Safe Lanes on Campus: A Guide for Preventing Impaired Driving and Underage Drinking

Robert Zimmerman and William DeJong, Ph.D.

A publication of the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 
Prevention
Funded by the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

This publication was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract
No. ED-99-CO-0094 with the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and
Other Drug Prevention at Education Development Center, Inc., in a joint
venture with the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA). Paul Kesner served as the contracting officer's 
technical representative (COTR) for the Department of Education and Ruth 
Esteban-Muir served as COTR for NHTSA. The views expressed herein do not 
necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Departments of Education 
or Transportation. No official endorsement by the U.S. Departments of Education 
or Transportation of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in 
this publication is intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education
Rod Paige
Secretary

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools
William Modzeleski
Associate Deputy Under Secretary

U.S. Department of Transportation
Norman Y. Mineta
Secretary

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D.
Administrator

2003

This publication is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or
in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the
citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, Safe
Lanes on Campus: A Guide for Preventing Impaired Driving and Underage Drinking,
Washington, D.C., 2003.

To order copies of this publication, write to
The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention
Education Development Center, Inc.
55 Chapel Street
Newton, MA 02458-1060
(800) 676-1730
Fax: (617) 928-1537
HigherEdCtr@edc.org

This publication is also available on the following Web sites:
* Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/index.html
* Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other
Drug Prevention at http://www.higheredcenter.org
* Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Contents
Introduction 1
Organization of the Guide 2

Part 1: Scope of the Problem 5

Part 2: Environmental Management-
Proven Prevention Practices 7
A Typology of Campus and Community Interventions 9
What Works? A Review of the Evidence 11

Part 3: Prevention in Action 19
Area of Strategic Intervention: Environmental Change 21
Area of Strategic Intervention: Knowledge, Attitudes,
and Behavioral Intentions 31
Area of Strategic Intervention: Health Protection 31
Area of Strategic Intervention: Intervention and Treatment 32

Part 4: Strategic Planning and Evaluation 35
Developing and Evaluating Prevention Policies and Programs 38
Meeting the Challenge 42

Part 5: Resources 43
CITED PROGRAMS 45
Area of Strategic Intervention: Environmental Change 45
Area of Strategic Intervention: Knowledge, Attitudes,
and Behavioral Intentions 48
Area of Strategic Intervention: Health Protection 48
Area of Strategic Intervention: Intervention and Treatment 48
Strategic Planning 49
PUBLICATIONS 49
RESOURCE ORGANIZATIONS 52
References 55

Introduction

The 1990s saw rising concern about heavy drinking at institutions of higher 
education and the risks alcohol consumption poses to student health, safety, and 
academic success. This manual is a response to requests from college and 
university administrators for guidance in preventing two of the most serious 
problems related to student alcohol consumption: (1) driving under the influence 
(DUI) and (2) alcohol use by students under the legal drinking age. 

Awareness programs to inform students about the risks associated with alcohol 
use are familiar on the higher education scene. Experience has shown, however, 
that the link between providing basic information and reduced substance use is 
tenuous.1 The most promising approach to preventing alcohol problems on and 
around campus is a broad-based and comprehensive effort to change the physical, 
social, legal, and economic environment in which students make decisions about 
drinking.2 Accomplishing change of this magnitude requires a new type of 
town gown partnership: a wide spectrum of campus and community leaders dedicated 
to shaping an environment that helps students make healthier choices.3 

The operative word is change. Applying the prevention strategies introduced in 
this guide must start with a commitment to change by the senior administrators, 
faculty, and staff who are the principal custodians of the nation's colleges and 
universities. Likewise, a similar commitment must be made by students, many of 
whom recognize the price they are paying by fostering or acquiescing to a 
culture of high-risk-drinking. There must also be a commitment to change by 
community leaders and law enforcement agencies, whose actions influence both how 
much alcohol students consume and how they behave while drinking. 

Senior administrators, faculty, and staff will see that their leadership is 
essential for organizing and planning prevention activities and for ensuring 
that the hard work of addressing student alcohol problems remains a high 
priority. Abandonment of the doctrine of in loco parentis, according to which 
campus officials used to think of themselves as surrogate parents to their 
students, has left many school officials in doubt about their responsibilities 
to monitor and shape student conduct. Recent court decisions have made clear 
that institutions of higher education have an obligation to take reasonable 
protective measures to reduce hazards and risks in the campus environment, 
although they are not expected to control student conduct. The time is long past 
when senior administrators could blithely disregard the effect of alcohol on 
student life or dismiss high-risk drinking as a "rite of passage" or an 
insoluble problem. Increasingly, academic leaders recognize that they have a 
responsibility-and an opportunity-to assemble a campus and community prevention 
coalition, formulate a strategic plan, guide its implementation, chart its 
progress, and assess its effect on student alcohol problems. 

Students will see that they can also play a key part in making their college a 
better school if they are willing to assume a leadership role. Their challenge 
is to rise above the deep-rooted and often unquestioned mythology about student 
drinking by representing the often silent desire of the student majority for 
tougher policies to reduce alcohol's negative effect on campus life. Student 
participation is vital when assessing aspects of the environment that contribute 
to underage drinking and DUI, and when planning and implementing prevention 
strategies to change that environment-change that will safeguard students? well-
being, improve the quality of the academic experience, and enhance the school's 
reputation.

Finally, community leaders, including those in law enforcement and the business 
world, will see the need to work cooperatively with campus officials to address 
this problem. College and university students are an integral part of the 
community in which they live, work, and study. Clearly, it is unfair and 
shortsighted for neighborhood residents, town officials, or other community 
leaders to expect campus administrators to solve this problem alone. A community
problem requires a community solution. Because campus administrators are under
intense pressure to reduce student alcohol problems, community leaders will
find this an opportune time to reach out and offer to work in partnership.5

Safe Lanes on Campus describes a variety of prevention strategies that campus
and community prevention coalitions can consider as they develop a strategic 
plan for combating underage drinking and DUI, with a particular emphasis on 
creating environmental change. This analysis is grounded in a summary of the 
research literature published in 2002 by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse 
and Alcoholism (NIAAA), A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at 
U.S. Colleges.6With Safe Lanes on Campus in hand, prevention planners can 
develop and implement strategies appropriate to their campus and community, 
based on an assessment of the environmental factors that encourage alcohol 
problems among local students and on the scientific evidence of what works.

Organization of the Guide
Part 1 of the guide, Scope of the Problem (p. 5), gives a review of the
scope of the problem, including recent estimates of the number of alcohol-
related deaths and injuries among college students each year. These data make 
clear that underage drinking and DUI are major problems facing U.S. colleges and
universities and deserve priority attention.

Part 2, Environmental Management-Proven Prevention Practices (p. 7), describes a 
classification or typology of campus and community interventions, which can be 
used to structure a review of current policies and programs and to organize 
subsequent strategic planning. The typology distinguishes five areas of 
strategic intervention related to what is called environmental management: (1) 
alcohol-free options, (2) normative environment, (3) alcohol availability, (4)
alcohol promotion, and (5) policy/law enforcement.

This section also includes a summary of policy and program recommendations
published by the NIAAA Task Force on College Drinking. Based on expert review of 
the scientific literature, this summary underscores the value of environmental 
change strategies and points out those prevention tactics that at present have 
the strongest evidence of effectiveness. Knowledge of what works to reduce 
college alcohol problems is sparse. Even so, prevention research that has 
examined the effect of policies and programs aimed at the general population
does provide ample guidance.


Part 3, Prevention in Action (p. 19), provides descriptions of policies and
programs currently being used throughout the United States to prevent underage
drinking and DUI among college students. Program contact information can be 
found in the Resources section, Part 5 (see below).

Part 4, Strategic Planning and Evaluation (p. 35), begins with an overview of 
campus and community coalitions, which are the best vehicle for developing 
effective environmental management strategies. Next, this section outlines the 
basic elements of strategic planning and evaluation that campus and community 
coalitions should follow. Coalitions should incorporate evaluation as an 
integral part of program planning. Evaluation provides information needed
to make midcourse corrections, but having an evaluator involved from the very
beginning also improves the planning process itself.

Part 5, Resources (p. 43), provides contact information for programs cited
in the guide, as well as a list of publications and organizations that might be
helpful sources of information. An expanded and updated list of resources
can be found through the Web site (http://www.higheredcenter.org) of the
U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other
Drug Prevention.

Scope of the Problem
Several major reports have pointed to the magnitude of alcohol problems
among college and university students. In 1989, a survey of college and 
university presidents found that 67 percent rated alcohol misuse as a "moderate"
or "major" problem on their campus.7 In 2002, the NIAAA Task Force on College
Drinking characterized heavy drinking by higher education students as 
"widespread, dangerous, and disruptive."8

National surveys have found that approximately two in five college students
can be classified as heavy drinkers, often defined as having five or more
drinks in a row at least once in the previous two weeks.9 One study estimated
that 31 percent of college students met the criteria for a diagnosis of alcohol
abuse, while 6 percent could be classified as alcohol-dependent, according to 
self-reported drinking behaviors.10

The damage caused by alcohol consumption-to the drinkers themselves, to other 
individuals, and to institutions of higher education-is substantial. By one 
estimate, more than 1,400 students aged 18 to 24 years enrolled in two- and
four-year colleges died in 1998 from alcohol-related unintentional injuries.
Nearly 80 percent of these deaths were due to motor vehicle crashes. In 
addition, approximately 500,000 college students in this age range suffered 
alcohol-related unintentional injuries.11

According to a National College Health Risk Behavior Survey by the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 1998 more than two million of the 
nation's approximately eight million college students drove under the influence 
of alcohol, and more than three million rode with a drinking driver.12 The 2001 
College Alcohol Study (CAS) found that 30 percent of students who drank said 
they had driven after drinking during the previous 30 days.13

Research also shows that poor academic performance correlates strongly with 
higher levels of alcohol consumption. One national survey reported that
students with an A average consumed an average of 3.4 drinks per week, while 
B-average students consumed 4.5 drinks, C-average students 6.1 drinks, and D-or 
F-average students 9.8 drinks.14 College administrators report that many of the 
large numbers of students who drop out each year do so because drinking
has interfered with their studies, a problem that has both personal and 
institutional ramifications.15

Especially salient are the problems students experience due to other students-
misuse of alcohol-for example, interrupted study and sleep; having a serious 
argument or quarrel; having property damaged; being pushed, hit, or assaulted; 
and being a victim of sexual assault or acquaintance rape.16 In 1998, more than 
600,000 students were assaulted by another student who had been drinking, while 
more than 70,000 students were victims of alcohol-related sexual assault or 
acquaintance rape.17
______________________________
Sidebar:
Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act
The need for colleges and universities to apply effective prevention measures is 
underscored by the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA), which requires 
colleges and universities to adopt and enforce policies that include sanctions 
for illegal alcohol and other drug use and to provide students with appropriate 
information and services to back up those policies. A guide to meeting the 
requirements of the DFSCA is available from the Higher Education Center for
Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention.21
____________________________


Underage drinking is a big part of the problem. The 2001 CAS found that two out 
of three underage students reported drinking in the previous 30 days. Students 
under 21 tended to drink on fewer occasions than their older peers, but they 
drank more per occasion and had more alcohol-related problems than students of 
legal drinking age. Underage students also reported that alcohol is easy to 
obtain, usually at little or no cost.18

At present, all 50 states maintain a minimum legal drinking age of 21.The effect 
of these laws, despite their imperfect enforcement, is clear. A recent 
literature review documented a clear inverse relationship between the legal 
drinking age and alcohol use, with consumption decreasing as the legal age was 
raised. A higher legal drinking age is also strongly associated with decreased 
motor vehicle crash rates. Surprisingly, very few researchers have examined 
these associations for college students, but the handful of studies available 
has not found a significant relationship between the minimum legal drinking age 
and alcohol consumption or motor vehicle crash rates.19 Additional research is 
needed to gain a clearer picture of the effect of the age 21 limit on college 
students' alcohol consumption.

The influence of the higher minimum drinking age is also apparent from an 
analysis of alcohol-related fatal automobile crashes. While alcohol was
involved in 57 percent of U.S. vehicular fatalities in 1982, the ratio today 
stands at about 40 percent. The raising of the legal drinking age to 21 
throughout the country is credited with significantly reducing the death toll 
among younger drivers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) estimates that state laws establishing 21 as the minimum legal drinking 
age have saved more than 20,000 lives between 1975 and 2000 and will continue to 
save 1,000 lives each year.20

Preventing underage drinking and DUI among college students requires a large and 
sustained effort. Alcohol use and its consequences are among the most serious 
problems facing U.S. colleges and universities today. Clearly, the goal is worth 
the effort.

Research on the effect of raising the minimum legal drinking age also points
to a fruitful new direction for prevention efforts: using institutional, 
community, state, and federal policy and other programs to change the 
environment in which students make decisions about alcohol consumption. 
Ultimately, an effective prevention program grounded in environmental management
will enhance campus safety, improve the quality of academic life, and thereby 
help colleges and universities fulfill their basic educational mission.

Part 2
Environmental Management-Proven Prevention Practices

A Typology of Campus and Community Interventions 9
What Works? A Review of the Evidence 11
Tier 1: Evidence of Effectiveness among College Students 12
Tier 2: Evidence of Success with General Populations 12
Tier 3: Evidence of Promise 15
Tier 4: Evidence of Ineffectiveness 15

Environmental Management-Proven Prevention Practice
Today's college and university students live in a world with confusing and 
contradictory messages about alcohol.

* Those under 21 are told that the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors is
unlawful, yet they find that neighborhood liquor stores often fail to ask for 
proof-of-age identification.
* Underage students go to parties where beer is flowing freely, but no one 
questions their age before they step up to the keg.
* Students are warned that alcohol can affect their judgment and coordination
and is in fact a drug, but advertising makes alcoholic beverages seem as 
harmless as soft drinks.
* Students are told that driving after drinking is risky, but they see partying
students casually climb into cars for a ride back to campus with a drinking 
driver at the wheel.
* Students are urged to find entertainment and recreational opportunities where 
alcohol is not part of the scene, but such offerings are few and far between.

Given such an environment, routine warnings against underage drinking and 
driving under the influence (DUI) will have only a limited effect on
students' behavior.

A prevention approach known as environmental management is the foundation for a 
broad set of policies and programs to reduce underage drinking and DUI among 
college students. Environmental management rests on the principle that the 
decisions young people make about alcohol use are shaped by their environment, a 
complex of physical, social, economic, and legal factors that affect alcohol's 
appeal and availability. Accordingly, the most effective and efficient way of 
reducing substance use problems in the general population is to change that 
environment.

A Typology of Campus and Community Interventions
Prevention work in public health has been guided by a social ecological 
framework, which describes the following five levels of influence on health-
related behavior, including college student drinking:

1. Intrapersonal (individual) factors
2. Interpersonal (group) factors
3. Institutional factors
4. Community factors
5. State and federal public policy

The U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol
and Other Drug Prevention has expanded this basic framework to create a full
classification or typology of campus-based prevention and treatment options.

