention of alcohol and other drug problems. Essential to effective community-based programming is the formation of coalitions and interagency linkages that lead to a coordinated approach, with adequate planning and a clear division of responsibilities among coalition members. Where such programs are lacking, higher education officials, especially college and university presidents, can take the lead in forming these citizen-led coalitions and moving them toward an environmental approach to prevention. A chief focus of a campus-community coalition should be to curtail youth access to alcohol and to eliminate irresponsible alcohol sales and marketing practices by local bars, restaurants, and liquor outlets. Key objectives for the coalition can include the following: * Changes in local zoning ordinances to reduce the density of alcohol sales outlets and irresponsible sales and marketing practices * A communitywide program for responsible beverage service * Enhanced, publicized police enforcement of the age 21 and drunk driving laws A campus-community coalition can also be the vehicle for greater coordination between campus and community agencies. One example is the formation of a responsible beverage service task force that includes both campus- and community-based representatives. Similarly, coordination between campus and local police is vital to ensure that crimes are reported, properly investigated, and referred for criminal prosecution. Campus and local police can also engage in joint enforcement strategies, including "decoy" operations, targeted patrols, and sobriety checkpoints. Finally, coordination between student health services and local hospitals is also essential if students who need follow-up referral and treatment are to be identified and helped. 9. College presidents should lead a broad exploration of their institution's infrastructure and the basic premises of its educational program to see how they affect alcohol and other drug use. ------------------------------------------ "Some faculty have been co-opted into not giving exams on Friday because their students have been out drinking on Thursday night. Instead, faculty need to step up and take responsibility for communicating to students their expectations for excellence." Mary Sue Coleman, University of Iowa ------------------------------------------ 10. College presidents should offer new initiatives to help students become better integrated into the intellectual life of the school, change student norms away from alcohol and other drug use, and make it easier to identify students in trouble with substance use. The task force appointed by the president (discussed earlier) will have several important duties. The first is needs assessment, which should include an assessment of the problem and a comprehensive review of existing programs and policies. More than that, however, the task force should explore the structure of the institution and the basic premises of the educational program to see how they affect alcohol and other drug use. Based on that assessment, the task force can craft a strategic plan for new programs and policies. Prevention begins with the admissions process. Questions to consider: Should the college's admissions criteria be altered so that newly matriculated students are at less risk of binge drinking and other drug use? Should the college be presented in its promotional literature and on campus tours in a way that attracts lower-risk students? What should the materials say regarding the college's expectations about student conduct? Regarding the academic program, should graduation requirements be made more rigorous? Are steps needed to hold grade inflation in check? Should students be expected to undertake a certain number of hours of volunteer work to reduce their free time and to give their educational experience additional meaning? Should class sizes, faculty advisor duties, and other aspects of the teaching role be changed to increase student contact with faculty? Does the academic calendar need to be changed to restrict opportunities for substance abuse? ------------------------------------------ "Many freshmen arrive on campus with an alcohol problem. During that first semester, we need to do assessments and be prepared to make interventions." Robert L. Carothers, University of Rhode Island ------------------------------------------ Steps may also be needed to create new recreational and entertainment options as alternatives to fraternities and sororities. Does the college need to create the infrastructure to support these alternatives - student centers, dormitory commons areas, athletic facilities, clubs and coffeehouses? Should fraternities and sororities be banned or otherwise restricted? Should school officials support the establishment of student "wellness" groups or other student organizations that will help move student norms away from binge drinking? The office of resident or student life can work to expand campus residential options to support changes in student social norms. Does the college need to provide substance-free housing? Do the college dormitories need to be revamped to create places for faculty-student dinners, academic seminars, student dances, and coffeehouse events? Does an ombudsman or campus committee need to be installed to protect the rights of non-binge drinking students? The ultimate goal in addressing this wide range of issues is to promote alcohol abuse prevention and to create a safer campus where learning can take place. Colleges are systems. Each component of the system plays a role in alcohol abuse, and each has a potential role as part of a comprehensive prevention strategy focused on environmental change. A full discussion of program and policy options can be found in Setting and Improving Policies for Reducing Alcohol and Other Drug Problems on Campus: A Guide for Administrators, which is available from the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (see Resources). 