University Drinking and Driving Prevention by Steven A. Bloch, Ph.D. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ During the 1990s, there has been a significant rise in the number of alcohol and drinking and driving prevention programs on campus. Yet, data has consistently shown that the level of alcohol problems at colleges and universities is still dangerously high and in need of innovative solutions. The Automobile Club of Southern California and the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (HEC), in response to the problem of alcohol and drinking and driving on campus, devised the annual College and University Drinking and Driving Prevention Awards Program to support and promote the development of innovative model programs. This report examines the social context of the program and discusses the winners for 1997-1998, the program’s first year. Campus Drinking and Driving on the Rise Research has regularly found that levels of alcohol consumption and driving at institutions of higher education are at startlingly high levels, and increasing for some categories of students. The Harvard School of Public Health recently corroborated this fact. (See Henry Wechsler, G. W. Dowdall, G. Maenner, J. Gledhill-Hoyt, H. Lee, Changes in Binge Drinking and Related Problems Among American College Students Between 1993 and 1997, 47 J. Am College Health 57-68 (Sept. 1998).) They found that, nationally in 1997, 27.9% of students reported becoming intoxicated three or more times in the previous 30 days. That rate was more than a 20% increase over the 22.9% intoxication rate in 1993. While the proportion of binge drinkers (42.7%) was slightly less than that found in the previous study (44.1%) the proportion of frequent binge drinkers rose 6%, from 19.5% in 1993 to 20.7% in 1997. (Binge drinking is defined as five drinks in a row for men, four for women.) Rates of drinking and driving are also at levels that raise great concern and are showing notable increases among students who drink. The Harvard study reported that, in the past year, 35.8% of such students drove after drinking, compared to 31.6% in 1993, an increase of 13%. Levels of drinking and driving among binge drinkers are even more pronounced. Among occasional bingers in the latest survey, 43% drove after drinking; among frequent bingers the level was 59%. Data of this kind led one recent study to echo the conclusions of the 1989 Carnegie Foundation survey of U. S. college presidents, stating that alcohol abuse is the "number one campus-life problem." (Henry Wechsler, Binge Drinking on American College Campuses: A New Look at an Old Problem, Harvard School of Public Health (1998).) Resistance to Prevention and Deterrence Programs Despite statistics showing high use rates among college students, broad-scale or intensive alcohol and drinking and driving prevention programs generally have been a tough sell on campus. Traditionally, there has been both ambivalence from school administrators about establishing and enforcing tough alcohol policies and resistance from students. (See, e. g., William DeJong, S. Langenbahm, Setting and Improving Policies for Reducing Alcohol and Other Drug Problems on Campus, Higher Education Center (1995).) Reasons for student resistance include: * Students, traditionally in their late teens and early twenties, are especially reluctant to receive messages from adults and those in authority. * Alcohol can be especially important to young people who are celebrating their freedom. Alcohol also provides the opportunity for students to rebel and escape responsibility and stress. * For many young adults, alcohol functions as a social lubricant at a time when peer interaction is particularly important. * Students tend to believe that their good health will continue forever, leading to an erroneous sense of invulnerability and lack of awareness of the inherent risk in their behaviors. While implementing intensive alcohol prevention programs can be a difficult task, establishing anti-DUI/ DWI programs can be even more problematic since such programs are often deterrence-based. Colleges and universities are understandably reluctant to employ programs such as police crack-downs and sobriety checkpoints, regardless of their effectiveness, since such approaches frequently involve increased use of police on or near campus. At a time when all 50 states have "zero tolerance" laws for those under 21 (applying DUI/ DWI penalties for BACs as low as 0.01%-0.02%), it is not surprising that these approaches can engender strong student disapproval. College administrators may also be reluctant to impose deterrence-based countermeasures for other reasons. Student arrests create a serious image problem for the school, a problem most administrators prefer to avoid. Additionally, administrators may fear that a crackdown on drinking and driving will cause students to choose to drink on campus, particularly in dorms and fraternities. Thus, while school administrators may believe that DUI/ DWI crackdowns reduce student DUI/ DWI in the long run, they may choose to avoid deterrence-based programs in the short run for fear of negative consequences. Campus Alcohol and Drinking and Driving Programs While college administrators have had a certain ambivalence about how to deal with alcohol and other drugs, several recent incentives have increased the focus on this subject of colleges and universities nationwide. First, the Federal government passed the Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Act in 1990. This act requires that, as a condition for receiving federal financial assistance, campuses provide an array of educational materials to students and employees. Materials are to deal with alcohol and other drug health risks, treatment and personal assistance