This framework can be used both to provide a systematic review of current
efforts and to inform future strategic planning.22

Table 1 below, called the "typology matrix," illustrates the framework by
showing the intersection of the levels of influence with different kinds of 
prevention approaches. The columns across the top of the matrix show the levels 
of influence listed above (individual, group, institution, community, and state 
and federal public policy).The rows down the side of the matrix show different
kinds of approaches, called "areas of strategic intervention":

1. Changing students' knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions

2. Eliminating or modifying environmental factors that contribute to the problem
3. Protecting students from the short-term consequences of alcohol consumption
("health protection" or "harm reduction" strategies)
4. Intervening with and treating students who are addicted to alcohol or 
otherwise show evidence of problem drinking

The matrix makes it clear that the different areas of strategic intervention can
be pursued at several program and policy levels of the social ecological 
framework.

Areas of strategic intervention can be pursued at several program and policy
levels of the social ecological framework. In the area of health protection, for
example, a local community could decide to establish a ?safe rides? Program so 
that students who have been drinking will not have to drive to return home. This 
community-level program could be augmented by efforts at other levels. At the 
group level, for example, fraternity and sorority chapters might vote to require 
members to pledge not to drink and drive and instead to use the new
program. At the individual level, there could be a campus-based media campaign
that explains how to access the new service.
____________________________
TABLE 1 Typology matrix for mapping campus and community prevention efforts
Areas of Strategic Intervention
Knowledge, Attitudes, Behavioral Intentions
Environmental Change
1. Alcohol-Free Options
2. Normative Environment
3. Alcohol Availability
4. Alcohol Promotion
5. Policy/Law Enforcement
Health Protection
Intervention and Treatment

Program and Policy Levels
(Social Ecological Framework)
Individual 
Group 
Institution 
Community 
Public Policy
_____________________________________

Consider increased enforcement of the minimum legal drinking age. At the
community level, local police could increase the number of decoy (or "sting") 
operations at local bars and restaurants to see if servers are checking 
identification before serving alcohol. At the institutional level, school 

officials might require that trained bartenders be hired to serve alcohol at on-
campus functions. At the group level, school officials-as part of a party 
registration procedure-might require student clubs to submit a plan for 
preventing alcohol service to underage students at planned social events. 
Finally, at the individual level, the orientation program for new students could 
publicize these policies, the greater level of enforcement, and the legal 
consequences of underage drinking.

Historically, campus-based prevention efforts have relied primarily on student
awareness and education programs to address a mix of intrapersonal or individual
factors, such as knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, skills (e.g., how to refuse an
offer of alcohol), and behavioral intentions. Another mainstay of campus-based
prevention has been the peer education program, which uses peer-to-peer 
communication to change student social norms about alcohol use. The largest
such program is the BACCHUS and GAMMA Peer Education Network. In general, there 
is little evidence that these types of educational programs, when used alone, 
are successful in reducing alcohol problems on campus; 23 however, when used in 
combination with other prevention programs, they can play an important role.

The prevention philosophy of environmental management hinges on a broader focus 
on combined institutional, community, and public policy factors. The underlying 
premise of this approach is that college students do not make decisions about 
alcohol consumption in isolation, but in an environmental context that 
encourages or discourages high-risk consumption. The Higher Education Center 
urges college officials to take a hand in constructing an environment,

both on campus and in the surrounding community, that will help students make
healthier choices about drinking.

As shown in table 1, the Higher Education Center has identified five general 
types of environmental management strategies for effective prevention:

1. Offer and promote social, recreational, extracurricular, and public
service options that do not include alcohol and other drugs.
2. Create a social, academic, and residential environment that supports health-
promoting norms.
3. Limit alcohol availability both on and off campus.
4. Restrict marketing and promotion of alcoholic beverages both on and off 
campus.
5. Develop and enforce campus policies and local, state, and federal laws.

Table 2 (pp. 16-18) shows that all five of these categories involve a wide range 
of possible program and policy options.
______________________________
TABLE 2 Strategic objectives and tactics focused on environmental change
Note: Tactics can be classified according to the level of research evidence for 
their effectiveness, as suggested by the NIAAA Task Force on College Drinking:*

Tier 1: Evidence of effectiveness among college students
Tier 2: Evidence of success with general populations
Tier 3: Evidence of promise
Tier 4: Evidence of ineffectivenes


The Task Force did not list any environmental change tactics under Tiers 1 or 4. 
Tactics listed under Tier 2 are identified below. The remaining tactics can be 
classified under Tier 3, although the Task Force did not explicitly list all of 
them.

ALCOHOL-FREE OPTIONS

Problem: Many students, especially at residential colleges, have few adult 
responsibilities and a great deal of unstructured free time, and there are too 
few social and recreational options.

Strategic Objective: Offer and promote social, recreational, extracurricular, 
and public service options that do not include alcohol and other drugs.

Tactics (examples):
* Create new alcohol-free events.
* Promote alcohol-free events and activities.
* Create and publicize student service learning or volunteer activities.
* Require community service work as part of the academic curriculum.
* Open a student center, gym, or other alcohol-free settings.
* Expand hours for student center, gym, or other alcohol-free settings.
* Promote consumption of nonalcoholic beverages and food at events.
* Provide greater financial support to student clubs and organizations that are 
substance-free.

NORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT

Problem: Many people accept drinking and other drug use as a ?normal? part of 
the college experience.

Strategic Objective: Create a social, academic, and residential environment that 
supports health-promoting norms.

Tactics (examples):
* Change college admissions procedures.
* Increase academic standards.
* Modify the academic schedule (e.g., increase the number of Friday classes).
* Offer a greater number of substance-free residence halls.
* Increase faculty-student contact.
* Employ older, salaried resident assistants.
* Create a social norms marketing campaign to correct student misperceptions of
drinking norms.

* Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. A Call to Action: Changing 
the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes 
of Health, 2002).

TABLE 2 Strategic objectives and tactics focused on environmental change 
(continued)

ALCOHOL AVAILABILITY
Problem: Alcohol is abundantly available to students and is inexpensive.

Strategic Objective: Limit alcohol availability both on and off campus.

Tactics (examples):
* Ban or restrict use of alcohol on campus.
* Prohibit alcohol use in public places.
* Prohibit delivery or use of kegs or other common containers on campus.
* Prohibit tailgate parties.
* Control or eliminate alcohol sales at sports events.
* Disseminate guidelines for off-campus parties.
* Install a responsible beverage service (RBS) program (Tier 2).
** Require use of registered and trained alcohol servers.
** Provide training programs for both servers and managers.
** Limit container size and number of servings per alcohol sales.
** Restrict sales of pitchers.
** Cut off sales to patrons who might otherwise become intoxicated.
** Eliminate last-call announcements.
* Limit number and concentration of alcohol outlets near campus (Tier 2).
* Increase costs of alcohol sales licenses.
* Limit days or hours of alcohol sales.
* Eliminate home delivery of alcohol purchases.
* Require keg registration.
* Increase state alcohol taxes (Tier 2).

MARKETING AND PROMOTION OF ALCOHOL
Problem: Bars, restaurants, and liquor stores use aggressive promotions to 
target underage and other college drinkers.

Strategic Objective: Restrict marketing and promotion of alcoholic beverages 
both on and off campus.

Tactics (examples):
On Campus
* Ban or restrict alcohol advertising.
* Ban or restrict alcohol industry sponsorship of on-campus events.
* Limit content of party or event announcements.

Off Campus
* Ban or limit alcohol advertising in the vicinity of schools.
* Ban alcohol promotions with special appeal to underage drinkers.
* Ban alcohol promotions that show drinking in high-risk contexts.
* Require pro-health messages to counterbalance alcohol advertising.
* Institute cooperative agreement to institute minimum pricing (Tier 2).
* Institute cooperative agreement to ban or restrict low-price drink specials 
(Tier 2).

TABLE 2 Strategic objectives and tactics focused on environmental change 
(continued)

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND ENFORCEMENT
Problem: Campus policies and local, state, and federal laws are not enforced 
consistently.

Strategic Objective: Develop and enforce campus policies and local, state, and 
federal laws.

Tactics (examples):

On Campus
* Revise campus alcohol and other drug (AOD) policies.
* Disseminate campus AOD policies and publicize their enforcement.
* Require on-campus functions to be registered.
* Increase ID checks at on-campus functions.
* Use decoy operations at campus pubs and on-campus functions.
* Increase patrols near on-campus parties.
* Increase disciplinary sanctions for violation of campus AOD policies.
* Increase criminal prosecution of students for alcohol-related offenses.
* Notify parents of rules violations.

Off Campus
* Enforce minimum legal drinking age laws (Tier 2).
** Increase ID checks at off-campus bars and liquor stores.
** Use decoy operations at retail alcohol outlets.
** Enforce seller penalties for sale of liquor to minors.
** Enforce penalties for possessing fake ID.
* Increase patrols near off-campus parties.
* Establish new DUI laws (Tier 2).
** Set legal per se limit for adult drivers at .08% BAC.
** Set legal limit for drivers under age 21 at .02% BAC or lower.
** Establish administrative license revocation for alcohol-impaired driving.
* Increase enforcement of DUI laws.
** Use targeted patrols.
** Use sobriety checkpoints.
* Impose driver's license penalties for minors violating alcohol laws.
* Change driver's licensing procedures and formats.
* Pass ordinances to restrict open house assemblies and noise level.
* Educate sellers/servers about potential legal liability.
_______________________________

What Works?
A Review of the Evidence
Among these many options, which ones work best? To answer that question, the 
NIAAA Task Force on College Drinking developed research-based recommendations to 
college and university presidents for effective prevention. Its findings were
published in April 2002 in A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at
U.S. Colleges (see http://collegedrinking prevention.gov).

Informed by the best scientific evidence available, this report strongly 
reinforces the environmental management approach. For prevention planners 
concerned about underage drinking and DUI, the NIAAA Task Force's list of
effective and promising approaches should serve as the departure point for 
crafting a comprehensive prevention program.

The NIAAA report organizes current programs and policies into four tiers
according to the quality of research evidence that is available at present.

TIER 1: EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS
Strategies included in tier 1 have two or more research studies that prove their
effectiveness. Programs in this category are limited to educational and 
intervention programs that target students who are alcohol-dependent or problem
drinkers. For example, based on the Alcohol Skills Training Program (ASTP),24 
the Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS) 
program uses two brief motivational interview sessions to give students feedback 
about their drinking level and an opportunity to craft a plan for reducing their 
alcohol consumption. High-risk drinkers who participated in the BASICS program 
significantly reduced their drinking relative to control group participants, a 
change that persisted even four years later.25

The ultimate challenge may be figuring out how to establish the tier 1 
intervention programs on a scale big enough to affect the behavior of large 
numbers of students, not just a small number of research participants. Using
trained professionals to conduct one-on-one or small-group sessions, as was done
in the research studies, would be prohibitively expensive. One alternative might
be to use peer educators. Another alternative might be a Web-based screening
tool with computerized feedback and guided development of an individualized
drinking reduction plan.

Research studies currently under way will determine the feasibility and
effectiveness of these and other low-cost options. Meanwhile, limited 
application of these programs using one-on-one or small-group procedures is 
clearly warranted for students who belong to high-risk social groups (e.g., 
fraternities and sororities, athletics teams), are being disciplined
for violating the school-s alcohol policies, or have identified themselves as
alcohol-dependent or problem drinkers.


TIER 2: EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS WITH GENERAL POPULATIONS
Several environmental change strategies for reducing alcohol-related problems
that have not yet been tested with college students nevertheless have been used 
successfully with the general population. These strategies, therefore, merit
serious consideration:

* Increased Enforcement of Minimum Legal Drinking Age.
As noted, raising the minimum legal drinking age has proved very effective,
resulting in substantial decreases in alcohol consumption and alcohol-related
motor vehicle crashes. This is the case even though enforcement of the "age 21" 
laws has been spotty. Studies do show that increased enforcement can 
substantially reduce sales to minors.26 By extension, college and community 
officials should seriously consider applying a variety of measures to prevent 
underage drinking, including cracking down on fake IDs, eliminating home 
delivery of alcohol, registering kegs, and so forth.

* Implementation and Enforcement of Other Laws to Reduce Alcohol-Impaired 
Driving. The best available estimate is that nearly 80 percent of alcohol-
related fatalities among college students are the result of automobile 
crashes.27 To date, well over 40 states and the District of Columbia have 
enacted per se .08 

percent blood alcohol concentration (BAC) legislation. In those states that have 
not yet done so, campus and community officials should call for state laws that 
will lower the legal per se limit for adult drivers to .08 percent BAC, set 
legal BAC limits for drivers under age 21 at .02 percent BAC or lower, and 
permit administrative license revocation after DUI arrests.28 Greater 
enforcement, including the use of sobriety checkpoints and targeted patrols, is 
also recommended.

* Restrictions on Alcohol Retail Outlet Density. 
The density of alcohol licenses or outlets is related to alcohol consumption and
alcohol-related problems, including violence, other crime, and health 
problems.29 One influential study found that both underage and older college 

students reported higher levels of alcohol consumption when there were larger 
numbers of alcohol outlets within one mile of campus.30 Additional research 
could test whether zoning and licensing regulations can be used to help reduce
alcohol-related problems, but the strong correlation between outlet density and 
alcohol problems suggests that this approach does have merit.

* Increased Prices and Excise Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages.
The effect of price on alcohol consumption is well documented. Studies have 
shown that when the price of alcohol goes up, many alcohol-related problems, 
including fatal motor vehicle crashes, go down. Price variations especially 
affect young people, even those who are already heavy drinkers.31 Price rises 
can be effected through increases in alcohol excise taxes. Another tactic is to 
work out cooperative agreements with local merchants to institute minimum 
pricing or to limit low-price drink specials.32

* Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) Policies. RBS involves several policies to 
reduce alcohol sales to minors and intoxicated patrons at bars and restaurants, 
including checking for proof-of-age identification, serving alcohol in smaller 
standard sizes, limiting the number of servings per alcohol sale, restricting 
sales of pitchers, promoting alcohol-free drinks and food, eliminating last-call 
announcements, and cutting off sales to patrons who might otherwise become 
intoxicated. Studies suggest that such policies-reinforced by training for both 
managers and staff and by compliance monitoring-can reduce inappropriate alcohol 
sales significantly.33

TIER 3: EVIDENCE OF PROMISE
The NIAAA Task Force report identified additional program and policy ideas that
make sense intuitively or seem theoretically sound but so far lack strong
research-based support. Table 2 lists these ideas, along with additional
promising ideas inspired by the Higher Education Center's environmental 
management approach. Clearly, any tactics that might serve to increase alcohol-
free options, change the normative environment, reduce alcohol availability, 
alter alcohol marketing and promotion, or increase the consistent enforcement of
policies deserve to be tried and evaluated.

TIER 4: EVIDENCE OF INEFFECTIVENESS
The programs listed in this final category consistently have been found to be 
ineffective when used in isolation. Whether they might make an important 
contribution as part of a more comprehensive prevention program has not yet been
demonstrated.

Basic awareness and education programs, although a major part of prevention work 
on most college campuses, belong to this tier. Typical among these efforts are 
orientation sessions for new students; alcohol awareness weeks and other special 
events; and curriculum infusion, through which instructors introduce alcohol-
related facts and issues into their regular academic courses.39 While college 
administrators have an obligation to make sure that students know the facts, 
such educational programs do not by themselves generally lead to widespread or 
consistent behavior change.