11. College presidents should take the lead in identifying ways to effect alcohol and other drug prevention through economic development in the community. ------------------------------------------ "I would love to see the string of bars across the street from our campus replaced by business establishments that would have greater entertainment value for our students but also serve alcohol responsibly." E. Gordon Gee, The Ohio State University ------------------------------------------ The health of a college or university depends in part on the economic health of the community in which it is situated. Recognizing this fact, academic leaders at several institutions of higher education have entered into ambitious economic development programs to help jump-start the revitalization of their communities, sometimes by investing school funds in development projects, at other times by channeling the expertise of faculty, students, staff, and alumni to local government agencies, local business groups, and neighborhood organizations to support their efforts.(36) Involvement in the community's future represents a case of enlightened self-interest. Large tracts of off-campus apartments or rental homes may create virtual student ghettoes, largely removed from the tempering influence of neighbors who will complain to police about loud parties or other disturbances. By working to encourage home ownership in the nearby community, school officials can help create more diverse neighborhoods where residents will have a greater stake in ensuring public order. With similar effect, school officials can help foster new businesses that cater to the general population. High density of alcohol outlets near colleges leads to fierce competition that results in lower drink prices and other promotions designed to entice student customers, while also tempting owners to sell to minors and intoxicated patrons.(37) In response, school officials can work to foster business development in the surrounding community that will reduce the density of alcohol outlets, while also providing students with safe recreational and entertainment options. 12. As private citizens, college presidents should be involved in policy change at the state and local level, working for new laws and regulations that will affect the community as a whole. ------------------------------------------ "College and university presidents should take a leadership role, speaking out as concerned citizens about policy issues that affect their students." E. Gordon Gee, The Ohio State University ------------------------------------------ 13. Acknowledging that substance abuse is a problem that their schools have in common, college presidents should participate in state, regional, and national associations to build support for appropriate changes in public policy. ------------------------------------------ "For better or worse, we are producing tomorrow's leaders. For that reason, we need to get state legislatures involved in this problem." Charles A. Hines, Prairie View A&M University ------------------------------------------ As part of a total effort to create environmental change, college presidents should also consider working for policy change at both the state and local level. New laws and regulations will affect the community as a whole and can help bring about changes in social norms, thereby affecting student alcohol and other drug use. The value of this approach to prevention was demonstrated by the age 21 drinking laws. When President Reagan signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, the states were required to raise their minimum legal drinking age to 21. Any state that failed to comply by 1986 risked the withholding of federal highway funds. All 50 states complied, resulting in over 15,000 lives saved since 1975. Examples of potentially helpful laws and regulations include the following: * Setting lower blood alcohol limits for drivers under age 21, usually 0.02 percent BAC (blood alcohol concentration) * Using distinctive and tamper-proof licenses for drivers under age 21 * Passing "use and lose" laws that impose driver's license penalties on minors who purchase or are found in possession of alcohol * Increasing penalties for illegal service to minors * Requiring responsible beverage service training and certification for commercial alcohol servers * Passing dram shop laws that make serving an intoxicated drinker or a minor a cause for legal action * Prohibiting "happy hours" and other reduced-price alcohol promotions * Requiring registration of purchasers of kegs and other large common sources of alcohol * Strengthening laws concerning hours of sale, characteristics and density of retail outlets, and other factors that affect alcohol availability * Funding strong enforcement programs by the alcohol beverage control commission and local police, including the use of decoys in "sting" operations * Increasing excise tax rates on beer and wine to the same level (by alcohol content) as for distilled spirits, and linking future increases to the rate of inflation It is useful for college officials, especially presidents, as private citizens, to speak out on these and other proposals, which could potentially serve to help institutions of higher education do a better job of ensuring campus safety and of maintaining an academic environment conducive to their students' intellectual and social development. College officials cannot take these steps on behalf of their institution, of course. Despite that, they still retain the rights of any private citizen to speak out and should be encouraged to do so. Acknowledging that substance abuse is a problem that their schools have in common, presidents and other college officials should participate in state, regional, and national associations to present an academic viewpoint on various policy proposals. Legislators and other policymakers are more likely to take notice when the academic community as a whole takes a stand on these matters and when college and university presidents speak with unanimity. College and university presidents should not underestimate their stature in the community, nor should they shy away from working publicly for the betterment of their students. Helping create a safe environment in which students can develop their intellectual potential is a president's most profound responsibility. Presidents also need to do whatever they can to promote a policy environment that will help them meet that responsibility. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Conclusion The broader approach to preventing alcohol abuse that is represented in these recommendations will lead to predictable sources of resistance. Some alumni have fond but distorted memories of their own college days awash in alcohol, and they resist change. Some liquor store, bar, and restaurant owners worry about the impact of tighter restrictions on their profits. Some students think that whether they consume alcohol illegally or abuse it is none of the school's business. Clearly, the recommendations presented here will not be popular with everyone. It is equally clear, however, that these recommendations will be widely applauded by most college and university trustees, faculty, and administrators, and by the majority of students, their parents, and alumni. Anyone who cares whether their college or university provides a safe environment in which students can nurture their social and academic development will support the thrust of these recommendations, if not all the particulars. ------------------------------------------ "Students themselves are the best advocates of change in college policy. Schools need to invest in leadership development programs for students." Mary Sue Coleman, University of Iowa ------------------------------------------ The local community - neighboring residents, merchants, community prevention advocates, police, elected officials - will welcome these recommendations as well. Across the nation, college and university officials have found that people are ready to move beyond blaming school administrators for the problem and want to work in active partnership to change the campus and community environment that drives the problem of student alcohol abuse. There is a need, but also an opportunity, for college and university presidents to foster town-gown coalitions to address this problem. ------------------------------------------ "Realize there are going to be setbacks and disappointments. That comes with the territory." Charles A. Hines, Prairie View A&M University ------------------------------------------ What barriers there are to moving forward can be addressed through a clear presentation of the facts: A fraternity alumnus is concerned about a ban on alcohol in fraternity houses. Show him the data on the costs of vandalism in the houses. Show how the financial viability of the fraternity is jeopardized by the legal risk it faces. Cite examples of recent settlements and court judgments against fraternities. A parent is angry that her 19-year-old son was arrested for driving under the influence and blames the university because of its tougher rules. Describe other life-threatening consequences of alcohol abuse, including date rape, assault, falls, fires, and pedestrian accidents. Cite the minimum drinking age law, which applies whether students drive after drinking or not. A wealthy benefactor threatens to withhold a donation. Explain how much money the college or university spends because of student alcohol abuse, how much extra the liability insurance is, what it costs to replace or repair damaged property, what it costs to provide adequate campus security, and how much student classroom time is lost because of hangovers and other drinking-related problems. ------------------------------------------ "Some of our staunchest advocates for change are alumni and fraternity and sorority members. The key was getting them to be part of the circle of discussion early on." E. Gordon Gee, The Ohio State University ------------------------------------------ College and university presidents have an obligation to help sustain the economic viability of their institution, but they have an even more important obligation to maintain the academic excellence of their institution and to provide a safe environment in which students can learn and grow. The recommendations offered here are not about a return to Prohibition, but about the appropriate use of alcohol in a community of learners. It is important to remember that the misuse of alcohol creates problems, not only for the students who engage in this behavior but also for their peers, who suffer a range of consequences from having their sleep or study interrupted to being physically or sexually assaulted. Too often, the majority of students on most campuses, those who drink in moderation and those who abstain, are left to fend for themselves against the inconsiderate, insulting, intimidating, and sometimes criminal behavior of the student binge drinkers around them. Tolerating this state of affairs because of a hesitance to act is untenable. Presidential leadership is key. This means putting the prevention of alcohol abuse at the top of the higher education agenda. It means speaking out and writing about the issue at every opportunity. It means reaching out to campus, community, and state-level groups to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy for prevention. It means building support for new programs and policies, especially those with a focus on environmental change. In short, college and university presidents must be vocal, visible, and visionary. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 1: Recommendations List Recommendations Be Vocal College presidents should openly and publicly acknowledge 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 College presidents should take an active stand on alcohol and other drug issues, convey clear expectations and standards, and serve as a role model to other senior administrators, faculty, and students. Be Visionary College presidents should make alcohol and other drug abuse prevention a priority in their strategic plan for the school. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposals for Effective Prevention 1. College presidents should work to ensure that school officials routinely collect data on the extent of the alcohol and other drug problem on campus and to make this information available. 2. College presidents should frame discussions about alcohol and other drug prevention in a context that other senior administrators, faculty, students, alumni, and trustees care about - excellence in education. 3. College presidents should define alcohol and other drug use not as a problem of the campus alone, but of the entire community, which will require community-level action to solve. 4. College presidents should use every opportunity to speak out and write about alcohol and other drug prevention to reinforce it as a priority concern and to push for change. 5. College presidents should work to ensure that all elements of the college community avoid providing "mixed messages" that might encourage alcohol and other drug abuse. 6. College presidents should demonstrate their commitment to alcohol and other drug prevention by budgeting sufficient resources to address the problem. 7. College presidents should appoint a campuswide task force that (a) includes other senior administrators, faculty, and students, (b) has community representation, and (c) reports directly to the president. 8. College presidents should appoint other senior administrators, faculty, and students to participate in a campus-community coalition that is mandated to address alcohol and other drug issues in the community as a whole. 9. College presidents should lead a broad exploration of their institution's infrastructure and the basic premises of its educational program to see how they affect alcohol and other drug use. 10. College presidents should offer new initiatives to help students become better integrated into the intellectual life of the school, change student norms away from alcohol and other drug use, and make it easier to identify students in trouble with substance use. 11. College presidents should take the lead in identifying ways to effect alcohol and other drug prevention through economic development in the community. 12. As private citizens, college presidents should be involved in policy change at the state and local level, working for new laws and regulations that will affect the community as a whole. 13. Acknowledging that substance abuse is a problem that their schools have in common, college presidents should participate in state, regional, and national associations to build support for appropriate changes in public policy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 2: Notes 1. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. [1990] (1994). Campus life: In search of community. 2. Wechsler, H.; Davenport, A.; Dowdall, G.; Moeykens, B.; & Castillo, S. (1994). Health and behavioral consequences of binge drinking in college: A national survey of students at 140 campuses. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 1672-1677. 3. Presley, C. A.; Meilman, P. W.; & Cashin, J. R. (1996). Alcohol and drugs on American college campuses: Use, consequences, and perceptions of the campus environment. Vol. IV: 1992-94. Carbondale, IL: Core Institute, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. 4. DeJong, W., & Langenbahn, S. (1996). Setting and improving policies for reducing alcohol and other drug problems on campus: A guide for administrators. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. 5. DeJong, W. (1997). Strategies for alcohol control. In G. Colditz, W. DeJong, K. Emmons, N. Mueller, & G. Sorensen (eds.), Harvard report on cancer prevention (Vol. 2), in press. 6. DeJong, W.; Vince-Whitman, C.; Gilbreath, M.; Colthurst, T.; Cretella, M.; Jacobs, J.; Rosati, M.; & Zweig, K. (1997). Environmental management: A comprehensive strategy for reducing alcohol and other drug use on college campuses. Unpublished manuscript. Newton, MA: Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention/EDC. 7. Wechsler et al. (1994), op. cit. 8. Presley et al. (1996), op. cit. 9. DeJong & Langenbahn (1996), op. cit. 10. Wechsler, H.; Austin, B.; & DeJong, W. (1996). Secondary effects of binge drinking on college campuses. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. 11. Ibid. 12. Presley et al. (1996), op. cit. 13. Ryan, B. E., & DeJong, W. (1997). Making the link: Academics and prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, in press. 14. Coombs, R. H., & Ziedonis, D. (eds.). (1995). Handbook on drug abuse prevention: A comprehensive strategy to prevent the abuse of alcohol and other drugs. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. 15. Perkins, H. W. (1997). College student misperceptions of alcohol and other drug norms among peers: Exploring causes, consequences, and implications for prevention programs. In Designing alcohol and other drug prevention programs in higher education: Bringing theory into practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 177-206. 16. Haines, M., & Spear, A. F. (1996). Changing the perception of the norm: A strategy to decrease binge drinking among college students. Journal of American College Health, 45, 134-140. 17. DeJong, W. (1995). Preventing alcohol-related problems on campus: Alcohol-impaired driving. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. 