available, standards of student and employee conduct, and potential sanctions for violators. The second impetus which raised campus interest in alcohol and DUI/DWI programs came from recent developments in case law. Court decisions have increasingly permitted victims to sue third parties, such as schools, for damages that result from a person’s drinking. Inappropriate sales or provision of alcohol on campus can subject schools to particular liability for lack of appropriate oversight, supervision or response. (See, e.g. David S. staff and the dean of students report a noticeable drop in repeat offenses for those going through the class, compared to the prior disciplinary approach for first offenders.) Lessons Learned From Successful Initiatives The first year of the program found some impressive, innovative efforts that deserve consideration as models for other schools. The Awards program also yielded some important insights: * Problem is widespread. The size of alcohol and drinking and driving problems on campus is large and widespread; it is not just national surveys that consistently demonstrate these problems exist. * No group is untouched by the problem. All surveys reported among entries to this program indicated that there are significant alcohol use and abuse problems on campus; even religion-based colleges indicated the presence of at least a small, notable substance abuse problem. * Problem of drinking and driving requires more attention. Attention to the problem of drinking and driving on campus seems insufficient given the size of the problem; while the Promising Practices survey located many operating alcohol prevention programs nationally, it located only a handful of DUI/DWI programs. Among the 14 programs submitted to this Awards program, only eight focused on drinking and driving. * Education is common intervention. Education is the most popular general form of intervention; 13 of the 20 initiatives discussed by Awards program entrants (some programs contained more than one initiative) focused on education. Although this approach is admirable for prevention efforts, college and university administrators should be aware that much research suggests that education typically functions best when used intensively over a long period of time, and when used as one component of a comprehensive program or set of policies. * Theory-based programs are underutilized. While theory-driven or theory-based programs can provide much more fertile grounds for uncovering effective efforts, few programs use theory to ground their approach. The UNM program, discussed above, is a notable exception. As a result, UNM’s upcoming program evaluation results are likely to be of greater significance than other program evaluations. * Institutionalization is key. Campus alcohol and DUI/DWI programs must be institutionalized to ensure their continued viability. Although some programs have admirable goals or outcomes, their viability must be established administratively and financially if they are to serve as effective models. Among entrants to the Awards program, the community transportation program at Texas A& M is an example of an outstanding effort which, while truly innovative, may be limited in its ability to serve as a program model because it did not establish its financial viability. * Program evaluations are needed. There is little evaluation being conducted of campus alcohol and drinking and driving efforts, even among the better programs. While most schools which submitted entries to the Awards program provided some data assessing the process or outcome of their intervention, no entrant provided systematic evaluation findings. There are clearly many issues and problems which have limited the development of effective drinking and driving countermeasures and models on campus. It is, therefore, encouraging to note, by way of conclusion, that some impressive programs continue to be developed. This Awards program highlighted four that deserve consideration as models elsewhere. Among the noteworthy, innovative elements of these programs include: * The use of student initiative in the UCSD CRASH program and the implementation of a policy requirement for responsible beverage service on campus; * The involvement of many segments of the community in Texas A& M’s alternative transportation program; * The use of student initiative to develop the long-lasting, broad-scale alternative transportation program at UT Austin; and * The school-wide collaborative effort and theory-driven approach that went into the alcohol violator program at UNM. * Information about the college and university awards program is available at http://www.edc.org/hec/other/aaa.html and www.aaa-calif.com. Steven A. Bloch, Ph.D., is a senior research associate in the public affairs division of the Automobile Club of Southern California, in Costa Mesa, CA. His work involves both traffic safety research and legislative policy analysis. He was an active proponent of California’s recent teen-graduated driver licensing law and served on the state’s task force on ignition interlock devices. This article was originally published in Impaired Driving Update, ©1999 Civic Research Institute, Inc., 4490 US Route 27, Kingston NJ 08528, and is reprinted here with express permission. Impaired Driving Update is a quarterly professional report letter devoted to innovative programs in enforcement, prosecution, and treatment, legal developments, and current services and research in the fight against drunk and drugged driving. For subscription information, write Civic Research Institute, 4490 U. S. Route 27, P.O. Box 585, Kingston, NJ 08528 or call (609) 683-4450. Reprinted by the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (800) 676-1730 www.edc.org/hec/ Funded by the U. S. Department of Education.