A second problematic tactic is using breath analysis tests to give students
feedback on their BAC levels so that they can avoid impaired driving. According 
to the NIAAA Task Force, anecdotal reports suggest that some student
drinkers will instead compete to reach the highest BAC possible.
________________________________________
Sidebar:
Strong State Laws and Policies Make a Difference
A study reported in 2002 by the CDC confirms the value of strong state laws and 
policies directed against DUI, especially for drivers under the age of 21. Among 
the most significant tasks that a campus and community coalition can undertake 
is to influence state policymakers to pass more effective laws and regulations.

Researchers made use of ratings of state anti-DUI laws created by Mothers 
Against Drunk Driving (MADD).34 MADD assigns states a grade from A to D based on 
the strength and comprehensiveness of their efforts to reduce alcohol-impaired 
driving. The MADD ratings for 2000 were compared with responses to the CDC's 
1997 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey.

The number of survey respondents who acknowledged driving after drinking in the
previous 30 days was lowest in states with the highest MADD ratings. Drivers in 
states with D ratings were 60 percent more likely to drive after drinking than 
those in states with an A rating.

Factors considered in the MADD ratings include (1) provisions of the DUI laws, 
(2) sanctions and penalties for violating those laws, (3) resources devoted to 
enforcement, (4) alcohol licensing regulations and requirements (e.g., mandatory 
server training), (5) prevention and education programs directed at youth, (6) 
mandatory assessment and treatment for alcohol problems, and (7) political 
leadership by the governor and state legislature on the issue of DUI.

No state received an unqualified A unless it (1) had a .08 percent BAC per se 
law, meaning that anyone with a BAC at that level or higher is by definition 
impaired; (2) provided for automatic administrative revocation of driver's 
licenses after DUI arrests; and (3) mandated the use of seat belts.35

Another CDC study rated the demonstrated effectiveness of five popular 
prevention strategies for reducing alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes. The 
study, published in 2001, found strong evidence for the effectiveness of .08 
percent BAC per se laws, minimum drinking age laws, and sobriety checkpoints. It 
found sufficient evidence for the effectiveness of lower BAC limits for young 
and inexperienced drivers ("zero tolerance" laws) and RBS training programs for 
servers of alcoholic beverages.36
___________________________________
Sidebar: 
The Silent Majority
Just as students typically overestimate how much their fellow students drink, 
many of them correspondingly underestimate how much their peers support new 
policies and stricter enforcement to reduce alcohol problems on campus.

The Social Norms Marketing Research Project, based at Education Development
Center, Inc., in Newton, Massachusetts, asked students at 18 colleges and 
universities how they felt about each of a dozen alcohol policies, among them 
banning keg parties on campus, using decoys to monitor sales to minors, making 
all campus residences alcohol- free, restricting advertising that promotes 
alcohol consumption at on-campus parties and events, and imposing tougher 
disciplinary sanctions for students who repeatedly violate campus alcohol 
policies.

The proportion of students who personally supported each policy was consistently
higher than the proportion thinking that other students felt that way. For 
example, 58 percent of students surveyed said they favored prohibiting kegs on 
campus, whereas only 26 percent said they believed there was general student 
support for this measure. While 77 percent were in favor of stricter 
disciplinary sanctions for students who repeatedly violate campus alcohol 
policies, only 46 percent believed that other students supported the idea.37

On a similar note, some campus administrators fear that parents of students will 
react adversely to tough policies that threaten to punish their children for 
violating college alcohol rules. Actually, in a survey conducted by the
American Medical Association (AMA), 80 percent of parents said they would feel 
more comfortable sending their child to a college with strong policies or 
programs in place to deter underage drinking and heavy alcohol use.

According to the survey, 93 percent of parents believe easy access to alcohol is 
a major cause of heavy drinking by students, 80 percent believe that low prices 
for alcohol contribute to student drinking, and 79 percent believe advertising 
and promotion by alcohol companies add to the problem.

The survey was conducted as part of the AMA's A Matter of Degree program, which
encourages alliances between campus and community organizations to reduce 
student alcohol problems.38

______________________________

PART 3
Prevention in Action
Area of Strategic Intervention Environmental Change 21

Alcohol-Free Options: Offer and promote social, recreational, extracurricular,

and public service options that do not include alcohol and other drugs (AOD) 21
* Alcohol-Free Events 21
* Volunteer Community Service 22

Normative Environment: Create a social, academic, and residential environment
that supports health-promoting norms 22
* Social Norms Marketing Campaigns 22
* Focus on College's Educational Mission  22

Alcohol Availability: Limit alcohol availability both on and off campus 23
* Responsible Beverage Service 23
* Closing Hours 23
* Laws That Confine Drinking 23
* Limiting the Density of Alcohol Outlets. 23
* Keg Registration 23
* Campus Policies to Restrict Alcohol Availability 25
* Policies for Fraternities, Sororities, and Other Campus Organizations 25

Marketing and Promotion of Alcohol: Restrict marketing and promotion of
alcoholic beverages both on and off campus 25
* Alcohol Advertising 25
* Sponsorship of Sports Events 26
* Comprehensive Ban on Alcohol Advertising 26
* Price 26
* Voluntary Marketing and Advertising Guidelines 26

Policy Development and Law Enforcement: Develop and enforce campus policies and
local, state, and federal laws 27
* Campus Regulations 27
* Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA) 27
* Parental Notification 28
* Alcohol Policy Violations off Campus 28
* Orientation Programs 28
* State and Local Laws 29
* Selling to Minors 29
* Underage Sellers 29
* Adults Providing Alcohol to Underage Drinkers 29
* Sobriety Checkpoints 30
* Fake IDs 30
* "Zero Tolerance" Laws 30

Area of Strategic Intervention: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral 
Intentions 31
* Effects of Alcohol on Ability to Drive 31

Area of Strategic Intervention: Health Protection 31
* Designated Driver Programs 31
* Safe Rides Program 32

Area of Strategic Intervention: Intervention and Treatment 32
* Interactive Course 32
* One-on-One Intervention 32

Prevention in Action
This section describes policies and programs currently being used throughout the 
United States to prevent underage drinking and DUI among college students. 
Program contact information can be found in part 5, Resources (p. 43). The 
descriptions are organized according to the typology of campus and community 
prevention efforts developed by the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and 
Other Drug Prevention (see table 1).The following section describes four areas 
of strategic intervention: (1) Environmental Change; (2) Knowledge, Attitudes, 
and Behavioral Intentions; (3) Health Protection; and (4) Intervention and 
Treatment.

Area of Strategic Intervention
Environmental Change

ALCOHOL-FREE OPTIONS:
Offer and promote social, recreational, extracurricular, and public service 
options that do not include alcohol and other drugs (AOD).

Students seeking lively social contacts should be able to choose between more
than either bars and nightclubs or alcohol-fueled parties. A comprehensive 
effort to reduce underage drinking and impaired driving should ensure that 
students, especially those under the legal drinking age, have a choice of 
alcohol-free activities in a campus and community atmosphere that supports the
decision to avoid drinking.

Alcohol-Free Events
Alcohol-free events might require more advertising and promotion than those 
relying on alcoholic beverages to help draw attendance. Creating and promoting
such activities is a challenge and always runs the risk of failure, but a
number of successful campus-based programs can be used as models:
* A program called -WVUp All Night at West Virginia University has attracted up 
to 1,000 students on weekend nights with free food, comedy, bowling, live bands, 
and other activities.
* An annual dance for students sponsored by Boston College's alumni association 
became notorious for high-risk drinking and was canceled. In response, the 
alumni association -organized sports competitions and community service 
projects, such as providing meals to local food banks.
* Through a program called -PRIDE (Promoting Responsible and Informed Decisions 
through Education), the University of Redlands in California offers screenings 
of current hit movies, a coffee and dessert bar, and weekly events featuring 
comedians, musicians, and other live entertainment.
___________________________
Sidebar:
Eyes on the Prize
Several chapters of the Automobile Association of America (AAA) and the U.S. 
Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug
Prevention cosponsor the annual College and University Drinking and Driving 
Prevention Awards Program. The program annually awards one $5,000 grand prize 
and two $1,000 prizes to colleges and universities in a six-state region 
(California, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah) for their innovative 
activities to reduce drinking and driving among their students. Other AAA
chapters are considering joining this recognition effort, and it is hoped that 
it might some day become national in scope. Visit http://www.higheredcenter. 
org/grants/aaa/ for more information.
_____________________________

Volunteer Community Service
Vacation periods are also a time of risk for student drinking problems. Across
the nation, several campus organizations are now in place to arrange for 
students to do volunteer community service during spring break and other 

vacation periods. Central Michigan University's -Alternative Breaks provides 
opportunities during vacation breaks and on several weekends during the academic
year. -Alternative Weekends is a similar program based at the University
of Michigan. Habitat for Humanity, an organization that enlists volunteers to
help build houses in poverty-stricken areas, saw a 15 percent rise in student
participation in its 2002 Collegiate Challenge program.

NORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT:
Create a social, academic, and residential environment that supports health-
promoting norms.

Social Norms Marketing Campaigns
Social norms marketing campaigns are designed to convey accurate information to 
students about "peer drinking norms" or the drinking habits of other students.
The idea is to undermine the wildly exaggerated views of student drinking that
many students hold and thereby reduce the perceived pressure to drink alcohol in
order to fit in.40 This approach has been adapted to help dispel similar 
misperceptions about driving after drinking.

The University of Texas (UT) at Austin developed its campaign after a survey 
showed that seven out of 10 UT students do not drive after drinking, and that 
seven out of 10 UT students drink no more than three drinks at a party, if
they drink at all. The -"7 out of 10" message saturated the Austin campus
during the 2000-01 academic year, appearing at orientation meetings for
first-year students, on posters, in newspaper ads, on radio and television, on a
Web site, and on stickers worn by many staff and students.

-MOST of Us, a statewide campaign developed at Montana State University (MSU), 
used posters, media messages, and other information channels to get out the 
message that four out of five 18 to 21 year olds on the MSU campus do not drive 
after drinking. A follow-up survey found that only about 16 percent of those who 
recalled the MOST of Us message had driven after drinking in the previous month, 
compared with 25 percent of those not recalling any DUI prevention message.

Focus on College's Educational Mission
The normative environment is also communicated by policies and practices that 
either promote or undermine the College's educational mission. For example,
some campus administrators have discovered that the convenience and popularity 
of scheduling all or most classes early in the week creates a "three-day 
weekend." The NIAAA Task Force recommended reinstating Friday (and perhaps even 
Saturday) classes and exams as a means of reducing high-risk drinking by 
students.41

Initial resistance among students may diminish when voluntary activities once
scheduled for Fridays are moved to Wednesdays and regular classes are
scheduled on Fridays.42 At Clark University in Massachusetts, the faculty
voted to schedule more classes on Fridays after a survey showed that there
were almost three times as many class meetings on Mondays and Wednesdays
as on Fridays. Similarly, Wesleyan College in Middletown, Connecticut, scheduled
more classes on Fridays after students complained that there were too many
classes in the middle of the week.43

ALCOHOL AVAILABILITY:
Limit alcohol availability both on and off campus.

Responsible Beverage Service
RBS training for owners, managers, and employees of off-campus alcohol outlets
is a key prevention tactic. RBS training is a means of reducing underage 
drinking and preventing intoxicated patrons from leaving an establishment to 
drive a motor vehicle. A special value of RBS training is that it helps servers 
detect counterfeit proof-of-age documents and teaches them how to refuse service 
in a way that avoids confrontation. Typically, RBS training also includes 
information about how to recognize signs of intoxication and prevent alcohol 
misuse.

Asking DUI offenders where they had their last drink before being arrested may 
indicate that certain establishments are routinely failing to cut off service to
intoxicated patrons or not making an effort to keep them from driving while 
impaired. A "last drink" survey at the University of Delaware found that between 
45 and 50 percent of students arrested for DUI had their last drink at a bar or 
restaurant, whereas 30 percent had their last drink at someone else's home.44

Closing Hours
If bars close at 2:00 AM in one city or county, drinkers might then go by car to
an adjacent city or county where bars stay open until 3:00 AM. The risk this 
creates prompted a new ordinance changing the bar-closing hour in Union City, 
New Jersey, from 3:00 AM to 2:00 AM to bring it in line with closing times in 
surrounding towns. Obviously, earlier closing hours also give bar patrons less 
time to drink, thus reducing the risk of impairment before customers drive home.

Laws That Confine Drinking

Laws that confine drinking to licensed premises and set aside designated areas
for alcohol sales and consumption at public events help discourage irresponsible
behavior and public disturbances by students.45 Such laws also increase vendor
accountability by making it easier to track which alcohol outlets are serving

underage drinkers or intoxicated persons. Also worth considering is enactment of
alcohol bans at beaches, lakefronts, parks, and other public places in order to 
keep these locations safe for family recreation.

Limiting the Density of Alcohol Outlets
Research has shown higher levels of both underage and high-risk drinking when
there is a heavier concentration of alcohol outlets near campus.46 Although 
alcohol licensing might be a responsibility of state government, local 
communities can still use zoning powers to control the density of neighborhood 
alcohol outlets and to require that licensees engage in responsible business 
practices.

The city of Newark, Delaware, acted to reduce the density of bars in the 
vicinity of the University of Delaware by placing deed restrictions prohibiting 
the sale of alcohol on three properties. In Lincoln, Nebraska, the University of
Nebraska worked for passage of an ordinance banning "bottle clubs" that provide
drink mixers to patrons who bring their own alcohol.

Keg Registration
At least 13 states and the District of Columbia now have keg registration laws. 
The merchant records the buyer's name, address, telephone number, and
Driver's license number. If police confiscate a keg being used to supply 
underage drinkers, they can easily trace the purchaser and impose sanctions.

The effectiveness of keg registration has been challenged by the alcohol 
industry, which argues that the law merely induces party organizers to buy beer 
in six-packs or cases instead of kegs. Even if that is the case, this in itself 
might be a net benefit, as beer purchased in cans and bottles is more expensive 
than beer purchased by the keg, a factor that could drive down consumption.

__________________________
Sidebar:

A Community Covenant
The College Bar Task Force in San Diego is on the front line in the battle 
against alcohol impaired driving. Its focus is the beach areas of San Diego-
miles from most of the large campuses, but popular with students who more than 
likely come and go there by car. The task force-s mission is to get bar and
restaurant operators who cater to students to subscribe to a ?"community
covenant" pledging them to pursue business policies that will minimize such 
problems as underage drinking and DUI.

Working with the San Diego Food and Beverage Association and the California
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the task force arranges free classes 
in RBS for owners, managers, bartenders, waiters, and other servers who come in 
regular contact with students. The servers learn to detect fake IDs, recognize 
when customers are becoming intoxicated, encourage patrons to eat as well as 
drink, and promote the use of designated drivers among groups of students.
Doormen who check IDs also receive training in how to identify counterfeit 
documents. With the rise of "club drugs" as a new substance abuse problem, bar 
employees are also receiving training in ways to spot the presence of illegal 
drugs.

The task force focuses not only on what happens in the bars but also on the low-
price drink specials and other lures commonly featured in bar advertising and 
promotion. One aim is to persuade bars not to compete with one another by 
cutting drink prices, says Marian Novak, director of San Diego's Collegiate-
Community Alcohol Prevention Partnership (C-CAPP). Price specials tend to
increase alcohol consumption and thus produce more drinkers at risk for impaired 
driving and other problems.