18. Ibid. 19. DeJong et al. (1997), op. cit. 20. American Council on Education (ACE). (1992). Institutional liability for alcohol consumption: A white paper on institutional liability for consumption of alcohol and drugs on campus. Washington, DC: ACE. 21. Ibid. 22. Ryan, B. E.; Colthurst, T.; & Segars, L. [1994] (1997). College alcohol risk assessment guide: Environmental approaches to prevention. San Diego, CA: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Studies, UCSD Extension, University of California at San Diego. 23. Perkins (1997),op. cit. 24. Ibid. 25. Ryan & DeJong (1997), op. cit. 26. Presley et al. (1996), op. cit. 27. Ryan & DeJong (1997), op. cit. 28. Edwards, G. et al. (1994). Alcohol policy and the public good. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 29. Stewart, K. (1997). Environmentally oriented alcohol prevention policies for young adults. In Secretary's Youth Substance Abuse Prevention Initiative: Resource Papers. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. 30. Wechsler, H.; Moeykens, B. A.; & DeJong, W. (1995). Enforcing the minimum drinking age law: A survey of college administrators and security chiefs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. 31. Mosher, J. F. (1991). Responsible beverage service: An implementation handbook for communities. Palo Alto, CA: Health Promotion Resource Center, Stanford University. 32. Wechsler et al. (1995), op. cit. 33. DeJong, W., & Hingson, R. (1998). Approaches to the reduction of driving under the influence of alcohol. Annual Review of Public Health (Vol. 19), in press. 34. DeJong, W., & Moeykens, B. A. (1995). Institutionalizing an alcohol and other drug prevention program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. 35. Pittayathikhun, T.; Ku, R.; Rigby, D.; Mattsson, M.; & DeJong, W. (1997). Complying with the drug-free schools and campuses regulations [34 CFR Part 86]: A guide for university and college administrators. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. 36. Levin, R. C. (1997). The university as urban citizen. The Boston Globe (June 13), A27. 37. Stewart (1997), op. cit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appendix 3: Resources Organizations The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention is the nation's primary resource for assisting colleges and universities in developing, implementing, and evaluating programs and policies for alcohol and other drug prevention. The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Education Development Center, Inc. 55 Chapel Street Newton, MA 02158-1060 Tel.: (800) 676-1730; FAX: (617) 928-1537 Website: http://www.edc.org/hec E-mail: HigherEdCtr@edc.org College Parents of America advocates on the national, state, and university levels on issues of concern to the parents of college students, including crime and substance abuse on college campuses. College Parents of America 2000 North 14th Street Suite 380 Arlington, VA 22201 Tel.: (703) 875-2042; FAX: (703) 875-2199 Website: http://www.collegeparents.org/ E-mail: via Website The Core Institute at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale assists institutions of higher education in conducting the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey, a student survey on substance use, violence, and related problems. The Core Institute Student Health Programs Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Carbondale, IL 62901 Tel.: (618) 453-4366; FAX: (618) 453-4449 Website: http://www.siu.edu/~coreinst/ E-mail: coreinst@siu.edu National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University is a "think/action tank" that brings together all of the professional disciplines needed to study and combat all forms of substance abuse. National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University 152 West 57th Street New York, NY 10019 Tel.: (212) 841-5200; FAX: (212) 956-8020 Website: http://www.casacolumbia.org E-mail: via Website National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information is the world's largest resource for current information and materials about alcohol and other drugs. National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information P.O. Box 2345 Rockville, MD 20847 Tel.: (800) 729-6686; FAX: (301) 468-6433 Website: http://www.health.org E-mail: info@health.org Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program (U.S. Department of Education) is a federal initiative for reducing drug, alcohol, and tobacco use and violence through education and prevention activities in American schools, including institutions of higher education. U.S. Department of Education Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Room 604 Washington, DC 20202 Tel.: (800) 624-0100; FAX: (202) 260-3748 Website: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS E-mail: via Website ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Publications The following publications are available from the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Prevention (see above): Setting and Improving Policies for Reducing Alcohol and Other Drug Problems on Campus: A Guide for Administrators provides college and university administrators with a comprehensive overview of the policy-setting process and the "environmental management" approach to prevention. College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide: Environmental Approaches to Prevention describes methods and exercises for gathering and organizing information about alcohol use and its consequences at institutions of higher education and within surrounding communities. Complying with the Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Regulations [34 CFR Part 86]: A Guide for University and College Administrators provides information on how to develop and distribute a written prevention policy that meets the requirements (and the spirit) of federal regulations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------