C-CAPP has a full menu of prevention activities aimed at reducing underage and
other high-risk drinking among the 140,000 college students attending the San 
Diego area's nine colleges and universities. Grants from the U.S. Department of 
Education and the NIAAA have helped underwrite this work. The coalition includes 
campus administrators, students, representatives of campus police, local police 
departments, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 
representatives of alcohol retailers and bars and restaurants, and prevention
advocates from community agencies concerned with alcohol issues.

The coalition considers itself to be a prevention "system" rather than a 
program. It looks at alcohol problems in terms of several "subsystems," 
including advertising and promotion of alcohol, social norms influencing
drinking behavior of students, policies and regulations, retail sales and 
availability, and drinking in high-risk contexts like tailgate and other student 
parties.

A Safe and Responsible Party Task Force has developed a close relationship with 
the San Diego Police Department to carry out a program for quelling noisy 
parties in neighborhoods around campuses. The program uses a city antinoise 
ordinance to ban partying at private residences that have generated two or more 
police visits within a month. The program does not attempt to deal with partying
at fraternity and sorority houses. Instead, these organizations are urged to
invite nondrinking student monitors to their parties to prevent underage 
drinking and discourage driving after drinking.

In another activity, Associated Students, a San Diego State University 
organization, is providing free rides home to partying students who have been 
drinking at bars in the beach areas. An airport shuttle service under contract 
to Associated Students keeps three vans available between 11:00 PM and 3:00
AM on Friday and Saturday nights to pick up students who have been drinking and 
take them home.
__________________________


Campus Policies to Restrict Alcohol Availability
On campus, an institutional policy that permits the sale and consumption of
alcoholic beverages by persons of legal drinking age should include provisions
to help prevent underage drinking. Facilities where alcohol is sold-a faculty
lounge, student union, or pub-should be required to adhere to the strictest 
possible RBS code, not only refusing to serve minors and intoxicated patrons but 
also refraining from any price reductions or promotions that encourage the 
choice of alcoholic over nonalcoholic beverages.

Many campuses specify times and places where alcohol cannot be consumed,
such as substance-free residence halls or residence halls for students under
21.An alcohol-free policy can also be extended to all public areas of the 
campus, athletics facilities, parking lots, fraternity and sorority recruiting 
functions, and any social events where a significant number of those in 
attendance are under age.

Policies for Fraternities, Sororities, and Other Campus Organizations
Alcohol policies that affect fraternities, sororities, and other campus 
organizations should be adopted and enforced as part of an environmental 
prevention program. Now that fraternities and sororities increasingly face civil 
lawsuits connected with alcohol use, many campus chapters and their national 
offices have become potential sources of support for effective policies. Their 
active role in supporting these policies can range from requiring RBS training 
for alcohol servers at social events to outright bans on alcohol whenever events
might attract persons under age 21.A rule requiring social events to be 
registered and approved by college administrators can help ensure that 
organizers know the school's policies. Sanctions against organizations can 
include temporary or permanent suspension, which would then preclude them from 
recruiting new members or otherwise participating in campus life.

-------------

The set of events covered by a restrictive alcohol policy should be clearly 
specified. The University of Tulsa makes its alcohol policy sweeping in its
application: "The Alcohol Policy shall apply to every function or event, 
including but not limited to receptions, banquets, dinners, picnics, or any 
outdoor event, social event, and campuswide activity sponsored by organizations 
or individuals associated with the University of Tulsa. In addition, other
off-campus University of Tulsa events that imply or express university 
affiliation are bound by this policy."47
__________________________
Sidebar:
Chief to Chief
According to the Lincoln Star-Journal, Police Chief Tom Casady of Lincoln, 
Nebraska, fired off a scolding letter to the police chief in a Florida beach
resort after ads in the University of Nebraska campus paper suggested that 
underage drinking and drunkenness would be tolerated at the resort during
spring break. The police chief in Florida responded that he too was upset about 
the implications of the advertising, and he assured Chief Casady that the laws 
would be enforced regardless of what the ads implied.

The Lincoln chief has been a supporter of tough enforcement of underage drinking 
laws in Lincoln as a member of the -NU Directions campus and community 
coalition, which pursues a number of strategies aimed at reducing alcohol-
related problems among students. Chief Casady has complained about ads in 
homegrown publications, too, chastising several local bars for promotions that
seem to encourage high-risk drinking.

The efforts of Chief Casady and the NU Directions coalition appear to be paying 
off. Their city had the lowest rate of alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths
among the 97 largest cities in the country, according to a study released in 
2001 by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.49 The University of Nebraska has 
also reported lower rates of heavy drinking among its students, in contrast with 
national trends reported in the 2001 College Alcohol Study.50
___________________________________

MARKETING AND PROMOTION OF ALCOHOL:
Restrict marketing and promotion of alcoholic beverages both on and off campus.

Alcohol Advertising
The National Commission on Drug-Free Schools has called for a prohibition
of all alcohol advertising in campus newspapers, at sports stadiums, and at all
campus events.48 One justification is that alcohol marketing often targets youth
and young adults without distinguishing between minors and those of legal 
drinking age, even though more than half the students on many campuses are under 
21. Moreover, such advertising frequently associates alcohol consumption with 
tasks that require skilled and quick reactions, including operation of motor 
vehicles. Independent publications cannot be compelled to eliminate alcohol 
advertising, but a prevention coalition should still seek voluntary agreements 
with them to restrict the advertising's content.

Sponsorship of Sports Events
Sponsorship of sports events by alcohol manufacturers reinforces the mistaken
idea that drinking goes with activities requiring physical agility and 
coordination, including operating a motor vehicle. Campuses such as Fresno State
University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Kentucky, and the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have successfully diminished their
dependence on alcohol advertising for intercollegiate athletics, either removing
promotional displays from arenas or shifting to other corporate sponsors for 
television and radio broadcasts.

Comprehensive Ban on Alcohol Advertising
A comprehensive ban on alcohol advertising and promotion should also exclude
use of college logos, insignia, or mascots by alcohol manufacturers and prohibit
their sponsorship of educational programs and fraternity and sorority events.
In addition, these companies should be prohibited from placing sales or 
promotional representatives on campus.51

Some institutions might resist a policy banning or otherwise restricting alcohol
advertising and promotion because campus publications, athletics departments,
or other extracurricular programs have become dependent on advertising income 
from the alcohol industry. To gain acceptance of a ban, campus administrators
should ensure that educational, sporting, cultural, and prevention-oriented
activities are adequately funded without the industry's money. Other potential
sources of support include special contributions by alumni, paid advertising by
other types of businesses (e.g., soft drink distributors, restaurants, 
sportswear companies), and higher student fees.52

Price
College students, like other consumers, are sensitive to price in making 
decisions about drinking. Researchers at the University of Arkansas found that 
students agreed they would drink more when "all you can drink" specials were 
available. The study found that high-risk drinkers were more likely than others 
to drink more when prices were lower. Urging bars and restaurants to avoid
price specials as an advertising lure is an important prevention tactic.53

Voluntary Marketing and Advertising Guidelines
Led by the Albany, New York, mayor's office and officials from the University at
Albany, State University of New York (SUNY), the city Committee on University 
and Community Relations worked with the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern 
Association to persuade owners of bars and restaurants in off-campus student 
neighborhoods to subscribe to the following -voluntary marketing and advertising 
guidelines:54
* Include a statement asking patrons to be respectful of neighborhood residents 
and to behave responsibly and in a civil manner when leaving the establishment.
* Eliminate low-price drink promotions, which encourage high rates of alcohol 
consumption.
* Emphasize the legal necessity of being 21 years of age or older, with a valid 
form of identification, to obtain alcohol.
* Avoid language or illustrations that promote irresponsible alcohol 
consumption.
* Promote nonalcoholic beverages and food specials to the same extent as 
alcoholic beverage specials.

Establishments that agree to this advertising code are allowed to display a 
Cooperating Tavern logo in their ads. The committee monitors publications to 
assure compliance and works with tavern owners to revise ads that do not comply.
Since the program's inception, hotline complaints about students' off-campus 
conduct have dropped dramatically.

Officials at SUNY New Paltz have also worked with local police and business
leaders to promulgate a Tavern Owner's Agreement, with the following additional 
features:
* The campus newspaper will accept advertising only from establishments whose 
owners signed the agreement.
* A copolicing arrangement between SUNY campus police and the New Paltz police 
calls for collaborative problem solving, including policing of off-campus 
parties where underage drinking may occur.

The number of low-price drink specials advertised by local bars has dropped
sharply since the inception of the Tavern Owner's Agreement.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT:
Develop and enforce campus policies and local, state, and federal laws.

Campus Regulations
Campus alcohol policies should be reviewed periodically to ensure that they
are comprehensive, clearly written, consistently enforced, and include 
appropriate sanctions for violations. The policies must be specific and detailed 
so that all concerned understand precisely what is expected of them. Various 
policy options and suggestions for wording can be found in Setting and Improving 
Policies for Reducing Alcohol and Other Drug Problems on Campus: A Guide for 
Administrators (see Resources, p. 43).

A participatory process will build greater support for new policies. Senior
administrators should seek the participation of diverse campus constituencies in
this process, including faculty, staff, campus police, alumni, students, and 
parents. Community activists, such as representatives from MADD or Students 

Against Destructive Decisions (SADD), can provide community input for campus 
policy development.

Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA)
The DFSCA specifies important content for an institution's alcohol policies. The
act requires institutions of higher education to maintain a written policy that 
sets forth standards of conduct clearly prohibiting the unlawful possession, 
use, or distribution of alcohol or illicit drugs on school property or as part 
of any school activity. The policy must also make clear that certain sanctions 
apply to student acts committed under the influence, such as public 
disturbances, endangerment to self or others, or property damage.

According to the DFSCA, the policy must include a clear statement that the
institution will impose sanctions up to expulsion or termination of employment
and referral for prosecution for violations of its standards of conduct.55
Additional sanctions for violations might include mandatory attendance at a 
prevention education program, loss of privileges, community service, fines, or 
eviction from college-owned or college-controlled housing. The University of
Kentucky's alcohol policy, for example, provides that an athlete convicted of
DUI will be suspended from competition for a year and will be on probation while 
at the university.

Parental Notification
A survey of judicial affairs officers at 189 institutions in January 2000 by 
researchers at Bowling Green State University found that 59 percent had parental 
notification policies in effect, while 25 percent were actively considering 
adopting such a policy. Some institutions reported lower rates of recidivism 
after they began notifying parents of violations.56

The University of Missouri at Columbia in 2001 adopted a two-step process for 
parental notification. First, an information packet is sent to underage students 
and their parents urging them to discuss drinking and other drug use. The 
materials explain that unless parents choose otherwise, they will be notified
when the student commits an alcohol or other drug violation. With 13,600 packets
mailed before the 2001?02 academic year, only 121 parents chose not to be 
notified. During the year, the university sent 48 letters informing parents that
their underage children had committed violations. More than half of the 
violations were for DUI.57

Alcohol Policy Violations off Campus
The jurisdiction of campus prevention policies should be carefully defined, 
generally including all college property as well as events controlled by or 
associated with the institution, including off-campus events.

The extent to which policies cover off-campus behavior should reflect community
norms. Town-gown agreements sometimes provide for local police to notify campus 
authorities when a student is arrested or ticketed for an alcohol- related 
offense. Several colleges and universities have specified that an incident 
occurring off campus will still be considered a violation of the student conduct 
code.

Orientation Programs
The National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience? and Students in
Transition estimates that as many as 2,000 U.S. institutions of higher education
offer a comprehensive orientation program that includes familiarizing new 
students with the school's alcohol and other drug policies and with substance-
free activities both on and off campus.

Campus officials must also take steps to ensure that students-especially new
Students-are familiar with the policies, including sanctions. Potential civil 
liability should be discussed as well. For example, party hosts should be 
informed that they might be held legally responsible for having provided alcohol 
to a minor if underage guests are found to be drinking, and that they might be 
liable for any physical harm caused by an underage guest who was drinking.

At SUNY New Paltz the student handbook,-Campus Regulations and Judicial 
Procedures, is distributed to both students and parents to clarify policies

and sanctions concerning alcohol. An orientation program-called Where's the 
Party?-reviews the university's expectations for student conduct. The 
Collegiate-Community Alcohol Prevention Partnership in San Diego distributes
door-hangers in campus neighborhoods to explain laws and penalties for providing 
alcohol to minors and local ordinances regarding noisy parties. 

The Underage Drinking Enforcement Program at the University of Northern Colorado 
in Greeley offers -"Stop, Look, and Listen," a two-hour presentation on alcohol 
laws and policies, for students and parents attending summer orientation. During 
the academic year the program requires underage students who are ticketed for 
alcohol-related offenses (either on or off campus) to attend a six-hour
seminar on alcohol issues.

State and Local Laws
Campus and community coalitions should also work to ensure that prevailing state 
and local laws and regulations are enforced and that proposals for tougher laws 
receive vocal support from the community.

Selling to Minors
Youth in Action teams organized by local MADD chapters have enlisted underage 
high school and college students to serve as "decoys" for police patrols that 
monitor whether alcohol outlets are selling to minors. Most enforcement agencies 
have strict guidelines for such operations to ensure that they are fair to the 
alcohol licensees, for example, testing retail clerks only with would-be 
purchasers who have a youthful appearance and are carrying identification 

showing that they are indeed under age.

In Hawaii, a decoy operation testing 295 stores found that 39 percent were 
willing to sell alcohol to a minor. After a year of random testing, the number 
had declined to 19 percent. In Iowa City, home of the University of Iowa, police
reported a 30 percent decline in DUI arrests involving underage drivers after
the introduction of a decoy program testing compliance with the law at the 
city's 50 bars.58 Successful use of decoys in the community suggests that the 
same tactic could be used to test adherence to the law at on-campus pubs and 
events where alcohol is served.

The Century Council's Cops in Shops? program uses law enforcement officers 
posing as retail clerks to deter attempts by underage customers to buy

alcohol. The tactic has been used with some success in outlets that are 
considered popular sources of alcohol for underage drinkers, but its actual 
effect on illegal sales has not been measured. Some enforcement agencies avoid 
it because of the amount of time and energy required to address each violation. 
A participating officer can monitor only one or two stores in an evening, 
whereas the same officer running a decoy program can test a dozen or more 
establishments for compliance in the same length of time.
_________________________
Sidebar:
Keeping Up with the Law
All states make it illegal to sell or provide alcohol to persons under age 21 
and to intoxicated persons, but the way the laws are interpreted and applied 
varies from state to state. Generally, the laws provide for criminal penalties
such as fines or administrative remedies, including forfeiture of alcohol 
licenses. Civil court decisions in different states have led to variations in 
legal liability for cases in which alcohol service can be linked to death, 
injury, or property damage. College and university administrators should work 
with legal counsel to keep careful watch on new legislation and case law
in their state and to assess their implications for the school's AOD policies.
________________________

Underage Sellers
The age at which young people can legally sell and serve alcohol ranges from 16 
to 21 and varies from state to state. California, for example, allows 18 year
olds to sell alcohol if they are under "continuous supervision" by someone over 
21. Some state laws differentiate between those who serve alcohol and those who 
merely sell packaged alcoholic beverages over the counter in retail 
establishments.

Underage sellers have greater difficulty than those over 21 refusing sales to
underage buyers. They are more likely to misjudge the customer?s age, make
exceptions for friends and acquaintances, and respond to peer pressure. Even so,
efforts to pass state laws that prohibit underage sellers may encounter 
resistance from the business community because of the effect such legislation
would have on employment policies.

Adults Providing Alcohol to Underage Drinkers
Tougher state laws can also help discourage adults from providing alcohol to 
underage drinkers. In Minnesota, a recent law makes it a felony to have provided 
alcohol to a minor who suffers serious injury or death as a result, while 
another new law allows persons harmed by an underage drinker to sue any adults
who provided alcohol to that person. Says an advocate of these recent Minnesota 
laws: "Our message is, selling or giving alcohol to kids is wrong and will get 
you in a world of trouble."59

"Shoulder-tap" enforcement programs use underage decoys to discourage adult 
purchases of alcohol on behalf of minors. The term derives from the image of 
minors approaching adults outside an alcohol retail outlet, tapping them on the 
shoulder, and asking them to purchase alcohol on the minors' behalf. Retailers 
are often willing to help with shoulder-tap programs because laws in many states 
hold them responsible for such activities in the immediate vicinity of their 
establishments.

Sobriety Checkpoints
Sobriety checkpoints are an important tool for DUI enforcement. A police officer
detecting evidence of alcohol use by a driver can ask the driver to take a 
breath test to establish BAC. In many states, refusal to take the test leads to
immediate driver's license suspension.

The value of sobriety checkpoints goes beyond apprehending drunken drivers.
In fact, relatively few drivers are arrested at checkpoints. Yet with 
appropriate publicity, the checkpoints can have a significant dampening effect 
on impaired driving. The knowledge that police may be conducting checkpoints can 
be a deterrent to those who might otherwise decide to drive after drinking.60

The Colorado State Patrol (CSP) works closely with city, county, and campus 
police forces during high-risk periods. In 2001, the CSP took note of the
rising rate of alcohol use at Halloween parties. In response, more than 500
police and sheriff's officers throughout the state were assigned to checkpoints
and other DUI enforcement measures during the Halloween party season. Colorado 
members of the BACCHUS and GAMMA Peer Education Network helped spread the word 
about the -Halloween crackdown in order to enhance its deterrent effect and to
encourage partying students to use designated drivers or alternative 
transportation.

Fake IDs
Laws covering fake IDs vary from state to state, as do policies and programs for
their enforcement. Police departments and other enforcement agencies can conduct 
workshops for alcohol licensees to teach them how to spot counterfeit or altered 
IDs, usually driver's licenses. In Boston, fake IDs are confiscated by servers 
and retailers and turned over to police, who fax copies to college and 
university officials for whatever action they choose to take. At Boston College, 
for example, the consequences include a $100 fine and suspension of eligibility
for campus housing until the student reaches age 21. In addition to these 
sanctions, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts suspends the offender's driver's 
license for six months.

"Zero Tolerance" Laws
All states have adopted "zero tolerance" laws that set a lower (.00 to .02 
percent) BAC limit for drivers under age 21. These laws have been credited with
reducing alcohol-related automobile crashes among young people by 20 percent. 61 
Research shows that the deterrent effect of such laws is magnified through 
public awareness.62 Information about "zero tolerance" laws should be included
in all alcohol education programs and orientation sessions for first-year 
students.

Young people taking part in MADD's Youth in Action program have helped draw the 
attention of police departments to the importance of enforcing "zero tolerance" 
laws.63 Police in some states have maintained that the laws, as written, make 
them difficult to enforce. In this case, a campus and community coalition can 
seek legislative changes to correct the problem.

Campus and community coalitions working on enforcement of zero tolerance and 
other traffic safety measures may find valuable assistance from the Governors 
Highway Safety Association. More information about this nationwide
program is available at its Web site (statehighwaysafety.org).

Area of Strategic Intervention
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions

Effects of Alcohol on Ability to Drive

Students should make decisions about drinking based on fact rather than myth.
For example, each semester Colorado State University (CSU) presents -Rights, 
Responsibilities, and Ramifications, a workshop that tells students about the 

effects of alcohol on their reflexes and ability to drive, discusses what
is likely to happen if they are caught driving under the influence, and explains 
their legal rights. Also included is a description of Colorado's "zero 
tolerance" law for underage drinking drivers. A CSU police officer and the 
university's director of legal services present the workshop.

The workshop features a demonstration of how alcohol can affect a would be
driver. Under police supervision, a resident assistant who is over 21 drinks
to the point of impairment-a point that comes sooner than most students
would expect. Students at the workshop are also invited to use goggles that 
simulate impaired vision and then ride tricycles through an obstacle course to 
get an idea of what driving after drinking can be like. By the time they leave, 
students not only know a lot more about driving after drinking but have also 
received information about campus resources that can help them with alcohol 
problems.

Area of Strategic Intervention
Health Protection

Designated Driver Programs
Since 1993, NHTSA and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention have recommended 
designated driver programs as a means for drinkers of legal age to avoid driving 
after drinking. With this strategy, a group going out to a social event where 
alcohol is to be consumed selects one person to abstain and be responsible for 
driving. An important aspect of designated driver programs is that publicity 
about them reminds the public that it is irresponsible to drive after 
drinking.65

Designated driver programs have flourished in spite of reservations by some 
prevention advocates, who worry that the programs may encourage high-risk
drinking by the designated driver's passengers. In fact, a 1993 survey of
more than 17,000 U.S. college students established that designated driver 
programs have a net beneficial effect. Among drinkers, 1,908 students who
could be classified as heavy drinkers reported not drinking heavily the last
time they served as a designated driver. At the same time, only 1,031 students 
who normally would not be classified as heavy drinkers reported drinking heavily
the last time they rode with a designated driver. The study's authors note, 
however, that the exact contribution of this strategy to reducing motor vehicle
crashes still needs to be determined.66

Some designated driver programs are based on working relationships with bars
and restaurants popular with students. The establishment agrees to provide free
beverages such as coffee or soft drinks to the designated driver and in return
receives free publicity. A program at the University of New Mexico, -Designated 
Drivers Do It for Friends, uses free movie passes and other rewards to enlist 
designated drivers. The program also has persuaded many local bars and 
restaurants to provide free nonalcoholic drinks and waive cover charges
for the nondrinking driver.
___________________________
Sidebar:
Spring Break
Underage drinking and other alcohol problems during spring break have led 
authorities in many resort areas to step up enforcement when students flood 
their communities. The strain on local enforcement agencies may be such that 
they will need to seek special funding from the state government to cover the
expense of enhanced patrols. In Texas, a state grant allowed the Texas Alcoholic 
Beverage Commission to assign 36 agents to join local law enforcement officers 
in patrolling beach areas near Brownsville and on South Padre Island during the 
2002 spring break.

Other resort communities are trying to discourage the flood of vacationing 
students. In 2002, the influx of 150,000 students who converged on Daytona 
Beach, Florida, during spring break led to "fistfights, underage drinking,
trashed hotel rooms, and police-supervised evictions," according to local press 
reports. Under pressure from the Volusia County Council, the Daytona region's 
spring break advertising budget for the following year was cut in half (from 
$125,000 to $62,500); the goal of this down-sized campaign is to draw in more 
family-oriented tourists.64
__________________________

Safe Rides Program
Designated driver programs work when drinkers are part of a group. For drinkers 
who would otherwise be driving home alone or riding with an impaired driver,
an alternative is a "safe rides" Program that provides safe and sober 
transportation. The ride home is provided free or at a reduced rate. A student-
managed program called -CARPOOL at Texas A&M University offers rides home to
students on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights between 10:00 PM and 3:00 AM.
The program uses rented cars and enlists and trains students as volunteer 
drivers. The $200,000 budget is covered by fundraising events and donations from 
sources in the community.
___________________________
Sidebar:
"We Want You to Turn 22 . . . "
Many colleges and universitiesmust cope with a recenttradition among some 
students calling for a night of heavy drinking to celebrate a 21st birthday, 
when purchasing alcohol becomes legal. Georgetown University'sHealth Education 
Services sends students turning 21 a birthday card with the message,
"We want you to turn 22 . . . celebrate responsibly." Cal Poly, Pomona, came up
with a variation on the same theme: a program reminding birthday celebrants that 
their 21st birthday "does not equal 21 drinks."
___________________________

Area of Strategic Intervention
Intervention and Treatment

A new study recommends that colleges and universities implement strategies to 
identify and screen high-risk student drinkers and to ensure that treatment is 
readily available for those who are diagnosed with alcohol disorders. The study, 
based on questionnaires filled out by 14,000 students at 119 four-year U.S. 
colleges, indicated that 31 percent of students meet the clinical criteria for 
misuse of alcohol, while 6 percent meet the criteria for alcohol dependency.67

Interactive Course
The University of New Mexico (UNM) developed the Alcohol Awareness and Education 
program for students adjudicated for first-time alcohol infractions. The UNM 
course is a -three-hour, interactive session facilitated by a trained graduate 
student and an undergraduate assistant. The course emphasizes decision-making, 
risk reduction, and moderation in alcohol use rather than abstinence.

One-on-One Intervention
A program at Auburn University in Alabama calls for -one-on-one intervention 
with students who violate an alcohol policy or are having other alcohol-related 
problems. The program provides a motivational interview conducted by a doctoral 

student in clinical psychology. The approach is neither punitive nor 
confrontational, but instead seeks to encourage a self-appraisal of the
Student's drinking habits and a full consideration of whether and how to make
lifestyle changes.

--------
While informative, this review of current prevention policies and programs
cannot be translated into a simple formula to follow. Members of a campus and 
community coalition can learn from what others have tried, but ultimately they 
must devise, through trial and error, a tailored approach that fits the needs of
their own community. This means, therefore, that each coalition will need
to have a feedback and evaluation mechanism in place to monitor its prevention
efforts, verify that they are being fully implemented as planned, and ensure 
that they are actually working well to reduce alcohol-related problems.
__________________________
Sidebar:
Reshaping the Campus and Community Environment at UC Santa Barbara-Case Study of 
a Comprehensive Approach
The University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), was one of the first 
universities in the nation to recognize alcohol use as a serious issue for 
students when it introduced an alcohol awareness program in 1980. In the
1990s, UCSB was also in the forefront in adopting an environmental management
approach for AOD prevention efforts and in targeting DUI in particular.

UCSB has 17,000 undergraduate and 2,000 graduate students. Many of them drive
regularly to the nearby city of Santa Barbara for the music, dancing, and 
alcohol outlets to be found there, creating obvious risks for alcohol-impaired 
driving. Those who stay closer to the campus-in the adjacent community
of Isla Vista-are also at risk for injury due to alcohol. Because bicycles are
the favorite mode of short-trip transportation in and around Isla Vista, UCSB's 
prevention program targets both DUI and BUI (bicycling under the influence).

Grants from the California Office of Traffic Safety helped cover the start-up 
costs for a set of prevention initiatives that ultimately evolved into a 
comprehensive program involving students, staff, faculty, administrators,
and the Isla Vista community. UCSB received an award from the Automobile Club
of Southern California for its concerted effort to reduce driving after drinking 
and other high-risk use of alcohol.

Before the students return each fall, a steering committee called the AOD
Workgroup formulates a strategic plan for the coming year, based on a review of 
the prior year's prevention activities and what has been learned about their 
strengths and weaknesses. The committee, representing university departments and 
organizations responsible for prevention work, meets biweekly throughout the 
academic year to monitor programs and revise strategies as necessary. Once each 
quarter, a larger campus and community coalition and the Isla Vista Ad Hoc Task 
Force on Community Standards come together to discuss the recommendations and 
strategies proposed by the AOD Workgroup.

UCSB's current program includes a range of activities, outlined below.

AREA OF STRATEGIC INTERVENTION:
Environmental Change

Alcohol-Free Options: Weekly alcohol-free social activities are offered for 
students through on- and off-campus residence halls, sports clubs, and a 
recreation center. The Office of Student Life hosts student focus groups to plan 
and organize new activities that reflect current interests and popular
tastes and can compete with entertainment and recreational activities where 
alcohol is available.

Normative Environment: UCSB students, like students at other colleges and 
universities, typically overestimate the amount of drinking that is "normal" in 
the campus population.68 To correct this misperception, the university's social 
norms marketing campaign uses posters, cups, key chains, and media advertising 
to convey accurate information about current drinking levels.

Alcohol Availability: UCSB's Substance Abuse Policy Implementation Guidelines 
require training for all servers of alcoholic beverages at campus events. 
Through the Isla Vista Responsible Landlord program, the university works with 
landlords in the area to help them establish and implement policies that will 
reduce disorderly partying and other problems resulting from their tenants' 
alcohol use. The university also works with the district office of the 
California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to maintain a moratorium on 
issuing new alcohol outlet licenses in Isla Vista.

Policy Development and Law Enforcement:  Law enforcement officers from the Santa 
Barbara County Sheriff's Department, the California Highway Patrol, and the UCSB 
campus police jointly patrol
____________________________
Sidebar:
Case Study of a Comprehensive Approach (continued)
the Isla Vista community, adhering to a policy of zero tolerance for alcohol 
violations. The university applies its campus policies covering alcohol use to 
several large, privately owned student residence halls in Isla Vista to maintain 
consistency in sanctions for violations. Managers of the residence halls 
welcomed the extension of university authority to their tenants as a means of 
reinforcing their own rules of behavior.

AREA OF STRATEGIC INTERVENTION:
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions 
UCSB health educators produced "Drinking Stories," a video that recounts how AOD 
affected the lives of four typical UCSB students. The video is shown to 
stimulate discussions in workshops with students considered at high risk for 
alcohol problems, including first-year students and members of fraternities and 
sororities.

Sociology Department courses-"Drugs and Stress," "Substance Abuse," and 
"Community Health"-include lectures and assignments related to alcohol risks and 
DUI. Department faculty teamed up with colleagues from the Dramatic Art 
Department to teach a "Reader's Theater" class that trains students to perform 
skits and facilitate discussions with first-year students about AOD use, 
including driving after drinking and BUI.


AREA OF STRATEGIC INTERVENTION:
Intervention and Treatment
Individual counseling and support groups are offered through the Career Services 
and Student Health and Counseling offices, including programs for DUI offenders 
under court mandate to participate. Staff members who work with large numbers of 
students, such as coaches and residence hall monitors, receive "gatekeeper 
training" so that they can assess and refer students who appear to need 
counseling. Similarly, parents of students are offered workshops to help them
recognize and intervene if their child exhibits signs of AOD-related problems. 
The emergency room at a hospital near campus reports students involved in 
alcohol-related cases to the student health service for follow-up.
 
In its annual Core Survey, UCSB has found that rates of heavy, episodic drinking 
have not changed significantly in the last decade. Even so, there is substantial 
evidence that the program is changing student behavior. The number of students 
who say they have ever driven after drinking declined from 36 percent
in 1992 to 24 percent in 2001. The percentage reporting some form of misconduct 
that got them into trouble with the police or other disciplinary action declined 
from 56 percent in 1992 to 41 percent in 2001.

_____________________________

Part 4
Strategic Planning and Evaluation

Developing and Evaluating Prevention Policies and Programs 38
Conduct a Risk Assessment 39
Identify Specific Goals and Objectives 39
Review the Evaluation Research on Policy and Program Options 39
Outline How the Intervention Will Work 39
Create and Execute a Data Collection Plan 40

Meeting the Challenge 42

Strategic Planning and Evaluation


Community mobilization, involving a coalition of civic and governmental 
officials, is widely recognized as a key to the successful prevention of alcohol 
and other drug problems.69 Recently formed campus and community coalitions have 
been inspired by several community-based interventions to reduce alcohol-related
problems among youth and the general adult population.

The Community Prevention Trial (CPT), for example, was implemented in three 
small towns in California and South Carolina.70 Community coalitions were formed 
to drive several major environmental change strategies: RBS training;
zoning restrictions to reduce alcohol outlet density; stricter enforcement of 
underage drinking laws; and enhanced DUI enforcement, which included police
officer training, additional officer enforcement hours, monthly sobriety
checkpoints, and use of passive alcohol sensors. Results included the 
following:71

* Increased adoption of RBS policies
* Reduced alcohol sales to minors
* A 6 percent decline in self-reported alcohol consumption
* A 51 percent decline in self-reported driving after drinking
* A 6 percent drop in single-vehicle nighttime crashes (a proxy measure for 
alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes)
* Fewer drivers with measured BACs of .05 percent or higher
* A 43 percent decline in assault injuries reported by emergency departments

For many years, community-based prevention coalitions have made changes
in state, local, and institutional policy a priority. Part of what is happening 
today is that campus officials are beginning to think about a similar set of 
prevention strategies. Where a community prevention coalition already exists, 
college officials should be invited to join. Where no coalition is in place, 
higher education officials, especially college and university presidents, can 
take the lead with community partners to form the coalition and move it toward 
an environmental management approach to prevention.

The planning committee or task force charged with organizing a campus
and community coalition should seek the broad participation of campus and 
community leaders. Possible choices for coalition membership include the 
following:

* Campus leaders: senior administrators, faculty and staff, students, campus police chief
* Business representatives: liquor store owners, bar and restaurant owners,
apartment owners
* Local government leaders: elected officials, public health director, community 
development and zoning officials
* Local law enforcement officials: municipal police chief, alcohol beverage 
control (ABC) officials
* Prevention and treatment experts: AOD treatment directors, community-
based prevention leaders (e.g., MADD representative), community based traffic 
safety leaders
* Other community leaders: neighborhood coalition leaders, faith-based 
organization leaders, local news media representatives

Potentially conflicting viewpoints among the coalition members can be
reconciled when all segments of the community work together and eventually
agree on the need to take action to reduce the incidence of underage drinking
and alcohol-impaired driving, not just among college students but among
all young people in the community.

As the campus and community coalition begins its strategic planning work, it
should embrace intervention development and evaluation as an iterative process, 
in which evaluation findings help to inform midcourse corrections and 
alterations.72 This approach requires prevention planners to consider evaluation 
from the beginning, not as an afterthought.
___________________________
Sidebar:
Two Enforcement Systems
Working out a collaborative relationship between campus-based and community law
enforcement agencies is vital if there is to be a comprehensive and coordinated 
effort to address underage drinking and DUI in the community. Meeting this 
challenge requires careful negotiation, open communication, and an understanding 
of agency differences in their approach to enforcement. This can come about more 
easily when law enforcement officials fully understand the organizational
pressures and cultural context in which the other agency operates.

In Ames, Iowa, the 30 officers of the Iowa State University campus police 
collaborate closely with the 50 officers of the Ames Police Department. Charles 
Cychosz, who served on the faculty and staff of the university before becoming 
an administrator in the Police Department, notes that both enforcement
agencies are represented on the campus and community alcohol task force, which
meets once a month. One result is that campus and city police sometimes -operate
joint enforcement teams to check for fake IDs at the city's bars.

For more on the issue of campus and community law enforcement collaboration,
see Law Enforcement and Higher Education: Finding Common Ground to Address 
Underage Drinking on Campus, published in 2001 by the U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
______________________________

Developing and Evaluating Prevention Policies and Programs
The process for developing and evaluating prevention policies and programs can
be divided into five basic stages: (1) conduct a risk assessment, (2) identify 
specific goals and objectives, (3) review the evaluation research on policy and 
program options, (4) outline how the intervention will work, and (5) create and 
execute a data collection plan. Basic considerations for each stage are 
described below. A fuller description of these steps can be found at the Web 
site of the U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol 
and Other Drug Prevention (http://www.highered center.org/eval).

1. CONDUCT A RISK ASSESSMENT
Conducting a risk assessment is an essential first step in understanding the 
problem and identifying the factors that might be supporting or encouraging
underage drinking and DUI. The College Alcohol Risk Assessment Guide 73 provides 
a step-by-step procedure and several worksheets for conducting such an 
assessment. Depending on the time and resources available, the assessment can 
range from focus groups, one-on-one interviews, and a tour of entertainment 
spots on weekend nights to conducting student surveys and analyzing data on DUI
arrests, emergency room visits, and other alcohol-related incidents on campus 
and in the surrounding community. The typology of campus and community 
prevention efforts presented in table 1, combined with the list of strategic 
objectives and intervention tactics presented in table 2, can be used to 
generate a list of assessment issues and questions.

2. IDENTIFY SPECIFIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Program planners should take sufficient time to specify their precise goals and
objectives. This guide focuses on reducing underage drinking and DUI, but
that still leaves open several other possible goals. Should campuses try to 
prevent underage drinking? Eliminate all student drinking? Limit excessive 
consumption? Reduce alcohol-related behavior problems? Protect students
from harm? Significantly, having an evaluator be part of the planning process
will help the planning group develop clear and specific goals and objectives.

Caution should be used in stating that a prevention intervention program's
goal is to eliminate underage drinking. Upholding the law is an appropriate
goal. But with the widespread use of alcohol among underage college students,
a bold declaration of this intent may badly undermine support among
those administrators, faculty, and students who deplore the "age 21" laws. In 
many cases the coalition might be on surer footing politically-and therefore 
have a greater chance of success-if it were to focus on addressing alcohol-
related problems in the community, especially DUI. Such an approach would likely
produce a list of policy and program objectives not very different from what
would emerge from a narrower focus on alcohol consumption-for example, cracking 
down on the manufacture and use of fake IDs, checking compliance at retail 
alcohol outlets, eliminating home delivery of alcohol, increasing alcohol
excise taxes, eliminating low-price drink specials, and installing RBS programs.

3. REVIEW THE EVALUATION RESEARCH ON POLICY AND PROGRAM OPTIONS
The next step is to review policy and program options that might be applied to
achieve the outlined goals and objectives. A review of available research, plus 
consultations with other prevention specialists, will suggest a set of 
programmatic options that can be adopted. As noted in part 2, Environmental 
Management-Proven Prevention Practices (p. 7), the NIAAA Task Force on College 
Drinking identified several effective and promising approaches in its report A 
Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges. Additional 
information describing selected policies and programs can be found in part
3,Prevention in Action (p. 19).

4. OUTLINE HOW THE INTERVENTION WILL WORK
The next planning step is to outline the chain of events that will lead from 
each policy or program to its specific and measurable objective, and from there 
to its ultimate goal. Describing this chain of events is often called building 
the logic model for the intervention. In essence, the logic model clarifies the 
intervening steps that are projected to lead from specific activities to 
specific outcomes. For the evaluation, data can be collected to document
progress at each step. With this information in hand, evaluators can diagnose
what went wrong if a program or policy fails to meet its ultimate objective.

5. CREATE AND EXECUTE A DATA COLLECTION PLAN
Self-report surveys are a primary data source for policy and program 
evaluations, especially if the goal is to reduce consumption or alcohol-related 
problem behaviors. Several alternative survey instruments can be used as sources 
of questions.74 Surveys should be administered at a time that reflects typical
drinking patterns. Surveys conducted shortly after the start of the school year,
after traditional social events (e.g., homecoming), or close to midterms or
final exams will not provide representative data. Hence, most national student
drinking surveys are conducted in the early part of the spring semester before
spring break.

Most important, the sample of students asked to participate in the survey must 
be drawn at random. It may be tempting to administer the survey in classrooms, 
but this will not result in a sample that is truly representative of all 
students. There must also be a set of procedures in place to boost the response
rate. Achieving a response rate of 70 percent or more for student surveys is
extremely difficult. More typical are rates between 50 and 60 percent.

Colleges and universities should also put in place a system for recording
alcohol-related incidents involving students. Especially important are incident-
reporting forms used by the campus police, which should require officers
to indicate whether a student being investigated, cited, or detained has
been using alcohol. A direct BAC reading using a "passive" breathalyzer, which
analyzes exhaled air in front of the mouth, is the best means of assessment.
Absent that, the officers can be asked to make a judgment about alcohol
involvement.

Ideas regarding evaluation can also be found in NHTSA?s booklet The Art of 
Appropriate Evaluation: A Guide for Highway Safety Program Managers.75 In 
addition, the U.S. Department of Education?s Higher Education Center for Alcohol 
and Other Drug Prevention maintains an evaluator database as well as other 
evaluation resources, including a guide on how to work with an outside 
evaluator.76
___________________________
Sidebar:
Going Statewide
More than 40 states are working with the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and
Other Drug Prevention to explore the benefits of having their institutions of 
higher education adopt unified policies and strategies to combat underage 
drinking and impaired driving. These statewide initiatives call for 
unprecedented levels of cooperation among state and local agencies and college 
and university systems.

The Ohio College Initiative to Reduce High Risk Drinking brings together more 
than 40 public and private institutions in a shared effort to change the college 
and community environment surrounding alcohol use. The president of each 
institution has made a commitment to address high-risk drinking and to
"encourage and support the collaboration of -campus and community in approaching
this issue."

The California State University (CSU) system has entered into a -formal 
partnership with six state agencies to develop coordinated policies and programs 
aimed at reducing alcohol problems among the 388,000 students at 23 CSU campuses 
throughout the state. A memorandum of understanding setting up the partnership 
was signed by the CSU chancellor and representatives of the Department of 
Alcoholic Beverage Control, Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, California 
Highway Patrol, Department of Motor Vehicles, Office of Traffic Safety, and the 
Secretary of Business, Transportation, and Housing.

The California partnership commits both the state university system and the 
state agencies to work cooperatively on prevention, jointly collecting and 
sharing data; develop joint alcohol education, enforcement, training, and 
prevention programs for campus and community leaders; cooperate on a legislative
agenda; and participate in an annual conference on alcohol issues. Underage 
drinking and DUI prevention figures prominently in plans for the California 
initiative.
__________________________
Sidebar:
Getting MADD
MADD, which has more than 600 affiliates across the country, states that its 
mission is to "stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime, 
and prevent underage drinking." In pursuit of that mission, local MADD 
affiliates are urged to participate in campus and community coalitions to assist
with planning and implementing prevention strategies to combat underage drinking 
and DUI. In 2001, the organization launched a program to create on-campus MADD 
chapters led by students (UMADD). 

These efforts are in line with a report by MADD's College Commission, which 
offered the following recommendations:
* Work with researchers and practitioners to set a national standard for college
alcohol policies.
* Assess institutions of higher education on the basis of their alcohol policies 
and offer that assessment to parents and students as a guide in selecting 
colleges and universities.
* Involve college students in prevention activities through policy summits, 
advocacy training programs, and student-led college chapters of MADD.
* Support campus and community coalitions in their efforts to reduce underage
and heavy drinking.
* Create a campaign to support and promote campus alcohol policies. 
More information about MADD and its campus initiatives can be obtained at
MADD's Web site: http://www.madd.org.
__________________________

Meeting the Challenge
This guide cites numerous examples of how U.S. colleges and universities, in 
partnership with their communities, have approached the issues of underage 
drinking and DUI. Obviously, there is no onesize-fits-all formula for this type 
of prevention work. The environmental management strategies outlined here have 
had good results where they have been implemented, but each campus and community
environment is different, shaped by its own blend of history, tradition, 
politics, economics, and other influences. What is important, therefore, is that 

prevention planners use the research literature to identify potentially useful 
policies and programs but then evaluate how well these efforts can work on their 
own campus.77

Campus and community leaders must be prepared to overcome indifference, if
not outright hostility, toward certain prevention efforts. Many faculty, staff, 
and students over the age of 21 drink alcohol in ways that incur little risk to 
themselves or others and therefore may object to policies that limit their own 
access to alcohol in the name of preventing underage drinking and impaired 
driving.

Students in their late teens are often reluctant to accept restrictions on their
behavior that appear to be coming from adult authorities. Many regard alcohol as 
a helpful social lubricant and are quick to reject what they hear about the 
risks associated with drinking. Still other students, as well as faculty and 
staff, might argue that hard drinking by students, even those who are under age, 
is a part of longstanding campus traditions or that being introduced to alcohol 
is a "rite of passage" from adolescence to adulthood.

Even those who sympathize with prevention goals might be doubtful that
anything can be done. Skeptics may argue that many students begin drinking in 
high school, so that by their college years it is too late to do anything about 
it. Others think that bearing down on enforcement of the minimum legal drinking 
age simply will not deter young people from seeking out other opportunities to 
obtain alcohol. Some have even argued that cooperating with enforcement agencies 
regarding students? off-campus behavior is inappropriate for an educational 
institution.

A successful prevention program must recognize the ambivalence felt by many
adults toward underage drinking. Even law enforcement agencies might resist
giving priority to underage drinking on the grounds that their limited resources
can better be devoted to crime problems they regard as more serious-even though
underage drinking is a factor in many community problems that townspeople do
take very seriously.

In response, campus and community leaders must remind people that underage
drinking and DUI are serious problems affecting the entire community, not just
the drinkers themselves. They need to highlight the fact that colleges and 
universities have a legal duty to take reasonable protective measures to reduce 
hazards and risks in the campus environment.78 They should cite research 
evaluations showing the positive effect of the increased minimum legal drinking 
age and other policies and programs that can change the environmental context in 
which young people make decisions about drinking.

Most of all, town and gown leaders need to dedicate themselves to working
on this problem over the long term. There is no quick fix, but over time a 
persistent and multifaceted effort can succeed in changing the culture of 
drinking, building a safer and healthier campus and community environment, and 
maximizing the opportunity for all students to achieve their potential.

Resources
The resources listed here include a selection of the programs cited in the
guide, publications, and resource organizations. No official endorsement by
the U.S. Departments of Education or Transportation of any product, commodity,
service, or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be
inferred.To identify additional resources, contact the U.S. Department of 
Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (see 
below for complete contact information).

CITED PROGRAMS
The following section provides contact information for the college-based 
programs (in order of appearance) described in part 3, Prevention in Action. The 
programs are organized according to the typology matrix for mapping campus and 
community prevention efforts (see table 1, p.10) and cross-referenced to their 
description in the main text.

Area of Strategic Intervention
Environmental Change
ALCOHOL-FREE OPTIONS:
Offer and promote alcohol-free social, recreational, extracurricular, and
public service options that do not include alcohol and other drugs.

Alcohol-Free Events
- WVUp All Night,West Virginia University, Office of Student Affairs,
Morgantown,WV 26506. (304) 293-5811. A social and recreational program that
provides free food and entertainment to students as an alternative to the 
weekendbar scene (p. 21).
- Boston College, Office of the Dean for Student Development, 140
Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467. (617) 552-3470. A community
service program and sports competition designed to replace an annual
dance notorious for high-risk drinking (p. 21).
- PRIDE (Promoting Responsible and Informed Decisions through
Education), University of Redlands, Student Services, P.O. Box 3080, Redlands,
CA 92373-0999. (909) 335-4079. An ambitious social and recreational program
that features a weekly schedule of alcohol-free events, including live 
entertainmentand hit movies (p. 21).

Volunteer Community Service
- Alternative Breaks, Central Michigan University, Volunteer Center, Mount
Pleasant, MI 48859. (989) 774-7685. A community service program that organizes
groups of students for off-site, community-based volunteer work during holiday
breaks (p. 22).
- Alternative Weekends, University of Michigan, Center for Community Service
and Learning, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. (734) 936-2437. A community service program
that organizes groups of students for local, community-based volunteer work on 
weekends (p. 22).

NORMATIVE ENVIRONMENT:
Create a social, academic, and residential environment that supports health-
promoting norms.

Social Norms Marketing Campaigns
- 7 out of 10, University of Texas, Longhorns Against Drunk Driving, Student
Health Center, Austin, TX 78712. (512) 475-8465. A social norms marketing
campaign based on a student survey showing that 7 out of 10 UT students don't
drink and drive. The 7 out of 10 Web site is at http://www.socialnorm.org/
texasaustin.html (p. 22).
- MOST of Us, Montana Social Norms Project, Montana State University,
Department of Health and Human Development, Bozeman, MT 59717. (406)
994-7873. A social norms marketing project based on a random sample survey
indicating that four out of five 18 to 21 year olds in Montana don?t drink and
drive (p. 22).

ALCOHOL AVAILABILITY:
Limit alcohol availability both on and off campus.

A Community Covenant
- San Diego State Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, San Diego State
University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-1931. (619) 594-6859.
A "community covenant" by which bar and restaurant operators catering to
students pledge to pursue several policies to minimize underage drinking and
driving under the influence (p. 24).

MARKETING AND PROMOTION OF ALCOHOL:
Restrict marketing and promotion of alcoholic beverages both on and off campus.

Alcohol Advertising
- NU Directions, University of Nebraska, Student Involvement, Lincoln, NE
68588. (402) 472-2454. A campus and community coalition, funded by The
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, emphasizing enforcement of underage drinking
laws and restrictions on alcohol advertising and promotion (p. 25).

Voluntary Marketing and Advertising Guidelines
- University at Albany, State University of New York, Coordinator for Alcohol 
and Drug Prevention, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222. (518) 442-5800.
A joint university-community committee that works with owners of bars and
restaurants in off-campus student neighborhoods to implement a voluntary set
of guidelines to reform alcohol advertising and promotion (p. 26).

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT:
Develop and enforce campus policies and local, state, and federal laws.

Orientation Programs
- State University of New York, University of New Paltz, Division of Student
Affairs, 75 S. Manheim Boulevard, New Paltz, NY 12561. (845) 257-3261.A
handbook, Campus Regulations and Judicial Procedures, distributed to both 
parents and students that explains campus policies and state and local laws 
regarding alcohol use and what disciplinary actions can result for violations 
(p. 28).
- University of Northern Colorado, Student Activities, 501 20th Street, Greeley,
CO 80639. (970) 351-2245. A summer orientation for new students and parents,
which includes "Stop, Look, and Listen," a two-hour presentation on alcohol

laws and policies (p. 28).

Sobriety Checkpoints
- The BACCHUS and GAMMA Peer Education Network, BACCHUS and GAMMA, P.O. Box 
100430, Denver, CO 80250-0430. (303) 871-0901. A collaborative effort with the 
Colorado State Patrol to crack down on DUI during Colorado's "Halloween 
Heatwave" (p. 30).

Two Enforcement Systems
- Ames Police Department, Ames, IA 50011. (515) 239-5311. Contact: Charles
Cychosz, Support Services Manager. A joint enforcement program in which campus 
police officers join city police on random patrols to bars in the city to
check drinkers' IDs (p.38).

Area of Strategic Intervention
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions

Effects of Alcohol on Ability to Drive
- Colorado State University, Center for Drug and Alcohol Education, Fort 
Collins, CO 80523. (970) 491-0262. Rights, Responsibilities, and Ramifications, 
a workshop that informs students about alcohol's effect on their reflexes and 
driving ability and what is likely to happen if they are caught driving under 
the influence (p. 31).

Area of Strategic Intervention
Health Protection

Designated Driver Programs
- University of New Mexico, Campus Office of Substance Abuse Prevention,
Albuquerque, NM 87131. (505) 277-2795. A program called Designated
Drivers Do It for Friends uses free movie passes and other rewards to enlist
designated drivers (p. 32).

Safe Rides Program
- CARPOOL, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX 77843. (979) 693-
9905. A student-managed program, which provides rides home to students on
Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights between 10:00 PM and 3:00 AM (p. 32).

Area of Strategic Intervention
Intervention and Treatment

Interactive Course
- University of New Mexico, Campus Office of Substance Abuse Prevention,
Albuquerque, NM 87131. (505) 277-2795. A three-hour course, emphasizing
decision making, risk reduction, and moderation in alcohol use rather than 
abstinence, for students who violate the university's alcohol policies (p. 32).

One-on-One Intervention
- Auburn University, Health Behavior Assessment Center, Auburn, AL 36849. (334)
844-4889. A brief, one-on-one motivational interview for students who violate
the school's alcohol policies or have other alcohol-related problems (p. 32).

Case Study of a Comprehensive Approach
- University of California, Santa Barbara, Alcohol and Other Drug Program,
Student Health Service Building 588, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. (805) 893-2263.
A comprehensive approach that includes environmental change as well as 
intervention and treatment (pp. 33?34).

Strategic Planning

GOING STATEWIDE:
Develop a statewide or regional prevention initiative to develop and support new 
campus and community coalitions.

Formal Partnerships
- Ohio College Initiative to Reduce High Risk Drinking, Ohio Parents for Drug
Free Youth, 6185 Huntley Road, Suite P, Columbus, OH 43229-1094. (614) 540-
9985. A statewide initiative that brings together campus and community 
coalitions representing more than 40 public and private institutions of higher
education in Ohio (p. 40).
- California State University (CSU) Partnership, Office of the Chancellor, 401
Golden Shore, Long Beach, CA 90802-4210. (562) 951-4000.A formal partnership
with six state agencies to develop coordinated policies and programs aimed at 
reducing alcohol problems among students at 23 CSU campuses (p. 40).

PUBLICATIONS
The publications listed here can provide additional information on underage 
drinking and DUI prevention, environmental management approaches, coalition 
building, strategic planning, evaluation, and other subjects covered in this 
guide.

FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Alcohol and Highway Safety 2001: A Review of the State of Knowledge (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 2001). Available only at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/
research/AlcoholHighway/index.htm.

"Alcohol Poisoning" [Fact Sheet] (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1998).

"Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention in the Medical Setting" [Kit]
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic

The Art of Appropriate Evaluation: A Guide for Highway Safety Program Managers
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1999).

Balmforth, D. National Survey of Drinking and Driving, Attitudes and Behavior
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1997).

"Card Tricks: How to Spot Fake ID Cards" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1992).Available 
on 1/2 inch VHS Video [item 2A0107], with accompanying brochure [item 2P0908].

Community How-to Guides on Underage Drinking Prevention (Washington, D.C.:U.S.
Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
2001).

Designated Driver/Safe Ride Program: Community Action Guide (Washington, 
D.C.:U.S.Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 2002).

"Designated Driver/Safe Ride Program: Community Action Guide" [CD-ROM]
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 2001).

The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
2002).Available only at 
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/economic/EconImpact2000/.

A How-to Guide for Victim Impact Panels (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2001).

State of Knowledge of Alcohol-Impaired Driving: Research on Repeat DWI Offenders
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 2000).

"Traffic Safety Facts 2001" [Fact Sheet] (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2001).

FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, HIGHER EDUCATION
CENTER FOR ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG PREVENTION

DeJong,W. Preventing Alcohol-Related Problems on Campus: Impaired Driving
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for
Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, reprinted 1998).

DeJong,W., and Langenbahn, S. Setting and Improving Policies for Reducing 
Alcohol and Other Drug Problems on Campus: A Guide for Administrators 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for 
Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, reprinted 1997).

DeJong,W.; Vince-Whitman, C.; Colthurst,T.; Cretella, M.; Gilbreath, M.; Rosati, 
M.; and Zweig, K. Environmental Management: A Comprehensive Strategy for 
Reducing Alcohol and Other Drug Use on College Campuses (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 
Prevention, 1998).

Presidents Leadership Group. Be Vocal, Be Visible, Be Visionary: Recommendations 
for College and University Presidents on Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention 
(Newton, Mass.: Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 
Prevention/EDC, 1997). 50

Ryan, B. E.; Colthurst,T.; and Segars, L. College Alcohol Risk Assessment 
Guide: Environmental Approaches to Prevention (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 
revised 1997).

Ryan, B. E.; and DeJong,W. Making the Link: Faculty and Prevention (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and
Other Drug Prevention, 1998).

FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON
ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM

A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges (Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of 
Health, Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism, 2002).

Goldman, M. S.; Boyd, G. M.; and Faden,V. (Eds.)."College Drinking, What It Is, 
and What to Do about It:A Review of the State of the Science." Journal of 
Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14, March 2002.

Saltz, R. F.; and DeJong,W. Reducing Alcohol Problems on Campus: A Guide to 

Planning and Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, National Institutes of Health, Task Force of the National Advisory 
Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002).

FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUVENILE
JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Costs of Underage Drinking (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Pacific Institute for Research 
and Evaluation, 1999).

A Guide for Enforcing Impaired Driving Laws for Youth (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2000).

Law Enforcement and Higher Education: Finding Common Ground to Address Underage
Drinking on Campus (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Pacific Institute for Research and 
Evaluation, 2001).

A Practical Guide to Preventing and Dispersing Underage Drinking Parties 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2000).

Regulatory Strategies for Preventing Youth Access to Alcohol: Best Practices 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, undated).

Strategies to Reduce Underage Alcohol Use: Typology and Brief Overview 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 1999).

RESOURCE ORGANIZATIONS

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
400 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
(888) 327-4236
Established under the U.S. Department of Transportation by the Highway Safety 
Act of 1970, NHTSA is responsible for reducing deaths, injuries, and economic 
losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes.The agency investigates safety 
defects in motorvehicles; sets and enforces fuel economy standards; helps states 
and local communities reduce the threat of drunken drivers; promotes the use of 
seat belts, child safety seats, Antitheft regulations; and provides consumer 
information on motor vehicle safety topics. NHTSA also conducts research on 
driver behavior and traffic safety to develop the most efficient and effective 
means of bringing about safety improvements.

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS)
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Ave, SW
Washington, DC 20202-6123
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/index.html
(202) 260-3954
OSDFS supports efforts to create safe schools, respond to crises, prevent 

alcohol and other drug abuse, ensure the health and well-being of students, 
teach students good citizenship and character, and provide national leadership 
on issues and programs in correctional education. The agency provides financial 
assistance for drug abuse and violence prevention activities and activities that 
promote the health and well-being of students in elementary and secondary 
schools and institutions of higher education. OSDFS participates in the 
development of Department program policy and legislative proposals and in 
overall administration policies related to drug abuse and violence prevention. 
It also participates with other Federal agencies in the development of a 
national research agenda for such prevention.

The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention
Education Development Center, Inc.
55 Chapel Street
Newton, MA 02458-1060
http://www.higheredcenter.org
(800) 676-1730
Established by the U.S. Department of Education in 1993, the Higher Education
Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention is the nation's primary resource 
center for alcohol, other drug, and violence prevention at U.S. colleges and 
universities. In addition to providing leadership in defining the nation's 
college prevention agenda, the Center acts as a catalyst to advance 
collaborative campus and community teams across the nation. The Center offers an 
integrated array of services to help campuses and communities come together to 
identify problems; assess needs; and plan, implement, and evaluate alcohol and 
other drug prevention programs. Services include training; technical assistance; 
publications; support for The Network: Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other 
Drug Issues; and evaluation activities. The Center's publications are free and 
can be downloaded from its Web site.

Automobile Club of Southern California
2601 S. Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90007
http://www.aaa-calif.com
(213) 741-3686
The Automobile Club of Southern California organized the College and University
Drinking and Driving Prevention Awards Program in 1997. It is now run jointly by 
several chapters of the American Automobile Association (AAA) and the U.S. 
Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 
Prevention. The Program's goal is to identify and disseminate innovative and 
effective approaches to reduce drinking and driving on campus and prevent AOD 
use that can result in impaired driving. Since its inception, the program has 
presented 22 awards to schools in a six-state region (California, Hawaii, 
Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah).


BACCHUS and GAMMA Peer Education Network
P.O. Box 100430
Denver, C0 80250-0430
http://www.bacchusgamma.org
(303) 871-0901
BACCHUS (Boosting Alcohol Consciousness Concerning the Health of University
Students) and GAMMA (Greeks Advocating Mature Management of Alcohol) is an
international association of college- and university-based peer education 
programs focusing on alcohol abuse prevention, sexual assault prevention, and 
other student health issues. The group provides training, technical assistance, 
educational materials, and national and regional forums to support campus peer 
educators and offers specialized materials for use with fraternity and sorority 
chapters. BACCHUS and GAMMA has more than 700 campus chapters and 25,000 active 
members around the country.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
National Headquarters
511 East John Carpenter Freeway
Suite 700
Irvine,TX 75062
http://www.madd.org
(800) GET-MADD (438-6233)
MADD's mission is to stop drunken driving, support the victims of this violent
crime, and prevent underage drinking. A grassroots organization, MADD has more
than 600 chapters nationwide. MADD's program to prevent underage drinking and
DUI includes improving enforcement of the minimum legal drinking age, adopting
tougher alcohol advertising standards, encouraging enforcement, and increasing
awareness of the law. MADD has several programs and resources designed to help 
get youth, including college students, involved in creating change in their 
communities.

National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI)
11426-28 Rockville Pike, Suite 200
Rockville, MD 20852
http://www.health.org/
(800) 729-6686
NCADI is the information service of the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
(CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. NCADI is the world's largest resource
clearinghouse for current information and materials concerning substance abuse.
NCADI distributes publications and other materials on substance abuse from 
Various federal government agencies (e.g., study reports, surveys, guides, 
videos), many of which are free of charge.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)
6000 Executive Boulevard, Willco Building
Bethesda, MD 20892-7003
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/
(301) 496-4000
NIAAA supports and conducts biomedical and behavioral research on the causes,
consequences, treatment, and prevention of alcoholism and alcohol-related 
problems. In 2002, NIAAA's Task Force on College Drinking published the first 
National Institutes of Health report on college drinking, A Call to Action: 
Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges. The report reveals new 
findings on the extent and nature of the problem, reviews the current research 
literature, and provides guidance to college presidents, administrators, and 
other policymakers on effective programs and policies. NIAAA offers a Web site 
on college drinking prevention: http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/.

The Network: Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues
c/o The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention
Education Development Center, Inc.
55 Chapel Street
Newton, MA 02458-1060
http://www.thenetwork.ws/
The Network (formerly known as the Network of Colleges and Universities
Committed to the Elimination of Drug and Alcohol Abuse) is a national consortium

of colleges and universities formed to promote healthy campus environments by
addressing the issues of alcohol, other drugs, and violence. Begun in 1987 by 
the U.S. Department of Education, The Network comprises member institutions that 
voluntarily agree to adhere to a set of standards aimed at reducing AOD problems 
at colleges and universities. It has close to 1,500 members nationwide. The 
Network develops collaborative alcohol and other drug prevention efforts among 
colleges and universities through electronic information exchange, printed 
materials, and sponsorship of national, regional, and state activities and 
conferences.

References
1 Larimer,M. E., and Cronce, J.M. "Identification, Prevention, and Treatment:
A Review of Individual-Focused Strategies to Reduce Problematic Alcohol
Consumption by College Students." Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no.
14: 148-163, 2002.

2 DeJong,W.; Vince-Whitman; C.; Colthurst,T.; Cretella,M.; Gilbreath, M.; 
Rosati, M.; and Zweig, K. Environmental Management: A Comprehensive Strategy for 
Reducing Alcohol and Other Drug Use on College Campuses (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 
Prevention,1998).


3 Hingson, R.W., and Howland, J."Comprehensive Community Interventions to
Promote Health: Implications for College-Age Drinking Problems." Journal of 
Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 226-240, 2002.

4 Bickel, R.D., and Lake, P. F. The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern 
University: Who Assumes the Risks of College Life? (Durham,N.C.: Carolina 
Academic Press, 1999).

5 DeJong,W., and Epstein J.C. Strategizer 34:Working in Partnership with Local 
Colleges and Universities (Alexandria,Va.: Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of 
America, 2000).

6 Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. A Call to Action: Changing
the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes 
of Health, 2002).

7 Presidents Leadership Group. Be Vocal, Be Visible, Be Visionary: 
Recommendations for College and University Presidents on Alcohol and Other Drug 
Prevention (Newton, Mass.: Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug 
Prevention/EDC, 1997).

8 Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. A Call to Action: Changing 
the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes 
of Health, 2002).

9 O'Malley, P. M., and Johnston, L. D. "Epidemiology of Alcohol and Other Drug 
Use among American College Students." Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement 
no. 14: 23-39, 2002.

10 Knight, J. R.; Wechsler, H.; Kuo, M.; Seibring, M.;Weitzman, E. R.; and 
Schuckit, M. "Alcohol Abuse and Dependence among U.S. College Students." Journal 
of Studies on Alcohol 63: 263-270, 2002.

11 Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. A Call to Action: Changing 
the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes 
of Health, 2002).

12 Hingson, R.W.; Heeren,T.; Zakocs, R. C.; Kopstein, A.; and Wechsler,H.
"Magnitude of Alcohol-Related Mortality and Morbidity among U.S. College
Students Ages 18-24." Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63: 136-144, 2002.

13Wechsler, H.; Lee, J. E.; Kuo, M; Seibring, M; Nelson,T. F.; and Lee,H. 
"Trends in College Binge Drinking during a Period of Increased Prevention 
Efforts: Findings from 4 Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study 
Surveys, 1993-2001." Journal of American College Health 50: 203-217, 2002.

14 Presley, C. A.; Meilman, P.W.; and Cashin, J. R. Alcohol and Drugs on 
American College Campuses: Use, Consequences, and Perceptions of the Campus 
Environment Vol. IV, 1992-94 (Carbondale, Ill.: Core Institute, Southern 
Illinois University, 1996).

15 Perkins, H.W. "Surveying the Damage: A Review of Research on Consequences of
Alcohol Misuse in College Populations." Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 
supplement no. 14: 91-100, 2002.

16 Ibid.

17 Hingson, R.W.; Heeren,T.; Zakocs, R. C.; Kopstein, A.; and Wechsler,H.
"Magnitude of Alcohol-Related Mortality and Morbidity among U.S. College
Students Ages 18-24." Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63: 136-144, 2002.

18 Wechsler, H.; Lee, J. E.; Nelson,T. F.; and Kuo, M. "Underage College 
Students Drinking Behavior, Access to Alcohol, and the Influence of Deterrence 
Policies: Findings from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol 
Study." Journal of American College Health 50: 223-236, 2002.

19 Wagenaar, A. C., and Toomey, T. L. "Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws:
Review and Analyses of the Literature from 1960 to 2000." Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 206-225, 2002.

20 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Alcohol and Highway
Safety 2001: A Review of the State of Knowledge (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 2001).

21 Pittayathikhun,T.; Ku, R.;Rigby,D.; Mattsson, M.; and DeJong, W. Complying 
with the Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Regulations [34 CFR Part 86]: A Guide 
for University and College Administrators (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1997).

22 DeJong,W., and Langford, L. M."A Typology for Campus-Based Alcohol
Prevention: Moving toward Environmental Management Strategies." Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 140-147, 2002.

23 Larimer,M. E., and Cronce, J.M. ?Identification, Prevention, and Treatment: A
Review of Individual-Focused Strategies to Reduce Problematic AlcoholConsumption 
by College Students.? Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 148-163, 
2002.

24 Baer, J. S.; Marlatt, G. A.; Kivlahan, D. R.; Fromme, K.; Larimer, M.; and 
Williams, E. "An Experimental Test of Three Methods of Alcohol Risk Reduction 
with Young Adults." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 60: 974-979, 
1992.

25 Baer, J. S.; Kivlahan, D. R.; Blume,A.W.; McKnight, P.; and Marlatt, 
G.A. "Brief Intervention for Heavy Drinking College Students: Four-Year Follow-
Up and Natural History." American Journal of Public Health 91: 1310-1316, 2001.

26 Wagenaar,A. C., and Toomey,T. L."Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws:
Review and Analyses of the Literature from 1960 to 2000." Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 206-225, 2002.

27 Hingson, R.W.; Heeren,T.; Zakocs, R. C.; Kopstein, A.; and Wechsler,H.
"Magnitude of Alcohol-Related Mortality and Morbidity among U.S. College
Students Ages 18-24." Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63: 136-144, 2002.

28 DeJong,W., and Hingson, R."Strategies to Reduce Driving under the Influence 
of Alcohol." Annual Review of Public Health 19: 359-378, 1998.

29 Toomey,T. L., and Wagenaar,A. C."Environmental Policies to Reduce College
Drinking: Options and Research Findings." Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 
supplement no. 14: 193?205, 2002.

30 Chaloupka, F. J., and Wechsler,H. "Binge Drinking in College: The Impact of 
Price, Availability, and Alcohol Control Policies." Contemporary Economic Policy 
14: 112-124, 1996.

31 Toomey,T. L., and Wagenaar,A. C. "Environmental Policies to Reduce College

Drinking: Options and Research Findings." Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
 supplement no. 14: 193?205, 2002.

32 Gebhardt,T. L.; Kaphingst, K.; and DeJong,W. "A Campus-Community Coalition to
Control Alcohol-Related Problems off Campus." Journal of American College Health
28: 211-215, 2000.

33 Saltz, R. F. "The Roles of Bars and Restaurants in Preventing Alcohol-
Impaired Driving: An Evaluation of Server Intervention. Evaluation in Health 
Professions 10:5-27, 1987.

34 Russell, A.;Voas,R. B.; DeJong,W.; and Chaloupka,M."MADD Rates the States: A
Media Advocacy Event to Advance the Agenda against Alcohol-Impaired Driving."
Public Health Reports 110: 240-245, 1995.

35 Shults, R.A.; Sleet, D.A.; Elder,R.W.; Ryan, G.W.; and Sehgal, M."Association
between State-Level Drinking and Driving Countermeasures and Self-Reported
Alcohol-Impaired Driving." Injury Prevention 8: 106-110, 2002.

36 Shults, R.A.; Elder,R.W.; Sleet,D.A.; Nichols J. L.;Alao,M.A.; Carande-
Kulis,V. G.; Zaza, S.; Sosin,D. M.;Thompson, R. S.; and Task Force on Community 
Preventive Services. "Reviews of Evidence Regarding Interventions to Reduce 
Alcohol-Impaired Driving." American Journal of Preventive Medicine 21(4S): 66-
88, 2001.

37 "New Study Results Demonstrate Strong Student Support for Alcohol Prevention
Policies" (press release). Newton, Mass.: Education Development Center, February
28, 2001.

38 "What Do Parents Think about College Drinking?" Prevention File: 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs 16: 4, Fall 2001.

39 Ryan, B. E., and DeJong,W. Making the Link: Faculty and Prevention 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for 
Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1998).

40 Perkins, H.W."College Student Misperceptions of Alcohol and Other Drug Norms
among Peers: Exploring Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Prevention
Programs." In U.S. Department of Education, Designing Alcohol and Other Drug
Prevention Programs in Higher Education: Bringing Theory into Practice 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for 
Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1997).

41 Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. A Call to Action: Changing 
the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes 
of Health, 2002).

42 DeJong,W., and Winsten, J. "The Use of Designated Drivers by U.S. College
Students: A National Study." Journal of American College Health 47: 151-156, 
1999.

43 "Some Colleges Call an End to Fridays off," Boston Globe, May 3, 2002.

44 "Alcohol Ingrained in Local Social Culture," Newark Post, January 8, 2002.

45 Toomey,T. L., and Wagenaar,A. C."Environmental Policies to Reduce College
Drinking: Options and Research Findings." Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 
supplement no. 14: 193-205, 2002.

46 Chaloupka, F. J., and Wechsler,H. "Binge Drinking in College: The Impact of 
Price, Availability, and Alcohol Control Policies." Contemporary Economic Policy 
14: 112-124, 1996.

47 DeJong,W., and Langenbahn, S. Setting and Improving Policies for Reducing 
Alcohol and Other Drug Problems on Campus: A Guide for Administrators 
(Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for 
Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1995, reprinted 1997).

48 National Commission for Drug-Free Schools. Toward a Drug-Free Generation
(Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Education, 1990).

49 Cohen, D. A.; Mason, K.; and Scribner,R. "The Population Consumption Model,
Alcohol Control Practices, and Alcohol-Related Traffic Fatalities." Preventive 
Medicine 34: 187-197, 2002.

50 Wechsler, H.; Lee, J. E.; Kuo, M; Seibring, M; Nelson,T. F.; and Lee,H. 
"Trends in College Binge Drinking during a Period of Increased Prevention 
Efforts: Findings from 4 Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study 
Surveys, 1993-2001." Journal of American College Health 50: 203-217, 2002.

51 Ryan, B. E., and Mosher, J. F. Progress Report: Alcohol Promotion on Campus 
(San Rafael, Calif.: Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other 
Drug Problems, 1991).

52 DeJong,W., and Davidson, L. Building Long-Term Support for Alcohol and Other 
Drug Prevention Programs (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Education, Higher
Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 2000).

53 Gardner,A. "Don't Drink and Drive? Binge Kids Don't Care." Health Scout, 
February 6, 2002.

54 Gebhardt,T. L.; Kaphingst, K.; and DeJong,W. "A Campus-Community Coalition to
Control Alcohol-Related Problems off Campus." Journal of American College Health
28: 211-0215, 2000.

55 Pittayathikhun,T.; Ku, R.;Rigby, D.; Mattsson, M.; and DeJong,W. Complying 
with the Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Regulations [34 CFR Part 86]: A Guide 
for University and College Administrators (Washington,D.C.:U.S. Department of 
Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1997).

56 Zweig, K. L., and Thompson, J. Prevention Update: Parental Notification 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for 
Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 2001).

57 "Misdeeds Prompt MU Letters: Campus Issues Data on Parental Notification."
Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune, August 4, 2002.

58 "Alcohol Arrests Climb: OWIs Decline as Other Citations Rise," Iowa City 
Press-Citizen, July 22, 2002.

59 Minnesota Institute of Public Health. "Effective Response to College Drinking
Exists" (press release, http://www.jointogether.org/y/0,2521,266187,00.html),
February 23, 2001.

60 DeJong,W., and Hingson, R. "Strategies to Reduce Driving under the Influence 
of Alcohol." Annual Review of Public Health 19: 359-378, 1998.

61 Ibid.

62 Balmforth, D. National Survey of Drinking and Driving, Attitudes and Behavior
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1997).

63 Stewart, K. A Guide for Enforcing Impaired Driving Laws for Youth 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2000).

64 "Ax Falls on Spring-Break Cash," Orlando Sentinel, July 12, 2002.

65 Winsten, J. A., and DeJong,W. "The Designated Driver Campaign." In Rice R. 
E., and Atkin, C. K. (eds.), Public Communication Campaigns, 3d ed. (Thousand 
Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2000), pp. 290-294.

66 DeJong,W., and Winsten, J. "The Use of Designated Drivers by U.S. College
Students: A National Study." Journal of American College Health 47: 151-156, 
1999.

67 Knight, J. R.; Wechsler, H.; Kuo, M.; Seibring, M.;Weitzman, E. R.; and 
Schuckit, M. "Alcohol Abuse and Dependence among U.S. College Students." Journal 
of Studies on Alcohol 63: 263-270, 2002.

68 Perkins, H.W. "Social Norms and the Prevention of Alcohol Misuse in 
Collegiate Contexts." Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 164-172, 
2002.

69 Hingson, R.W., and Howland, J. "Comprehensive Community Interventions to
Promote Health: Implications for College-Age Drinking Problems." Journal of 
Studies on Alcohol, supplement no. 14: 226-240, 2002.

70 Holder,H. D.; Saltz, R. F.; Grube, J.W.;Treno,A. J.; Reynolds, R. I.; Voas,R. 
B.; and Gruenewald, P. J. "Summing Up: Lessons from a Comprehensive Community
Prevention Trial." Addiction 92, supplement 2: S293-S301, 1997.

71 Holder,H. D.; Gruenewald, P. J.; Ponicki,W.R.;Treno,A. J.; Grube, J.W.; 
Saltz, R. F.; Voas,R. B.; Reynolds, R.; Davis, J.; Sanchez, L.; Gaumont, G.; and 
Roeper, P. "Effect of Community-Based Interventions on High-Risk Drinking and 
Alcohol-Related Injuries." Journal of the American Medical Association 284: 
2341-2347, 2000.

72 Saltz, R., and DeJong,W. Reducing Alcohol Problems on Campus: A Guide to 
Planning and Evaluation (Rockville,Md.:U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002).

73 Ryan, B. E.; Colthurst,T.; and Segars, L. College Alcohol Risk Assessment 
Guide: Environmental Approaches to Prevention (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of Education, Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention,
revised 1997).

74 Presley, C. A.; Austin, B. S.; and Jacobs, J. Selecting the Right Tool: A 
Compendium of Alcohol and Other Drug Assessment and Evaluation Instruments for 
Use in Higher Education (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Education, Higher 
Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1998).

75 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The Art of 
Appropriate Evaluation: A Guide for Highway Safety Program Managers (Washington, 
D.C.:U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 1999).

76 For the evaluator database and other evaluation resources, visit 
http://www.higheredcenter.org/eval; for the guide, see Langford, L. M., and 
DeJong,W. Prevention Update: How to Select a Program Evaluator 
(Washington,D.C.:U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Center for 
Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 2001).

77 Saltz, R., and DeJong,W. Reducing Alcohol Problems on Campus: A Guide to 
Planning and Evaluation (Rockville,Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002).

78 Bickel, R.D., and Lake, P. F. The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern 
University: Who Assumes the Risks of College Life? (Durham,N.C.: Carolina 
Academic Press, 1999).